I'm 16 and I'm a philosophical satanist. My parents are zealous christians. How do I explain to them that i shouldn't have to go with them to fuckin mass every goddamn sunday without them having a preist perform and exorcism on me?

Or at least how could i explain that i don't believe in god/jesus, without bringing up the satanist part of it?

I think a simple

"Hi, Mom, Dad. I know you think you're doing a great thing for me trying to educate me about the Christian religion and all, but it's getting in the way of my own developing philosophies and swaying me towards something I'm not sure I believe. I've got a lot of thinking to do."

Cheers,

Lost

If you are a Satanist, you DO beleive in God. Heres some advice, learn the religion before you convert to it.

[This message has been edited by Sanity0verRated (edited 02-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ArchVile:

a preist perform and exorcism on me?



Youre not going to change there minds considering that they are your parents. It is not until you move out that you tell them. For now just eat that shit, youll learn something just keep your mouth shut.

oh yea dude your screwed till you move out, maybe a little afterwards too. but you can always try, just put it in a way they might can relate, 'mom, dad, how would you feel if you had to sit through a blasphemous lecture twice a week for the rest of your life, itd suck huh....well welcome to my world'

upon further review however, id go with what lost said...unless you have a steady job and are ready to support yourself

[This message has been edited by LeperMessiah (edited 02-07-2005).]

I think you meant to put this as a the title:

I'm a pussy, so I go to church.

Which further proves my theory that Satanism is simply an extension of infantile and immature defiance of authority - Nietzsche's lion.

Response to shawn: Until i have a job and can support myself and get the fuck out of this bullshit household, I'm basically at their mercy. No that does not make me a pussy.

Reponse to insanity: I said philosophical. That doesn't mean you believe in god, because i don't believe in satan either. I believe in the PHILOSOPHIES of satanism, not just devil worship.

Additionally, in the christian religious sect of my parents, jesus/god/holy spirit form a trinity, so denial of one is denial of the others in their eyes. Stupid ass. I'm fairly sure most christian religions believe in the trinity, so how bout you think a bit before posting

[This message has been edited by ArchVile (edited 02-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sanity0verRated:

If you are a Satanist, you DO beleive in God. Heres some advice, learn the religion before you convert to it.



Learn about the religion before you claim to know what it is. Jackass.

There's about half a dozen little psuedo-beleif systems underneath satanism.

And really, the term satanist would have to refer to Anton Levey's Church of Satan, which is/was atheistic, but hedonistic.

But since he SPECIFIED, sorta, that clears it up.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Which further proves my theory that Satanism is simply an extension of infantile and immature defiance of authority - Nietzsche's lion.

We have a winner! Topic closed.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

We have a winner! Topic closed.

Tell him what he wins Johnny...



Faithfully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

Slit their throats in the name of Lucifer, duh.

Half the Christians I talk to don't beleive in God either. So go anyway. Take it like a man.

Like was said above, eat that shit up, make it your goal to learn more about Christianity then your parents do. Then, one day, when you can sit down and talk about it as adults, you can spit out all your information and prove to them that you know Christianity, and have made a concious mature decision.

THEN they will respect you, and your decision.

I know more about Christianity then most Christians my age. I beleive in many of the core philosophies of Anton LeVey's Church of Satan. When we get into a discussion, I am thankful for my Christian knowledge, as it provides me with legitimate answers and views on thier questions and attacks.

quote:Originally posted by Sanity0verRated:

If you are a Satanist, you DO beleive in God. Heres some advice, learn the religion before you convert to it.



Here's some advice.

Put a plastic bag over your head, hold tight for as long as possible, then die.

I will do what I did for a different Satanist thread.

Show you this (http://home.swipnet.se/~w-67496/satanism/bilder/anton.jpg)

Then this. (http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/~d3wall/pics/ming2.GIF)

How do I explain to them that i shouldn't have to go with them to fuckin mass every goddamn sunday without them having a preist perform and exorcism on me?

If my yawn got any bigger, I might implode.

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 02-08-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

I will do what I did for a different Satanist thread.

Show you this (http://home.swipnet.se/~w-67496/satanism/bilder/anton.jpg)

Then this. (http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/~d3wall/pics/ming2.GIF)





AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! LMAO

thank you so damn much for posting that, it made my day. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

@Archville; Why would you post a question like this on totse? We obviously do not know your parents nor have any insight on how they would react to any given arguement. Ask yourself this question, or imagine a friend is having this problem; what would you tell him/her? You have to realise that realistically your parents can't make you do anything. You can always just say no, simply refuse.

quote:Originally posted by Sanity0verRated:

Half the Christians I talk to don't beleive in God either. So go anyway. Take it like a man.

so they're not christian.

half the people in this thread try to sound way too smart and are actually dumbasses.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Which further proves my theory that Satanism is simply an extension of infantile and immature defiance of authority - Nietzsche's lion.

agreed.

I didn't mean that they really are Christian, merely that they say they are.

Sanity0verRated is totaly right.If you worship Satan the you belive in God and vice versa.

Aperantly you are yet another lost kid in this with no spiritual life.

If your parents force you to go to church, you state them your opinion!I am an Orthodox Christian and I certainly wouldn't like you to go to church like that.If you feel worshiping Satan is cool, so be it.Nobody can force you to be a Christian and nobody can force you to go to church, you must get to that by yourself and if you don't then you better don't go to church anymore.But like I said before, nobody can force you to do anything you don't like.It's your choice.

quote:Originally posted by maderfaker:

Sanity0verRated is totaly right.If you worship Satan the you belive in God and vice versa.

Aperantly you are yet another lost kid in this with no spiritual life.

If your parents force you to go to church, you state them your opinion!I am an Orthodox Christian and I certainly wouldn't like you to go to church like that.If you feel worshiping Satan is cool, so be it.Nobody can force you to be a Christian and nobody can force you to go to church, you must get to that by yourself and if you don't then you better don't go to church anymore.But like I said before, nobody can force you to do anything you don't like.It's your choice.

No, he isn't right.

Satanism and Devil worship are not necesarilly the same thing!

google church of satan.

Ok, you just need to start preaching satanism in your church, your parent's will either let you stop going, or your family will get kicked out of the church.

call me a cynic, but i cant take a 16 year olds claim to be a satanist very seriously.

Kiddie, just put up with it a couple of years till you grow out of goth music.

^^ That was very 16 year-oldish of you. Satanism and Gothic Music? surely an immature stereotype.

I'm starting a new thread to educate the pathetically ignorant.





[This message has been edited by Krispy (edited 02-10-2005).]

immature stereotype? the kids 16, the perfect age for all that dumb stuff. I admitted it was cynical but i would still be surprised if its not some kid who wants to rebel by saying he is a satanist. Especially if his parents are religious.

quote:Originally posted by Sanity0verRated:

If you are a Satanist, you DO beleive in God. Heres some advice, learn the religion before you convert to it.





If you are a Satanist, you DON'T believe in God. Heres some advice, research before you try to tell someone what their own religion is.



Go Go gadget Google! Church of Satan (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=church+of+satan)

You'd be better off keeping your parents in the dark and attending Sunday mass every sunday, 4 times a month, 52 days a year, rather than catch the hell they will unleash on you upon discovering you aren't a emptyheaded robot for Christ.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 02-11-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ArchVile:

I'm 16 and I'm a philosophical satanist.

Just the fact that he used this sentance instead of the preferred 16 year old style:

"I'm a hardcore Satanist and I hate God and Jesus because God sucks and I like that I have no rules and I like that I can do whatever I want!"

That is what someone who is into "all that dumb stuff" would say. He distinguished it as "philosophical".

Thatt's just my opinion, had he worded it as I did above, I wouldn't have taken this thread seriously at all.

[EDIT] Forgot the "l" at the end of "philosophical"

[This message has been edited by Krispy (edited 02-11-2005).]

I feel sorry for that idiot. There is proof that jesus/God exists and there is very good proof. As for satan there is no proof he exists that i know of. and all people even people who do not believe in god but live in his presence go somewhere. But satanists go to hell and get wiped out of existence and thats the only thing God cant change and he has no choice. I have many times doubted that God exists but i turned myself around. I am 14 and I have outgrown ingnorance such as yours. You suck at church and you suck at li- o wait you have none. Satanism i not cool you should ATLEAST BE FUCKING ATHEIST.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

Like was said above, eat that shit up, make it your goal to learn more about Christianity then your parents do. Then, one day, when you can sit down and talk about it as adults, you can spit out all your information and prove to them that you know Christianity, and have made a concious mature decision.

THEN they will respect you, and your decision.

I know more about Christianity then most Christians my age. I beleive in many of the core philosophies of Anton LeVey's Church of Satan. When we get into a discussion, I am thankful for my Christian knowledge, as it provides me with legitimate answers and views on thier questions and attacks.

Ok...so, he should learn as much as he can about his parents' faith, so that he may one day spite them ?

I'll bet you agree with the rest of these guys that he shouldn't be subjected to their faith, and yet you think they should be subjected to his.

I don't know anyone in their right mind that would drag their child to a sacrifical ritual for the betterment of their children's lives.

Christians take their kids to church, because they are hoping that it provides them with something meaningful.

Get a clue, people.

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! LMAO

thank you so damn much for posting that, it made my day. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Me, too !

But I have already commended him personally for it.

*winks*

quote:Originally posted by neX:

so they're not christian.

half the people in this thread try to sound way too smart and are actually dumbasses.

I would never repeat that if I were you.

*blinks*

i had this long ass post ready, but somehow in my drunken stupor i managed to close the internet, so heres the jist of it....

fuck everybody, fuck everyone who thinks little of you, to everybody whose posted above and before me, most of yall had valid points, some of yall are brain washed christians, or whatever. to the rest of yall, your thought pattern is flawed, better luck next time.

and to the topic starter, if you dont already have enough 'good adivce' hows this, you call yourself a 'philisophical satanist' (sp?) well this is one of the rules of the earth you should be going by

'When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him'

what that breaks down for me, as it has for the last few years or so, is this, dont start shit, if shit gets started however, FINISH IT, same with your parnets, your in open territory, so just go along, even if its all bullshit to you, theres still good values to learn from christians, belive it or not.

none of yall probably care what ive posted about before, i call myself an atheist, thats because in my mind i feel nothing has been so great as to give credit to creating humans and all the eons and cosmos bla bla, and on the seventh day.... on and on. but this is true- i try and will try to live by anton laveys rules, that doesnt make me a satanist, or an egoist, or any ist for the matter, it makes me an fucking human being, which the topic starter should look into, (btw i call him that because my browesers fucked up and i cant scroll back to catch the name) people as a whole should simply live by what makes the most sense, while covering the most importent values of life.

EDIT: the end sounds kinda aggressive doesnt it, ohwell

[This message has been edited by LeperMessiah (edited 02-12-2005).]

My English textbook just burst into flames after Leper's post.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ok...so, he should learn as much as he can about his parents' faith, so that he may one day spite them ?

I'll bet you agree with the rest of these guys that he shouldn't be subjected to their faith, and yet you think they should be subjected to his.

I don't know anyone in their right mind that would drag their child to a sacrifical ritual for the betterment of their children's lives.

Christians take their kids to church, because they are hoping that it provides them with something meaningful.

Get a clue, people.

I never said that they should be subject to his religion. They should just merely learn about it, just as he is doing with theirs. If he learns as much as possible about their religion. It will help his parents understand that yes, he DID give Christianity a try, he DID sit there, listened, he TRIED. It will help his parents understand that he didn't just open the Bible, see the word "God", and close it saying "I hate God, God is gay, I want no rules!"

And no Satanists sacrafice anything by the way, thats for devil worshippers.

And if spited is what they feel when they sit down an talk about it, then so be it.

Follow your own advice and get a clue.

[This message has been edited by Krispy (edited 02-12-2005).]

But Satanism is a joke from ground zero. Why should his parents take it seriously?

I don't think he SHOULDN'T. I am all for him being educated about his beliefs. Why would I say otherwise ?

I could play this game of semantics with you (Satanist vs. Devil Worhsipper), but the fact is, you're wrong.

Satanism, and devil worship, are one and the same, by definition:

Satanism: "the worship of devils (especially Satan)." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=satanism

I don't base my perception of Satanism on ANYTHING Anton LaVey wrote.

I was a satanist, so I don't need to get a clue. I was heavily involved, and what led up to it and ended it is too long a story to write here.

Needless to say, you are trying to pass yourself off as an authority, yet you still haven't explained what brought you to believe that (meaning your own experiences).

I will just assume that you think you have spent enough time as a satanist to consider yourself educated enough to scold everyone else on Totse.

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm scolding.

Your right, I haven't shared any of my experiance that led me to my partial belief in Satanism. Maybe sometime I will...but not now.

We just believe two completley different Satanism is two completley different things. We use the same label, but don't talk about the same thing. The belief system that I talk about, which is often called Satanism, involves no devil worship, no worshipping of an actual entity that has any control over any aspect of our lives.

So many people on here have been calling it a joke, and that's their opinion. I was just trying to inform them, but it turned into me yelling and getting irritated about it.

I apologize, I haven't been a Satanist for very long, and I never had a "Mind Blowing, Life Altering" exereriance that led me to it like many people on this forum have.

1) Anyone that says that you need to be a theist to be a Satanist has never read any satanic literature. The Satan of christianity is a devil. The Satan of Satanism is an idea, not a real thing.

2) IMHO, a "true" satanist. And not just an anti-christian(Someone who has true domain over their individuality, and are not just a "reaction" to christianity) could walk into a church, fuck sing a song and pray, and not be affected by it at all.

Are you a true individual, or are you a little kid rebelling against your parents and a god you say doesnt exist?

A true Satanist is not compromised by Christianity.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

If you are referring to me, I am not just an angry little Kid. I was raised in a Christian home, but my home fell the peices before I was even of age to make my own religous decision. I tried Christianity, I REALLY tried, but I always felt something was strange. I then became a sponge, I let my mind soak up every religous thought that it could come in contact with.

When I came around to Satanism (I decided to reasearch if for a school project, thinking it would be a crazy and interesting topic) I found that it was real, it wasn't just all this bullshit I had heard about it.

Rebelling against my parents got old five years ago.

[This message has been edited by Krispy (edited 02-14-2005).]

All I'm saying is that a true satanist doesnt worry about what he should do. He doesnt try to conform to "Satanism". He just does what makes him happy and doesnt give a fuck what anyone, including other "satanists" think. Follow?

I think if mass offends you that much then you should say fuck it and not go, but if this jeoprodizes your family life you may just want to go to make your homelife more stable, and hence enjoyable. You'll be out of the house soon and it wont matter. But the resentment from your parents can last forever.

I'm speaking from experience "true" christians will go against their family if it means going against god's word. Its a very hard issue to reolve.

I hate Christianity. SOmetimes it consumes me how much i hate it. But this is a weakness not a strength. Hating it makes me subject to it. True strength in this case comes with true indifference. I dont have this, but I went to church with my mother on xmas to make her happy. All their garbage is worth listening to if it will make her happy, because to me family is more important than religion, even if its not to her. Get what I'm saying?

Granted I dont call myself a Satanist, but I do believe there is some wisdom in it.

And sorry Krispy I confused you with the starter of this thread.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 02-14-2005).]

So, a Satanist is just an all-around asshole.

When you're 18, you can worship what ever the hell kind of deity as you so choose. But until then, you live in your parents house and they can scare the light of Christ into you as often as they want.



Off-topic: 16 y/o Satanist, pffft

.

[This message has been edited by liquid (edited 02-14-2005).]

thats what i thought, any claim to be a satanist sounds cliched coming from an adolescent.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

So, a Satanist is just an all-around asshole.



No, its completely possible to embrace a selfish philosophy without being a dick to people. After all, if your a dick to others, they're not going to be nice to you. So by doing so you make your own life harder.

Thats where alot of "satanists" go wrong. They mistake hedonism for the right to condemn people, despite that they are usually the most short sighted people going.

I want to make myself clear. I think Satanism has its merits (as well as its shortcomings), but I've never met a "Satanist" that isn't just a social reject.

Nothing more comical than a zitfaced 90 pound napoleon dynamite type who lives with their parents talking about how superior they are.

best approach is honesty....my ex gf had something simaler, she converted to islam (and dumped be because of it...im a drug addicted loser and her religion doesent like that...nor does it approve of pre-marital dateing)

at anyrate she keeps talkin about telling her parents...i keep on telling her that they wolnt react as bad as she thinks, and even if they do what are they going to do?

so back to you, it sounds like you are a stereotypical rebellious teen...in other words your parents are heavy christians and are forceing you to go to a church with which you may no longer agree with(due to a re-developing part of the brain for teenagers...)

i did the same thing, cept with me its my dad is a lung doctor, and growing up in a near drug-free area so now i smoke rediculous ammounts of pot, and even though i dont smoke cigs regularly i do like tobacco too (i dont wana get addicted though...too god damn expensive for me)

so, basicly think of what you can say to tell your parents you are satanist, and then think of what their RATIONAL reactions could be

they wolnt kick you out of your house, then wolnt ground you untill you convert back (if they do wait them out, then you will have more controol in future interactions), their not going to force you to convert back...they can legally but that doesent change what you think, their not gona take away all your possessions...and if they do then take all theirs saying "you took my stuff because you dont understand or agree with my new bielefs, well i dont agree with yours so im doing the same thing. do you understand now?" the last part is key, seeing as it is an unexpected prompt meaning they will have to think about it, if your talking to your mom then she will probably fall for this but if its your dad it may look like no immediate effect, but he will concider your words later



heh.....i never shoudla taken that psychology class...at any rate ive got experience dealing with my parents and with friends parents for them (telling them what to say, word for word, listening to their conversation on a phone lol)

The philosophy of Satanism can only attract zit-faced, 90-pound, Napoleon Dynamite type social rejects because it has no appeal to anyone except those who lack a respect for authority.

Besides, Satanism, though rejecting the dogmatic approach of Christianity, replaces it with nothing more than a sublimation of animal instincts. It has no higher purpose or spiritual doctrine that can dignify it as a religion. It is, from its genesis to its distant yet desired destruction, a misfit's tantrum against rules.

-*

quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:

I feel sorry for that idiot. There is proof that jesus/God exists and there is very good proof. As for satan there is no proof he exists that i know of. and all people even people who do not believe in god but live in his presence go somewhere. But satanists go to hell and get wiped out of existence and thats the only thing God cant change and he has no choice. I have many times doubted that God exists but i turned myself around. I am 14 and I have outgrown ingnorance such as yours. You suck at church and you suck at li- o wait you have none. Satanism i not cool you should ATLEAST BE FUCKING ATHEIST.



either you're being sarcastic, or you really are a moron. here's some advice: grow up, get educated, and don't try to argue with people smarter than you until you at least have some sort of education.

you really have no idea what you're talking about, but then you're only 14 so i can't really blame you.

you state "facts" without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

whether or not satan actually exists depends on your beliefs, but this article is interesting:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

The philosophy of Satanism can only attract zit-faced, 90-pound, Napoleon Dynamite type social rejects because it has no appeal to anyone except those who lack a respect for authority.

Besides, Satanism, though rejecting the dogmatic approach of Christianity, replaces it with nothing more than a sublimation of animal instincts. It has no higher purpose or spiritual doctrine that can dignify it as a religion. It is, from its genesis to its distant yet desired destruction, a misfit's tantrum against rules.

-*



I think thats pretty arrogant and short-sighted (much like most of satanism). I think, properly understood the philosophy of "might as right" is as credible as any other religion, moreso in fact because, at base, it is much less dogmatic. I've always seen satanism as very similar to philosophical buddhism (not religous, in world view), by slight stretch of imagination.

It "dignifies itself as a religion" by acting as a guiding principle for living. The fact that you dont feel "animal instincts" are worthy of attention just makes you not satanic. And if you think dogma is something intrinsic to "validity", i simply disagree.

The fact is little rebelious kids are attracted to it to piss off society, no doubt, and most "satanists" are idiots. But there is merit in the philosophy, far more than christianity. If it wasnt "competing" with christianity, as its antithesis, you would find much more intelligence in the practice. Its only seen as juvenile because of the "rebellion" it attracts, like you said.

But look around and you find "satanic" elements in many great writers. Look at Nietzsche for a prime example, and love him or not, he's a founder of modern thought.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 02-16-2005).]

My opinion of satanism has dropped significantly (as if it was ever high to begin with) since nobody has answered my question; for being such smart, know-it-all pompous sons of bitches, none of you are well-read enough to know what Objectivism is, and contrast that and Satanism.

This makes you no better than the so-called "ignorant Christians" that your belief is a reaction against. If you don't know about every religion you don't have any authority to talk about any one.

quote:Originally posted by Sanity0verRated:

If you are a Satanist, you DO beleive in God. Heres some advice, learn the religion before you convert to it.

[B]

Satanism does not believe in "God". The only versions that do are Luciferianism and certain branches of Modern Satanism. Satanism, as created by Doctor Anton Lavey, does not believe in a God in any fashion, aside from one's self. Satanism has nothing at all to do with Satan if you follow the teachings of Anton Lavey. It is called Satanism becuase Satan means opposition, and that is what the religion is. The opposition to the catholic, and other dominate religions.

I suggest you learn about the religion before you tell him he's wrong :P



quote:

[b]

But look around and you find "satanic" elements in many great writers. Look at Nietzsche for a prime example, and love him or not, he's a founder of modern thought.





Actually, Lavey based the faith off of Nietzsche and his philosophy.



[This message has been edited by Gyhth (edited 02-16-2005).]

You don't know shit about shit when you're 16, although church does suck.

My advice: Drink Heavily.

Actually lavey was most inspired by the book "might is right" by ragnar redbeard, amongst others, including Nietszche.

And, Contrast Objectivism with Satanism? I dont know what your being so defensive about. Go ahead, contrast it mr. big words. Lets see what you come up with. And if your referring to me I'm willing to bet I know alot more about religion and philosophy than you do, so maybe by your own admission you should cool it on the insults. If you dont know about every religion you cant comment on any one? Good reasoning, so your saying I need to attain a perfect understanding of mind-only Buddhism or Sufism, which takes years to do, before criticising immaculate conception or all the obvious flaws with the Judeao-Christian deity? Most christians dont know the first thing about Christianity let alone any other religions.

Fucking Christians are the worst arguers on the planet. The self evident flaws of western religion are so self evident you have to be retarded to pretend they dont exist, even if there is some credulity and personal worth to the dogmas.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 02-16-2005).]

Amen dagnabitt, A-fucking-men

dagnabitt:

I think that's pretty arrogant and short-sighted (much like most of satanism). I think, properly understood the philosophy of "might as right" is as credible as any other religion, moreso in fact because, at base, it is much less dogmatic. I've always seen satanism as very similar to philosophical buddhism (not religious, in world view), by slight stretch of imagination.

You obviously don't understand either Buddhism or Imperium Est Recta very well.

Satanism emphasizes the individual above all else. Fascism - the political party that emerges from the mentality of Imperium - says that the individual is to be seen according to his relationship to the empire he serves.

Buddhism says that anything physical, especially your own body, is nothing but an illusion, and attachment to it leads to corruption. Satanism says that anything physical, especially your own body, is what your every movement should work to satisfying.

It "dignifies itself as a religion" by acting as a guiding principle for living. The fact taht you dont feel "animal instincts" are worthy of attention just makes you not satanic. And if you think dogma is something intrinsic to "validity", i simply disagree.

1. It is NOT a religion; it is a mockery of an existing one.

2. Animal instincts are not 'worthy' of anyone's attention if you reject the concept of an objective standard by which to judge something's worth - which is the root of Satanism.

3. If an idea does not perform the duties of a dogma and yield a reliable action every time it encounters a given circumstance, it is worthless to even consider, and is impotent of validity.

The fact is little rebelious kids are attracted to it to piss off society, no doubt, and most "satanists" are idiots. But there is merit in the philosophy, far more than christianity. If it wasnt "competing" with christianity, as its antithesis, you would find much more intelligence in the practice. its only seen as juvenile because of the "rebellion" it attracts, like you said.

Satanism's CREATION and SUSTENANCE is rooted in immature, teenage-reminiscient rebellion, and with nothing to offer as an alternative with which to "compete" with Christianity, which has traditions, history, philosophical validity, and emotional potency. This inability to reconcile its defiance with a purpose robs it of its merit.

But look around and you find "satanic" elements in many great writers. Look at Nietzsche for a prime example, and love him or not, he's a founder of modern thought.

There are Nietzsche'an elements in LaVey's writings, not vice versa. And LaVey abuses the terminology of the principles Nietzsche put forth in a way Nietzsche hated. Nietszsche never advocated a "Do what thou wilt" mentality; he only sought a reaffirmation of values according to an unconditioned mindset. Satanism just advocates the virtues reciprocal to Christianity with equal amounts of conditioning.

deptstoremook:

I unfortunately am not well-read enough to be able to adequately contrast Objectivism with Satanism. I've abandoned any detailed study of either because I automatically reject the conjoined roots of both Rand's and LaVey's snivelling, greedy 'philosophy', which maintains that the purpose of one's life is their own happiness.

Cows are happy. Humans require challenge and sacrifice.

-*

Lets see here....

OK, I am acquainted very well with Buddihism. And I know what your saying. However, I do see commonalities between the solipsism of buddhism and the "selfishness" of satanism. Dont get me wrong though, i'm not equating the two. What I'm getting at is that Satanism is short sighted in its application of selfishness, while the buddhist is more reasoned IE the greatest way to improve the "self" (term used lightly in Buddhism) is through compassion, reflection etc..., while the satanist, in the literature anyway, focusses on immediate gratification over long term reward. Still, I think this in particular can be seen as more a difference in degree rather than kind. Both philosophies intrinsically reject metaphysics and dogmatism and focus on the self as a sort of totality, which is why I see them as similar. I'm not talking about other "aspects" of satanism such as social darwinism, or elitism, or fascism which are obviously not buddhist priniples. However, I also feel that these "addendums" to the core selfish philosophy are harmfull to the greater picture and legiimacy of the doctrine. Something like Fascism is common amongst Satanists no doubt, but philosophically it is not intrinsic to it.

Further while you are every bit correct about how Satanism and Buddhism appear as total opposites re: view on the corporeal etc..., the commonality I see is about addressing the place of the individual within a context of a totality, or some subjective absolute. I think the best bridgephrase here would be solipsism(even though Satanists hate this word)because, materialism aside, I see this as being a core issue to both systems of thought. In Satanism though this exists only when taking the initial, limited principles to their logical extremes, not in the actual doctrines given by Lavey. But you're right it is not necessarily an intuitive extrapolation. I think I just see potential where you are more content ignore certain things.

Regarding Satanism, I'm merely defending it against your rhetorical tyrades, i'm not advocating it. Much of what you say I agree with, but i feel there is a potential there for much more by means of a philosophy than you are giving credit for. You seem to have more of a problem with those who call themselves satanists, and who identify with the standard literature than the potential of a philosophy advocating self-mastery. Fine, but there is merit in a selfish philosophy like this. Even if you dont agree with it, which I dont wholly either incidentally.

As for Nietzsche, his view of the overman, master vs slave mentality, and creative vs critical values is very much in synch with Satanic philosophy. Also relevant are Machiavelli's prince, and Carl Jung's philosophy surrounding primal Archetypes. The fact is, like I said before, the doctrines of Satanism do attract the people you are talking about, and the literature does reflect an inversion of Christianity. But that does not mean that the core values (above and beyond lavey) do not stand alone, and have potential to be a legitimate, cohesive philosphical principle, even if it can be criticised. Like I said, it holds more water than any western religion in my opinion, even if it is short sighted.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 02-17-2005).]

Interestingly, just to harp on the commonalities of buddhism and Satanism, note these points listed as intrinsic to Satanism on religoustolerance.org

Some of their beliefs and practices are:

1)They do not worship a living deity.

- Nor do Buddhists, who also look down on "worship" and emphasize the "archetype" of the buddha as a guide. Much as the Satanists use the "archetype" of Satan.



2)Major emphasis is placed on the power and authority of the individual Satanist, rather than on a god or goddess.

- Buddhism also frowns on metaphysics and emphasizes instead the psychological nature of reality. Thus the focus becomes centered on the "self", although both disciplines define the self differently, it is more a matter of perspective on the same thing.

3)They believe that "no redeemer liveth" - that each person is their own redeemer, fully responsible for the direction of their own life.

- If you meet the buddha on the road, kill him....

4)"Satanism respects and exalts life. Children and animals are the purest expressions of that life force, and as such are held sacred and precious..."

- As do ALL sects of religous Buddhism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis1.htm

Now of course there are other principles which separate the two. All the same, food for thought.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 02-17-2005).]

Satanism encourages indulgence in the pleasures that stem from the physical Self (the only form of the Self Satanism recognizes). Buddhism encourages detachment (not necessarily abstinence, but detachment) from those pleasures because they stem from the physical Self.

Buddhism's attitude concerning the Self stems from Hinduism - since Prince Siddartha himself was a Ksatriya. Hinduism states, ultimately, that there is no Self - at least, one not permanent enough to warrant attention or indulgence.

For the record, I do understand your point. I just don't envision its cohesion as smoothly as you do.

I am a frequent reader of Nietzsche and Jung, and I am a complete and total advocate of the re-evaluation of all values. However, the values that I myself have reaffirmed contradict that which LaVey would suggest is the highest law.

The obsession with the continued proliferation and extension of Life for Life's sake leads people to be fat, lazy, terrified cows, awaiting certain slaughter.

I would rather be a warrior, who requires discipline and abstinence from the simple-minded self-indulgence of thralls and fattened Jewish women.

Yeah, Its a leap no doubt. And not a smooth one granted. The thing is Tyrant you're right, you know your shit (which is always nice around here). I just think Satanism's greatest weakness is its failure to realize its own shortcomings and potential. Does that make sense? But I admit I'm throwing alot of this to the imagination.

Anyway, Atman is Brahman brother http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I think it is a combination of Satanism's shortcomings that permanently cripples it and dooms it to mediocrity.

You've stuck to your guns throughout the entire debate, and I honor that. =)

-*

LOL, well mediocrity is better than where you started off http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

You should have named this thread "I'm too pussy to do anyting my parents don't want me to do. I'm trying to worship Satan but I'm still too pussy to stand up to my parents, so I'm gonna go on an internet message board and grip about my life."

Seriously dude what is up with kids doing anything their parents tell them? My parents tried to get me to go to church time and time again. In my whole life I've gone maybe 5 times. I simply refused to go along with that bullshit. What kind of a pussy goes along with everything their parents demand? Especially at 16. You really think they're gonna throw you out of the house if you don't act like their little puppet? Wow that's a really loving relationship.

quote:Originally posted by ArchVile:

I'm 16 and I'm a philosophical satanist. My parents are zealous christians. How do I explain to them that i shouldn't have to go with them to fuckin mass every goddamn sunday without them having a preist perform and exorcism on me?

Or at least how could i explain that i don't believe in god/jesus, without bringing up the satanist part of it?

well i kinda know how you feel, i'm satanic, my parents know nothing about it, they think satan worshipers are sick and twisted, lucifer is no different from anyother god, exept there are shit more souls in hell than heaven and other places, but they drag me to church and get pissed when i burn bibles, my mum works at a cathlic school, its total bullshit

You're an idiot. Why dont you read this thread and learn something.

no place more satanic than being in a church all alone.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Which further proves my theory that Satanism is simply an extension of infantile and immature defiance of authority - Nietzsche's lion.

Well, my theory is that ALL religon is getting in the way of people being who they really are.

Religon is just a creation of the powers to be to control the masses.. by telling them that if they are bad.. they will suffer forever.

Think.. for maybe just a second, that maybe there isn't a god, maybe there is no heaven, or hell. And think of how you would feel living life.. expecting to go there.. and having nothing afterwards..

It'll really change the way you view the world, and how you make desisions..

Live life like there is no tomorrow, and dream like there is no end.

You're gonna have to do better than teenage fortune cookie nihilism and a reworded James Dean quote to convince anybody, least of all someone who's not a Christian to begin with, pal.

-*

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

You're gonna have to do better than teenage fortune cookie nihilism and a reworded James Dean quote to convince anybody, least of all someone who's not a Christian to begin with, pal.

-*



Was that aimmed at me? Because I couldn't really care less what you belive.. Just as long as some dick doesn't walk up to me and try to "Save me".. I had a religious guy try to do that to me once.. I told him if he didn't leave me alone, I'd pop one of his balls.

He stopped trying to save me. Don't try to push your religious on me, and I wont push jack shit on you.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

My opinion of satanism has dropped significantly (as if it was ever high to begin with) since nobody has answered my question; for being such smart, know-it-all pompous sons of bitches, none of you are well-read enough to know what Objectivism is, and contrast that and Satanism.

This makes you no better than the so-called "ignorant Christians" that your belief is a reaction against. If you don't know about every religion you don't have any authority to talk about any one.

I haven't seen you exhibiting any Objectivism lately, Mook.

I know a great deal about Christianity, and have basic knowledge of other religions...does that mean I shouldn't discuss any of them, because I am not a scholar ?

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Fucking Christians are the worst arguers on the planet. The self evident flaws of western religion are so self evident you have to be retarded to pretend they dont exist, even if there is some credulity and personal worth to the dogmas.



Argue with me then.

*raises an eyebrow*

This is a hard lesson to learn for a lot of people. Parents usually don't care if you disagree with their beliefs, they'll still make you go to church.

On a separate note, I've decided I'm not going to be practicing Atheism any more. It's just so negative and sounds so immature and childish. Maybe this is something a lot of people realize, and it probably is. Anyways, I've decided that I beleive in God, but not Jesus or the Holy Spirit and whatnot. Just a divine being who created us and usually doesn't give a fuck about us. I guess you could say I'm a theistic evolutionist. Perhaps this God is shown to mankind through the sun. I mean, it is so wonderful and gives so much. That's enough for me, sorry for the irrelevance.

quote:Originally posted by outcast234:

Think.. for maybe just a second, that maybe there isn't a god, maybe there is no heaven, or hell. And think of how you would feel living life.. expecting to go there.. and having nothing afterwards..

I spent half my life thinking there was no God. After experience and education, I now know there isn't a possibility that He DOESN'T exist.

What of your theory now ?

quote:It'll really change the way you view the world, and how you make desisions...

God has.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-20-2005).]

quote:Was that aimmed at me? Because I couldn't really care less what you belive.. Just as long as some dick doesn't walk up to me and try to "Save me".. I had a religious guy try to do that to me once.. I told him if he didn't leave me alone, I'd pop one of his balls.

He stopped trying to save me. Don't try to push your religious on me, and I wont push jack shit on you.

Umm....Tyrant is not a Christian.

If you feel like anything is being shoved down your throat, I recommend that you bite down hard.

Also, walking away is a nice choice for eliminating discomfort.

quote:Originally posted by sellout_10:

This is a hard lesson to learn for a lot of people. Parents usually don't care if you disagree with their beliefs, they'll still make you go to church.

On a separate note, I've decided I'm not going to be practicing Atheism any more. It's just so negative and sounds so immature and childish. Maybe this is something a lot of people realize, and it probably is. Anyways, I've decided that I beleive in God, but not Jesus or the Holy Spirit and whatnot. Just a divine being who created us and usually doesn't give a fuck about us. I guess you could say I'm a theistic evolutionist. Perhaps this God is shown to mankind through the sun. I mean, it is so wonderful and gives so much. That's enough for me, sorry for the irrelevance.

I think that is awesome...not because you are one step closer to any particular religion (specifically Christianity), but because you realize that atheism is just as "dogmatic" in its pretenses as any other religion.

Good for you. I hope you find your path.

God bless.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-20-2005).]

You say you know that he exists.. did he come to you? talk to you?

Prolly not.. and if Dogma the movie is right about "god" not being able to speak to us.. then, some angel came to you?

Bleh. Religion.. and belive in god is a load of crap in my opinon. its control. thats it.

And thats my opinon. And opinons are like assholes.. everyone has one.. but only yours stinks.

You ask those questions, thinking you already know the answer.

Questions like that truly ARE like assholes.

Your presupposition that I have not experienced God personally, and therefore cannot be justified in believing in Him, "stinks".

You have limited your understanding of this universe to what "you" have experienced...and that is pretty typical.

Since you haven't experienced it, it must not exist.

Except I have "seen" Him...there is definitely an entirely different way of seeing, when one allows spirituality into their lives.

By the way, you compare apples to oranges when you say that GOD is RELIGION.

I wasn't talking about religion, which I don't agree with at all.

But thanks for being a poster child for bigotry.

It was refreshing.

Outcast, your tough-guy attitude does little else than bore me to sleep.

You ask me to consider that there is no God as if the thought never occurred to me.

You claim that 'ALL religion is getting in the way of people being who they really are.'

I'm curious...

Have you ever considered that it could be in a person's nature to be religious?

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Have you ever considered that it could be in a person's nature to be religious?

In someones nature? How can it really be in someones nature.. if religion is a man created thing?

So, I've never considered it to be in someones nature.

And to Digital.. Quiet franky, I gave religion, and "God" a chance. But all every religion that deals with god has to say is: Be good. or go to hell.

And, when I had the Christan dipshits tell me that my mom passing was in "Gods plan" and that shes going to heaven.. and that I'll see here there someday.. Is total BS.

My mom: Didn't belive in god, she grew up in a VERY Christan family.. and even raise me to belive those things. And when I stopped beliving, she followed me on that because everything everyone had ever told her god can, would, could do, never happend.

I had a priest tell me at my moms service, that she told him personally that she belived in jesus, and God. My mom, hasn't belived in that for almost 8 years.. longer then we have lived in this area where this priest is. Sounds like: A load of bullshit to me.

Edit: Spelling..

[This message has been edited by outcast234 (edited 02-20-2005).]

God talked to me... He whispered from above the angels singing.

It was just barely audible, and would not have been even that, if It wasn't for the perfect harmony He kept with their divine music.

...but i can't remember what He said.

In someones nature? How can it really be in someones nature.. if religion is a man created thing?

...because Man saw fit to create it.

So it's also in our nature to fuck midgets? That's an man-made creation as well you know -- the fine art of fucking midgets.

i havent posted in a long time, but you sir ARE a dumbass

seems like your blaming your mothers death on religion, which is a pretty intangable thing to blame something like death on.

so one question, howd she die?

I think it should be noted that there is a very significant difference between Christianity and God. Christianity has the idea of a god, but it is in my opinion a poor one. No religion can bring you to god. In fact all religion takes you away from god, because defining him through religion actually limits him. Instead of being creative here I'm just going to post an excerpt from an email I wrote to my sister a few months ago. It outlines some very old and common criticisms of the Judeao-Christian God which I find prudent.

"So then, if there are mistakes (or apparent mistakes) in the universe

god is either 1) ignorant of them 2) powerless to stop them 3)

unconcened with them, or inconsiderate of peoples feelings in the name

of some master plan.

If 1) is true then there is a force in the universe that god is not

aware of, and hence god is not god, as the entity in question is not

all-knowing.

If 2) is true then there is a force in the universe that is more

powerfull than god, and hence god is not god, as the entity in

question is not all powerfull.

If 3) is true, God may exist, but all religions that claim certain

modes of behavior are "moral" and others "immoral" are false, because

the entity in question cannot be "all-loving". The entity in

question can only be self-loving.

My 2 cents. God exists. all things that exist are part of and exist

within God, and God is the creative and sustaining force pushing

reality along. But the sum is indifferent to the elements. Every good,

bad, right, wrong, pure, evil etc....is all gods will, and the reason

for any of them is essentially none of our business from the

perspective of God itself.

God exists, but religions are false because they claim intimate

knowledge of that which is unknowable - intrinsically.

Religion can give a life meaning, but like ANY OTHER meaning, it is

not absolute, it is pragmatic. It gets us through the day. But at the

end of the day God is indifferent to what we believe. God wants you to

be who you are, think what you think, and do what you do. Dont try to

change any of it to make him happy because it is a redundant effort,

or do, either way its in Gods hands. Just dont ever let religion make

you sad, or guilty, or judgemental, because it's never justified."

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Argue with me then.

*raises an eyebrow*

Isn't pride a sin digital http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)





[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 02-21-2005).]

I do not debate about God of my own authority, or even out of the fruits my own pursuit of education has bore.

How I came to the knowledge I have about the Bible and God is a long story, but it had nothing to do with any effort of my own. God saw to it that I learned along the way of my life...

Also, I wasn't coming from a standpoint of "I know more than you do." He basically stated that Christians are stupid, and since I know that I am certainly not stupid, I made an invitation for him to debate with me. At best, he would have a renewed perspective on Christianity. At worst, he would continue to think we're all idiots.

A lot of people don't believe in God because no one has really explained Him adequately...they either misunderstand, embellish, or completely don't know the answers to common questions that unbelievers ask.

I think that by the grace and power of God, I can explain, and provide the answers, as given to us in the Bible by God Himself.

I was the one you challenged. And first off I would like to say that all christians are not idiots. Everybody believes something that ultimately cant be explained. However to me Christianity is ridiculous. You can talk about God in a mystical, unresolvable way, but you can't do that with religion. Religion is invented by man, and asserts very clear doctrines for moral behavior. And simply asserting that it isnt proves nothing. Christians are christians because they see Christianity as the filter for what is wrong and what is right. And they defend it to the death because its part of the religion to do so, and in order fulfill their ego's and be "good" christians they need to be as rigid and uncompromisable as possible. Arguing with a christian is always the same. You hit these fundamental contradictions that the christian cant explain, and then all of a sudden "explanation isnt necessary", that they "know something" that cant be communicated etc... The fact is the religion is based on the bible, which is one mankinds most rediculous (although effective) inventions. People worship the christian god and practice christianity because they are essentially

1) self rightous

2) judgemental

2) intrinsically conservative, and reject change

3) Ethnocentric/philocentric

4) Stubborn and (phrase used lightly) anti-philsophical.

They are not "thinking" people. And what I mean by this is that they lack the ability to criticize their own beliefs. To a Christian things are black and white through and through. Like children.

Again, i never cease to be amazed at the intellectual accomplishments of people that also practice christianity, but it only shows they lack a certain particular faculty of ego transcendence. Humans by nature reject ideas that dont assimilate into their view of the world. Christians revel in this. So, even though i dont think you're an idiot, i'll take your challenge.

Now scriptue doesnt count, because i'm rejecting Christianity at the metaphysical level, so save your scripture because its the validity of the bible that is at stake, so quoting it means nothing. Plus I obviously cant use the bible to disprove the bible can I?

So lets get to the source and talk metaphysics. I would like you to address the problem of evil in the world by taking into account the 3 rebuttals I emphasize above. The gist, how can evil, or apparent mistakes, exist in a world where God is perfect. Ie, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omnibenevolent (which is the judeo-christian deity. And if god is not perfect, it means he is subject either to fallacy or other weaknesses, which means there is a force in the universe greater (that god is subject to) than god, which means god is not god at all, in the monotheistic sense that Christians claim.

I would also like you to tell me why a god "requires/demands" a morality. If god is all powerfull, why does he "command" anything of us. An all powerfull being would simply will it, and it would be done. He would "want for nothing", as that implies an imperfection, a force that god is subject to. (time, space, other factors).

Further the following scapegoats are not allowed

1) You have a mystical understanding you cant explain in words.

2) The lord works in mysterious ways.

3) God doesnt need to make sense, he's God. (Again, you cannot default from an unknowable God to a dogmatic religion.

Also, pleae use logic and reasoning, and not rhetoric. Do not throw the word "truth around lightly. Looking forward to your response.







[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 02-22-2005).]

ay, dios mio....

quote:1) You have a mystical understanding you cant explain in words.

2) The lord works in mysterious ways.

3) God doesnt need to make sense, he's God. (Again, you cannot default from an unknowable God to a dogmatic religion.

Wow...you must not know me, and are apparently new to this particular forum, because I am not the person you described above.

I have given all of the information you have asked for, MANY times here on Totse.

Perhaps you can take a moment and look through the "past" pages...the information is still there.

In the meantime, I will try and compose this all over again, though I am sure you can appreciate how painstaking and tedious it will be...especially since I have done it before, numerous times. (I will save it this time !)

It is not information that is "readily" available, and requires research and time.

I'll get to it when I can...please look through the archives, though.

By the way, if I am going to go to all this trouble, would you mind telling me exactly why you want all this information, or what you are going to do with it (personally or otherwise) ?

If you want to chat outside of Totse, I am cool with that.

You go to mass fourtyfive minutes everyweek. Even if you aren't a Christian, there is still much you can learn from it. Listen to the scriptures and make your own opinion on them and see what you can learn from them with and open mind.

Simple, "God" is yourself, there's no old man in heavens waiting to judge nobody. YOU judge yourself, YOU make desicions, YOU take action, YOU create your destiny. Jesus DID exist(I believe that's a fact) but he did not come to this world to be worshiped like he's been, he just served as an example to be followed and he walked the earth with a simple message, LOVE. Either you believe in that or not, it is your business, but it's there. YOU are the God of your own universe.

I almost forget... SATAN DOES NOT EXIST!!! he is a caracter madeup by us humans to mask the consecuenses of our bad desicions.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Wow...you must not know me, and are apparently new to this particular forum, because I am not the person you described above.

I have given all of the information you have asked for, MANY times here on Totse.

Perhaps you can take a moment and look through the "past" pages...the information is still there.

In the meantime, I will try and compose this all over again, though I am sure you can appreciate how painstaking and tedious it will be...especially since I have done it before, numerous times. (I will save it this time !)

It is not information that is "readily" available, and requires research and time.

I'll get to it when I can...please look through the archives, though.

By the way, if I am going to go to all this trouble, would you mind telling me exactly why you want all this information, or what you are going to do with it (personally or otherwise) ?

If you want to chat outside of Totse, I am cool with that.

I apologise if you happen to be the one christian that remains consistent with the religion and argues it effectively. I dont mean to sound like an asshole but I've been here numerous times before. Seeing as one of my claims is that christians are generally unable to criticize their own beliefs, i'll believe it when i see it. Also, you're right I usually avoid this forum unless i'm ready to be in it for the long haul, because of the conviction of some of the posters. I also apologise for asking for info and making you repeat yourself. I also HATE having to do this and usually refuse. But if you have it elsewhere please feel free to cut and paste. As long as its pertaiant I can overlook some contextual difficulties.

As for what I'm doing with the info....I have a lucrative arrangement with the CIA to gather the innermost thoughts of private citizens, which are then fed to a mainframe in washington and broadcast via satalite to a space station in the alpha phi nebula, where they are converted into fuel.

Edit: would you maybe like to point me in the directions of specific threads you feel are relevant, searching your user name turns up too many to effectively search through.

So far nothing I've read is other than the typical rhetorical banter.





[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 02-22-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So it's also in our nature to fuck midgets? That's an man-made creation as well you know -- the fine art of fucking midgets.

No, it's in our nature to fuck. Whether or not that tendency is distorted is dependent on the circumstance - religion is a universal aspect, found even in the most primitive of cultures.

And so is atheism found in those cultures, in some more than others of course, but it is found. Does that mean it is our nature to be irreligious?

The notion that solely because we created something, means that it is somehow inherent in us, is a laughable one.

True, Rust, but when said behavior is prevalent in every race, tribe, and nation (every single one formulates a religion, and adheres to it) then you must start to wonder why that is.

You cannot dismiss the fact that religion is the one constant man has had since time was recorded.

religion yes. Most cultures have some sort of religion. However they are all different in myriad ways. What gives Christianity special consideration?

Still waiting for those replies DS. If the answers are so apparent to you, you sould be able to address them in some form. I only asked a few questions.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

True, Rust, but when said behavior is prevalent in every race, tribe, and nation (every single one formulates a religion, and adheres to it) then you must start to wonder why that is.

You cannot dismiss the fact that religion is the one constant man has had since time was recorded.



... and like I've said, irreligiousness has also been recorded in many of those cultures as well! If the fact that spirituality was present serves as some kind of evidence that it must be true, then the fact that irreligiousness existed serves as the same, thus nullifying your point.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-22-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ArchVile:

I'm 16 and I'm a philosophical satanist. My parents are zealous christians. How do I explain to them that i shouldn't have to go with them to fuckin mass every goddamn sunday without them having a preist perform and exorcism on me?

Or at least how could i explain that i don't believe in god/jesus, without bringing up the satanist part of it?

LOL no your not a philosophical satanist your just 16

Kill yourself make this world better. Satanists suck g0atse ass

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



... and like I've said, irreligiousness has also been recorded in many of those cultures as well! If the fact that spirituality was present serves as some kind of evidence that it must be true, then the fact that irreligiousness existed serves as the same, thus nullifying your point.



- http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html

I think that satisfies the argument of how many are religious, and how many are not.

Do you honestly think this many people would be religious (in one way or another) if it wasn't a part of their humanity to do so ?

Once again, you haven't nullified anything.

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

religion yes. Most cultures have some sort of religion. However they are all different in myriad ways. What gives Christianity special consideration?

Still waiting for those replies DS. If the answers are so apparent to you, you sould be able to address them in some form. I only asked a few questions.

And I told you it would take a while.

If you can't wait, go look it up yourself.

I don't think you are in any position to "demand" information from me, especially since it is just as accessible to YOU as it is to me.

I challenge you to do your own research, in the meantime.

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Still waiting for those replies DS. If the answers are so apparent to you, you sould be able to address them in some form. I only asked a few questions.

By the way, Dagnabit, you accused me of providing nothing but "rhetoric banter"...

So, upon re-evaluation of your request, I am going to decline.

As I said, the information is all in my previous posts, in threads that go back for at least 6 months.

I am sorry you missed them all, but I think if you truly wanted to know the answers to your questions, you would be seeking out the information on your own...not being lazy and expecting someone else to provide it for you.

It sounds like you're just gearing up for an argument, and are not in the least bit interested in what I may have to say.

Because of that, I refuse to play your game.

The questions you asked were not exactly FEW, and they are all HEAVY and require much explanation, Biblical reference, and dissection of the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic languages.

If you had any clue what you were talking about, you would appreciate the magnitude of that post (with all the questions) as a whole.

Whether the answers are apparent to me or not, is NOT the issue.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

- http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html

I think that satisfies the argument of how many are religious, and how many are not.



Read what I said again please. Not once do I mention population demographics. I never questioned who was in the majority.

quote:

Do you honestly think this many people would be religious (in one way or another) if it wasn't a part of their humanity to do so ?

Sorry, but the fact that there are those who are irreligious, proves without a shadow of a doubt, that it is not human nature. It is the equivalent of claiming that blond hair is human nature, and then finding out that there are humans born with natural black hair; it would completely debunk the theory.

quote:

Once again, you haven't nullified anything.

I think I have.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

True, Rust, but when said behavior is prevalent in every race, tribe, and nation (every single one formulates a religion, and adheres to it) then you must start to wonder why that is.

You cannot dismiss the fact that religion is the one constant man has had since time was recorded.

not true... the earliest known texts document war & commerce... and murder, adultery, sodomy, genocide, etc... all of these behaviors have also been recorded for as long as religion, and they are prevalent in every culture.

so then it's also a part of human nature to be warring, murderous, sodomizers? well, at least now we're getting somewhere.

to add, religion is a very broad term that encompasses many different world-perspectives. they do not all include visions of an afterlife, soul, or higher being, as does yours.

the only thing religions really have in common across the board is a reverence for ceremony... which atheists share in the exercise of skepticism.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

By the way, Dagnabit, you accused me of providing nothing but "rhetoric banter"...

So, upon re-evaluation of your request, I am going to decline.



I want to apologise for my condescending attitude. I really meant no offence to you personally. I just know how arguing with fundamentalists is, and i was arrogantly setting the pace.

As for you declining, thats fine but remember you challenged me, not the other way around. This is just good sport to me. If all these answers you speak of are so readily available cut and paste them. Obviously this will be easier for you to do than for me to shift through 1000 of your posts. You're the one that chimed in mid argument with your ability to defend Christianity. I really do want to hear what you have to say if you feel its an original perspective, and not just dogma. But yes I am fully prepared to debate you.

Again, sorry for being an asshole, but by not backing yourself up you're just proving me right.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 02-23-2005).]

Rust:

Your point is understood, but every civilization unanimously incorporates spirituality into its culture. Except in the past forty years, atheism was either practiced or encouraged only in the smallest of organizations, and amongst the fewest of individuals.

I never said that any man creating anything makes it an inarguable manifestation of a natural tendency of an entire species. What I am saying is, because every culture on the planet has a corresponding religion, the formation of religion as a principle must be a manifestation of a tendency autonomous to man to satisfy spiritual requirements.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

not true... the earliest known texts document war & commerce... and murder, adultery, sodomy, genocide, etc... all of these behaviors have also been recorded for as long as religion, and they are prevalent in every culture.

so then it's also a part of human nature to be warring, murderous, sodomizers? well, at least now we're getting somewhere.

Yes, precisely.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

to add, religion is a very broad term that encompasses many different world-perspectives. they do not all include visions of an afterlife, soul, or higher being, as does yours.

the only thing religions really have in common across the board is a reverence for ceremony... which atheists share in the exercise of skepticism.



Which is why I posted the stats. Did you see them ?

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

I want to apologise for my condescending attitude. I really meant no offence to you personally. I just know how arguing with fundamentalists is, and i was arrogantly setting the pace.

As for you declining, thats fine but remember you challenged me, not the other way around. This is just good sport to me. If all these answers you speak of are so readily available cut and paste them. Obviously this will be easier for you to do than for me to shift through 1000 of your posts. You're the one that chimed in mid argument with your ability to defend Christianity. I really do want to hear what you have to say if you feel its an original perspective, and not just dogma. But yes I am fully prepared to debate you.

Again, sorry for being an asshole, but by not backing yourself up you're just proving me right.



I am NOT a fundamentalist simply because I am devoted to my values, have conviction, and am educated about them.

If anything, I would say that a fundamentalist is someone who has the conviction and devotion, but lacks the education.

So, you made an assumption...you have apologized for it. Thank you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I still don't think you want the answers to your questions from an objective standpoint.

I didn't challenge you...you asked some questions, and I said I would try and answer them.

Then you attacked me, and I decided it wasn't worth the ENORMOUS effort it would require...for someone that could dismiss my study and time with such judgement and anger.

"Good sport" ? How many ways can I break that down....

I said the answers were "accessible". Meaning, you can access them as easily as I can.

Why should I take the time to post them again, when you could just look for yourself ? I already dedicated many hours to it...I think now it is your turn.

It would not be any easier for me...I work 10 hour days, and have two small children.

I spend WAY TOO MUCH time on here as it is...as a matter of fact, my family is starting to miss me, so I think I may have to take a break.

I can readily defend Christianity...the questions you were asking were not to provide answers that "defend", but rather to explain the foundation of the faith.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Also, did you not think that I anticipated that you would think me to be full of crap, or incapable of answering your questions, if I didn't in fact answer them ?

I am not a man. Baiting me with ego (whose penis is larger ?) will not work.

Say what you want...the archives of my posts will prove contrary to what you have suggested.

Also, you could just ask anyone (besides Rust and Metalligod, who happen to detest the very air I breathe) whether I am capable of providing such answers, if just knowing that I can is the issue you are concerned with.

Everyone that knows me here will attest to the fact that I make EVERY EFFORT to be educated about my faith. I don't just "believe".

Anyway, thanks again for your apology.

*applauds Tyrant*

Very well, put...thank you for saying what I obviously could not.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Rust:

Your point is understood, but every civilization unanimously incorporates spirituality into its culture. Except in the past forty years, atheism was either practiced or encouraged only in the smallest of organizations, and amongst the fewest of individuals.

Size is actually irrelevant.

Again, the very existence of irreligiousness shows that this is not something inherent in man, as there have been obvious deviations across history. What? "Human nature" only applies to some humans? The it isn't inherent!

quote:

I never said that any man creating anything makes it an inarguable manifestation of a natural tendency of an entire species. What I am saying is, because every culture on the planet has a corresponding religion, the formation of religion as a principle must be a manifestation of a tendency autonomous to man to satisfy spiritual requirements.

You may not have said it, but the logical conclusion is, that if you only base yourself on it having occurred across all civilizations, then murder, irreligiousness, peace, stupidness, intelligence, among an infinite among of other things, are also part of human nature.

That you do not draw these conclusions either means you're arbitrarily deciding what gets the label of "human nature" or that you're basing yourself on other things.

The very fact that there are irreligious men, proves that this is not a "manifestation of a tendency autonomous to man to satisfy spiritual requirements".

P.S. I'd say it isn't understood, because if you were to understand it, you wouldn't believe in it. I'm showing a logical inconsitency in your theory.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-23-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Yes, precisely.

um, you were saying the opposite, initially... you are so full of it.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Which is why I posted the stats. Did you see them ?

yeah, i posted practically the same stats in another thread yesterday, they support my point... what's yours?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am NOT a fundamentalist simply because I am devoted to my values, have conviction, and am educated about them.

If you put your religion before anything else, then by definiton you are a fundamentalist. Lets not play word games here. Christians are either fundamentalists, or doctrinal oppourtunists that identify with what they like about the religion, but reject what they dont.

quote:If anything, I would say that a fundamentalist is someone who has the conviction and devotion, but lacks the education.

I dont agree, you are just more of an opportunist.



quote:I still don't think you want the answers to your questions from an objective standpoint.

I want them to be philsophical arguments that adress the issues and resolve them on the side of justifying belief in the Christian God.

quote:I didn't challenge you...

Yes you did. I made a comment about Christians being bad arguers and you said "so argue with me then". And I felt up to it, so I accepted.

quote:Then you attacked me, and I decided it wasn't worth the ENORMOUS effort it would require...for someone that could dismiss my study and time with such judgement and anger.

Buddy, you didnt need to open your mouth. Now you should defend yourself. I was dick but I didnt say anything untrue. I went over a few of your threads and it does seem like typical Christian Rhetoric to me. You deny this, fine, but SHOW me otherwise. You would think someone so self admittedly capable and willing to defend their religion would have no problems begenning to. Right now you are behaving in exactly the avoidant pretentious manner I am accusing Christians of doing.

quote:"Good sport" ? How many ways can I break that down....

Fuck, how about one....

quote:I said the answers were "accessible". Meaning, you can access them as easily as I can.

They're YOUR posts. You know where the relevant info is. I dont. You wont even provide a link. I've been through some of your posts and found nothing. Your the one thats supposed to be defending yourself here. YOU stepped up to the plate.

quote:Why should I take the time to post them again, when you could just look for yourself ? I already dedicated many hours to it...I think now it is your turn.

Explained above. You know what all your doing is avoiding the issue. You went from this pretentious intrusion of your ideas into someone elses conversation, tried to thow your ego around, and now when answers are demanded your acting just like the typical Christian I was bitching about to begin with.

quote:It would not be any easier for me...I work 10 hour days, and have two small children.

I spend WAY TOO MUCH time on here as it is...as a matter of fact, my family is starting to miss me, so I think I may have to take a break.

Then keep your mouth shut and stop injecting your Christian Bullshit into otherwise unpolluted threads.

quote:I can readily defend Christianity...the questions you were asking were not to provide answers that "defend", but rather to explain the foundation of the faith.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

No there isnt. Christianity cannot be defended from within itself. You need to adress the philosophical issues at hand, or the religion is not cogent. I'm not talking about faith, I'm talking about legitimacy - that is what you claimed you could argue.

quote:Also, did you not think that I anticipated that you would think me to be full of crap, or incapable of answering your questions, if I didn't in fact answer them

My original post that you replied to was on that precise subject - that Christians are full of crap.

quote:I am not a man. Baiting me with ego (whose penis is larger ?) will not work.

And baiting me with rhetoric will not work either, you are backpedalling, scapegoating, and avoiding the issue.

quote:Say what you want...the archives of my posts will prove contrary to what you have suggested.

I think in the time it took you to write this, you could have produced one relevant paragraph from you huge archives.



quote:Everyone that knows me here will attest to the fact that I make EVERY EFFORT to be educated about my faith. I don't just "believe".

The only effort your putting into this thread is avoiding the issue.

You ARE in everyway a typical Christian. When the pressures on, you scapegoat your way out of it with avoidant nonsense.

Now I do apologise for being a dick, but you challenged me, and basically you are dancing around the issue - Just like I said you would. This is precisely the reason People resent Christians, precisly what my original post that you responded to consisted of, and precisely why you should be quiet.

You've put your ego on such a pedestal that you dont even feel you need to engage in the same rules of argument as the rest of us in order to get your point accross. You are behaving in Exactly the manner I said you would. So stop being a hypocrit, and dont even bother posting back with any of this avoidant nonsense. Put up or Shut up.

Incidentally, this little rant is to be taken within the context of this argument. I support your choice to be a Christian DS, if it makes you happy then I think you should do it. But this thread is about argument and reasoning, something that I feel is important to defend in this case.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 02-23-2005).]

Digital_Savior:

Any way I can help, babe. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Rust

Size is actually irrelevant.

AMEN!

...

Oh, you were talking about... religion... um...

In that case...

...ahem...

....

It's not a question of size. It's a question of ubiquitous unanimity.

Again, the very existence of irreligiousness shows that this is not something inherent in man, as there have been obvious deviations across history. What? "Human nature" only applies to some humans? The it isn't inherent!

Insanity can be found across cultures. Are all people inherently insane? No.

Insanity is a deviation from a natural, inherent characteristic; namely, sanity.

Obesity can be found across cultures. Are all people inherently obese? No.

Obesity is a deviation from a natural, inherent characteristic; namely, fitness.

Homosexuality can be found across cultures. Are all people inherently homosexual? No.

Homosexuality is a deviation from a natural, inherent characteristic; namely, the desire to procreate.

Idiocy can be found across cultures. Are all people inherently idiots? No.

Idiocy is a deviation from a natural, inherent characteristic; namely, curious and eager to learn.

Sick people can be found across cultures. Are all people inherently sick? No.

Sickness is deviation from a natural, inherent characteristic; namely, health.

And so on, and so forth.

You may not have said it, but the logical conclusion is, that if you only base yourself on it having occurred across all civilizations, then murder, irreligiousness, peace, stupidness, intelligence, among an infinite among of other things, are also part of human nature.

I base my conclusion on the fact that the proportion of 'atheists' to religious adherents throughout time is about the same as the proportion of patients in Oliver Sack's The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat to normal people in the world.

Unless the word 'normal' must now come under scrutiny and investigation. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

That you do not draw these conclusions either means you're arbitrarily deciding what gets the label of "human nature" or that you're basing yourself on other things.

What gets the label of 'human nature' in this context is the principle of the necessity of devotion and dedication that every human being manifests. In the modern world, it takes a variety of other forms: church (in the physical sense), Science, the acquisition of money, work, trophies, sexual satisfaction, themselves, family (in a select, dying few), et cetera. That they don't call it their respective 'religion' does nothing to mask its function - to satisfy the spiritual requirement that necessitated religion in the first place.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

It's not a question of size. It's a question of ubiquitous unanimity.

Hardly unanimous.

quote:

Insanity can be found across cultures. Are all people inherently insane? No.

Great.

quote:

Insanity is a deviation from a natural, inherent characteristic; namely, sanity.

No. It's a deviation from the norm. Sanity or insanity have no bearing on what is natural or what is not.

quote:

Obesity can be found across cultures. Are all people inherently obese? No.

Great.

quote:

Obesity is a deviation from a natural, inherent characteristic; namely, fitness.

Completely false. This has everything to do with genetics, and yes, some people are are genetically predisposed to obesity. To claim otherwise would be to contradict all scientific evidence pointing to this being correct.

quote:

Homosexuality can be found across cultures. Are all people inherently homosexual? No.

If one is born homosexual, which is still up to debate, then heterosexuality wouldn't be innate, which is my point exactly.

quote:

Homosexuality is a deviation from a natural, inherent characteristic; namely, the desire to procreate.

This assumes that is a choice, which nothing has proven this to be so.

quote:

Idiocy can be found across cultures. Are all people inherently idiots? No.

Great.

quote:

Idiocy is a deviation from a natural, inherent characteristic; namely, curious and eager to learn.

Again, there is nothing to suggest this is natural other than your arbitrary label.

quote:

Sick people can be found across cultures. Are all people inherently sick? No.

Which then proves that "health" is not inherent, since there are people born unhealthy! You're making my cases for me.

quote:

Sickness is deviation from a natural, inherent characteristic; namely, health.

Once again, completely false. People are born with diseases all the time. The fact that these diseases are not normal (i.e. they do not fit the norm) does not mean they are not "natural". The fact that some people are born healthy, in turn, shows that health isn't "innate".

quote:

I base my conclusion on the fact that the proportion of 'atheists' to religious adherents throughout time is about the same as the proportion of patients in Oliver Sack's The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat to normal people in the world.



This is irrelevant. "Human nature" implies that all men are created this way, which is patently false. If not all men are created this way, then the argument of "human nature" ceases to hold any weight.

The fact is spirituality is a social phenomenon, not a biological one. Social phenomenon come after biological ones.

quote:

What gets the label of 'human nature' in this context is the principle of the necessity of devotion and dedication that every human being manifests. In the modern world, it takes a variety of other forms: church (in the physical sense), Science, the acquisition of money, work, trophies, sexual satisfaction, themselves, family (in a select, dying few), et cetera. That they don't call it their respective 'religion' does nothing to mask its function - to satisfy the spiritual requirement that necessitated religion in the first place.

In other words, you're correct because you're willing to change the definition of "spirutuality" to fit whatever arbitrary mold you decide, so as to never be incorrect.

If you were going to go this route, then you could have done me, and anyone else reading your posts, the favor of saying this before hand. I could have then joined you in this exercise in stupidity, by claiming this pile of dogshit beside me, is my "spirituality" and that I'll be enjoying a nice "spiritual" feast this evening.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-23-2005).]

this has degraded into a debate on semantics.

obviously, rust, the term 'human nature' is not often used to describe a characteristic that is absolutely, universally inherent in every human being. usually it's just used to describe a very common trait.

tyrant, you in no way implied that in your first post about human nature...

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Have you ever considered that it could be in a person's nature to be religious?

unfortunately, that is exactly what you implied in your second post.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

religion is a universal aspect, found even in the most primitive of cultures.

this is what rust took issue with, and rightly so. first, it's not universal. second, the fact that it is commonly practiced still has no relation to its validity... as digital so accurately pointed out in some other thread on the first page of this forum.

however, tyrant may very well be right in his initial claim... certain people may be born with religious tendencies.

BUT UNTIL A FUCKING SCIENTIFIC STATISTICAL SURVEY IS CONDUCTED, THERE IS NO WAY TO CLAIM WITH ANY PERSUASIVE CERTAINTY THAT IT IS INHERENT IN A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, OR THAT THIS RELIGIOUS TENDENCY IS NOT A RESULT OF SOME OTHER PSYCHOLOGICAL, CULTURAL, OR BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENON.

god, you're all such a bunch of assholes. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 02-24-2005).]

The thing is, if it isn't universal, if it isn't inherent in every single human being, then the argument loses any and all weight it has. So what the some of the people are born "spiritual", when there are others who aren't... the argument would then support both sides of the issue, thus removing any importance it has as an argument in the first place.

Nevermind there isn't any evidence to show that that is even correct.

Edit: Yes, I did assume he meant every single man was born as such, because of the above. But basing myself on what he has said since then, it seems I made the correct assumption.

"What gets the label of 'human nature' in this context is the principle of the necessity of devotion and dedication that every human being manifests. "

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-24-2005).]

"On the one hand, they aided their chances of surviving in a cruel and unpredictable world. They helped each successive generation of proto-humans to build upon the knowledge base of their ancestors.

This increased mental ability led to a terrifying piece of knowledge: personal mortality. For the first time, individual animals on earth became aware that their life was transient; they would die at some point in their future. This knowledge produced an intolerable emotional drain.

Living in a pre-scientific society, people had no way to resolve these questions. Even today, with all of our scientific advances, we still debate about the second last question, and still have no way of reaching an consensus on the last. But the need for answers (particularly to the last question) were so important that some response was required, even if they were merely based on hunches. Some people within the tribe started to invent answers based on their personal guesses.

Thus developed:

The first religious belief system,

The first priesthood,

The first set of rituals to appease the Goddess,

Other rituals to control fertility and other aspects of the environment,

A set of behavioral expectations for members of the tribe, and

A set of moral truths to govern human behavior.

The first organized religions appear to have been based on fertility. They were focused on the worship of the great Earth Goddess. Religion evolved to include male Gods who were gradually given increased importance by the priests." http://freespace.virgin.net/j.squire/page3.html

That doesn't really answer the question of statistics...not sure it's really pertinent, but I thought it might be.

i agree completely. the argument holds no weight if it's not a universal trait. i was saying the same thing.

the reason i stated the need for a scientific survey was simply to quell any possible further debate on the whole 'human nature' thing, should tyrant shift into a lower gear.

my point was this: claiming that the existence of the supernatural is in any way suggested by the preponderance of religiosity also falls apart under scrutiny, because there are many other possible reasons for the religious tendency of humanity. and again, digital already said numbers don't prove anything about validity.

i just want to take that argument completely out of the discussion... eh, am i going too far, rust?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

"On the one hand, they aided their chances of surviving in a cruel and unpredictable world. They helped each successive generation of proto-humans to build upon the knowledge base of their ancestors.

This increased mental ability led to a terrifying piece of knowledge: personal mortality. For the first time, individual animals on earth became aware that their life was transient; they would die at some point in their future. This knowledge produced an intolerable emotional drain.

Living in a pre-scientific society, people had no way to resolve these questions. Even today, with all of our scientific advances, we still debate about the second last question, and still have no way of reaching an consensus on the last. But the need for answers (particularly to the last question) were so important that some response was required, even if they were merely based on hunches. Some people within the tribe started to invent answers based on their personal guesses.

Thus developed:

The first religious belief system,

The first priesthood,

The first set of rituals to appease the Goddess,

Other rituals to control fertility and other aspects of the environment,

A set of behavioral expectations for members of the tribe, and

A set of moral truths to govern human behavior.

The first organized religions appear to have been based on fertility. They were focused on the worship of the great Earth Goddess. Religion evolved to include male Gods who were gradually given increased importance by the priests." http://freespace.virgin.net/j.squire/page3.html

That doesn't really answer the question of statistics...not sure it's really pertinent, but I thought it might be.

yeah, it's pertinent... it supports evolution , and a healthy skepticism of religious dogma. thanks.

quote:Completely false. This has everything to do with genetics, and yes, some people are are genetically predisposed to obesity. To claim otherwise would be to contradict all scientific evidence pointing to this being correct.

A very SMALL amount of people MAY BE obese due to genetics.

"As a nation, we need to respond as vigorously to this (obesity) epidemic as we do to an infectious disease epidemic. National efforts are needed to encourage physical activity and better nutrition and to conduct research to identify effective educational, behavioral, and environmental approaches to control and prevent obesity." Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/info/perspectives/obesity.htm

That statement does not in ANY WAY indicate that obesity is a genetic affliction.

Are you saying the the DIRECTOR of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn't know what he's talking about ?

He seems to be saying that our current regimen regarding exercise and diet must be controlled and improved.

That means we PHYSICALLY CAUSE our own obesity, in the majority of cases.

Let's say someone is obese because of a thyroid problem...do you mean to say that if they regulated their diet, and exercised regularly, that it wouldn't affect said obesity in the form of improvement ?

Why bother modifying diet and exercise to "treat" such a disorder then ? (which the medical community does - DIET http://www.thyroid-info.com/dietbook.htm EXERCISE - "Regular exercise and a high-fiber diet can help maintain thyroid function and prevent constipation." http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00052400.html , and http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/exercise.htm )

In contrast, METABOLISM can be genetic, which may RESULT in obesity, but it is not the same thing.

If your metabolism is slow, you will obviously have a harder time staying thin, but it IS possible, with diet and exercise modification specifically designed for each person.

If you become obese because your metabolism is slow, then it is YOUR OWN FAULT. Not the metabolism, but the OBESITY.

Lack of personal responsibility is the only issue this world is facing, in light of the obesity topic.

"It's not my fault I'm fat."

Pfffffffffft.

"The percentage of children and adolescents who are defined as overweight has more than doubled since the early 1970s. About 13 percent of children and adolescents are now seriously overweight." http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/info/perspectives/obesity.htm

So...we are to believe that GENETICALLY obesity has more than doubled since 1970, and that this trend has NOTHING to do with less exercise (decrease in work that requires strenuous activity such as farming, mining, etc.), and poor diet (increased popularity of fast food, and the societal impression that we MUST EAT MORE) ?

Come on !! *sighs*

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-24-2005).]

RUST

Being a fan of the theory of evolution, are you saying that what is "human nature" cannot evolve as well ?

Who is to say that what was human nature 3,000 ago isn't different (in varying degrees) from what is human nature today ?

What evidence do you have to prove EITHER WAY ?

You keep making these statements, and not showing any "science" to back it up.

By the way, the examples you gave certainly ARE all a part of human nature.

I don't find it unreasonable to say that EVERYTHING we do as a race is directly tied to our "nature"..

Otherwise, why would we do it ?

That is like saying that only SOME of the things that antelopes do are a part of their nature.

EVERYTHING they do is their nature !!

They don't stand around, reasoning that "running from predators" is or isn't a part of their nature. They run, every single time.

quote:yeah, it's pertinent... it supports evolution , and a healthy skepticism of religious dogma. thanks.

Which proves that I am capable of thinking outside the "Christian" box, contrary to popular belief.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

A very SMALL amount of people are obese due to genetics.



digital, if you concede that even a small percentage are genetically obese, then you concede that rust's logic was correct.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

RUST

Being a fan of the theory of evolution, are you saying that what is "human nature" cannot evolve as well ?

Who is to say that what was human nature 3,000 ago isn't different (in varying degrees) from what is human nature today ?

since the early dawn of recorded history, it has only been about 6 or 7,000 years.... that is not really enough time for any significant evolutionary process to occur. so human nature is pretty much static from our historical perspective... barring genetic engineering, ask again in 100,000 years. there might be a change.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Which proves that I am capable of thinking outside the "Christian" box, contrary to popular belief.

congratulations. honestly.

quote:digital, if you concede that even a small percentage are genetically obese, then you concede that rust's logic was correct.

Actually, no.

I believe that NOTHING from a human standpoint is absolute. That everything has a variable that will change the perceived "absolution".

Don't you ?

I am saying that it has never been proven, but that the possibility exists. Just as possibility exists in EVERYTHING.

I don't agree that obesity is genetic AT ALL. All the research I have come up with can never say with any factuality that obesity IS related to genetics.

I also know plenty of obese people (many in my family), and they all suffer from either low self-esteem, or lack of personal control.

Self indulgence is a noted affliction of this country. Not just with food, but with ALL things. To ignore that trend would be fallacy.

quote:since the early dawn of recorded history, it has only been about 6 or 7,000 years.... that is not really enough time for any significant evolutionary process to occur. so human nature is pretty much static from our historical perspective... barring genetic engineering, ask again in 100,000 years. there might be a change.

Supported by what evidence ?

Have we YET been able to measure the rate of evolutionary progress/change ?

No.

If human nature is static to our historical evidence (perspective), then we cannot say that a tendency to need an "answer" for our existence is not innately caused by God, resulting in the development of religion in every single culture.

If 6,000 is not enough time for MACROevolution to occur, than neither is 100,000 - logically.

Millions of years would fit more along the lines of the "theory" of evolution.

quote:congratulations. honestly.

Thanks. Honestly. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Oh, and I wasn't changing my mind.

I said, "That statement does not in ANY WAY indicate that obesity is a genetic affliction."...

...AFTER I said that a small number of people are afflicted with obesity due to genetics.

I should have said, "...some people MAY be obese due to genetics."

I went too far in including "possibility".

Also, the genetics I was thinking of was not in reference to an "obesity" specific gene, per se. It was more relevant to thyroid problems, or slow metabolism's (and even mental disorders, in some cases).

I have editted the post, to reflect my opinion.

Sorry.

I think I need to explain how this conversation relates to RELIGION...

I "see" that NOT TAKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for our actions will be the fall of mankind...it is destroying us (abortions, obesity, and sexually transmitted diseases, as examples).

This all leads to one conclusion, for Christians: Lucifer is winning. (not in the battle against God...to obtain control over the heart of man is his ultimate goal.)

He is slowly convincing humanity that we do not control ourselves.

That we are not to be held accountable for our decisions.

That the afflictions we suffer from are NOT the result of our sinful actions.

We are blameless; victims of our environment.

It's all manipulation and desensitization.

Without accountability and responsibility, we don't need laws and ethics.

Which means we don't need God.

That may seem like a stretch to SOME of you, but that is how the Christian community sees it.

Though I want to get out of here and in to Heaven as soon as possible, I am tasked to uphold God's purpose. And that is what I will do.

For me to say nothing in defense of Him would be to fail Him.

I am nothing, but through me (and all believers in God), He can do all things.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-24-2005).]

that's fine, but you're still wrong.

the scientific evidence for a genetic link to obesity is pretty conclusive.

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/979064416.html

Eil, I found your Poop Shoot comment in Spurious.

*tsk tsk tsk*

I "see" that NOT TAKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for our actions has been the fall of mankind...it is destroying us (crusades, genocide, abortion clinic bombings, fanaticism, intolerance, ignorance, a lack of critical thinking, as examples).

This all leads to one conclusion, for rational people: complacency is winning.

complacency is slowly convincing humanity that we do not control ourselves.

That we are not to be held accountable for our decisions.

That the afflictions we suffer from are NOT the result of our irresponsible actions.

We are blameless; victims of our environment.

It's all manipulation and desensitization.

Without accountability and responsibility, we don't need laws and ethics.

Which means we don't need reason.

That may seem like a stretch to SOME of you, but that is how the rational community sees it.

Though I want to get out of here and in to a corvette as soon as possible, I am tasked to uphold a responsible purpose. And that is what I will do.

For me to say nothing in defense of reason would be to fail my own rationality.

I am nothing, but through me (and all people who utilize their cerebral cortex), understanding can eradicate all of this nonsense bullshit that ignorant, intolerant, ethnocentric, fools spew.

i love pedagogues.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Eil, I found your Poop Shoot comment in Spurious.

*tsk tsk tsk*

hehe

"An area on the human chromosome-3 may hold the key to understanding the genetic basis for obesity and its related health problems of diabetes, high blood pressure and coronary heart disease."

The word "MAY" is blaringly obvious in that statement.

Since when did scientific "possibilities" constitute FACT ?! Oh, wait...since the invention of the Theory of Evolution !

"They report finding a region on chromosome-3 that harbors a yet to be determined number of genes that could be responsible for several obesity-related traits."

You call that CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ?

*LAUGHS*

"Dr. Kissebah, who practices at Froedtert Hospital..." references a SUPPORT group called TOPS Club, Inc., as though this group makes the scientific conclusions legit.

If I tried to do the same thing in defense of Christianity, I would be raked over the coals.

"The area identified by the researchers contains molecular markers that are highly statistically associated with a number of features fundamental to the form of obesity that commonly triggers related health problems. These include body weight; degree of fatness from body mass index; pattern of fat distribution across the body frame from waist and hip circumferences; and ineffectiveness of insulin in promoting glucose consumption as well as insulin blood levels, both strong predictors of glucose intolerance and diabetes."

How does that CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that the chromosome-3 portion of the human genome CAUSES obesity ?

They are talking about genetic traits regarding our physical appearance specifically, not how FAT we will be no matter what we do. (how fat looks on us, how our body distributes it, etc.) That completely ignores our role of responsibility for our own health.

If I am big boned, I am big boned because of genetics.

If I am big boned and FAT, then I am big boned because of genetics, and FAT because I eat too much and don't exercise enough.

This same aspect of the chromosome-3 portion of the human genome is being said to cause diabetes.

Guess what ? DIABETES IS A DISEASE ! Obesity is not.

The rest is blah blah blah, and can be logically disassembled as well.

Honestly, I'm tired.

Sorry.

quote:This all leads to one conclusion, for rational people: complacency is winning.

Let me modify that a little...

Replace "complacency" with APATHY. I agree 100%.

Now, remind yourself of the truth behind the saying, "The smartest thing the devil ever did was to convince the world that he didn't exist."

If there is no God, then there is no devil, so then why should we care about anything we do ?

And you are making fun of me...

While you are not hurting my feelings, I think you are "stooping", and I would be interested to know why you feel the need to do so.

I am not an idiot, and that is what you are trying to make me out to be.

You are making this personal. Why ?

Deal with the issues, and the data, please.

Rust:

1. Name me an indigenous culture that doesn't have a form of religion in it and I'll concede.

2. A religion, in spite of the exterior contextual characteristics, performs a distinct function for a human. When the religion becomes negated through the circumstances of the environment - inappropriate nurturing of these tendencies, inadequate logical consistencies provided, et cetera - it is replaced by secondary principle.

The principle in question thus counts as a religion because it serves the same existential function that religion does.

3. As per the nature/nurture conclusion, a person's natural tendencies (a behavioral phenotype of sorts) can be reduced almost to the point of negation by the effects of its surroundings. This makes it no less a natural tendency; just one in a disadvantageous setting.

Eil:

A scientific study has already been done for us by history itself.

Take every race of people that has ever been on the planet, no matter how isolated or integrated they may have been.

Give them no knowledge of anything.

Let them run their existential course.

100% of them have created some form of a spiritual creed. Perhaps not permanently, perhaps not as organized, and perhaps not as explicitly as others... but, indeed, they all have.

[EDIT: clarification]

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 02-24-2005).]

Oh, and to clarify a definition, Rust:

What is normal is what is natural.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



The word "MAY" is blaringly obvious in that statement.

Since when did scientific "possibilities" constitute FACT ?! Oh, wait...since the invention of the Theory of Evolution !



you're right, it's not fact. but that statement was referring to the specific genes in that area of the chromosome. statistically, however, it IS a fact that there is a very strong statistical correlation with the interaction between that region on chromosome-3 and a region on chromosome-17, and obesity. the fact is that this evidence is regarded as pretty conclusive... the genes are in there somewhere - it's only a matter of time before they are identified.



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



"Dr. Kissebah, who practices at Froedtert Hospital...

references a SUPPORT group called TOPS Club, Inc., as though this group makes the scientific conclusions legit.

did you miss this whole part?

'"The study would not have been possible without the enthusiastic participation of TOPS Club, Inc. (Take off Pounds Sensibly). They were a major factor in the success of the study," Dr. Kissebah says.

Dr. Kissebah and his colleagues analyzed blood DNA samples of more than 2,000 TOPS participants from approximately 500 families of predominantly northern European descent. From the blood samples taken, 400 molecular markers were used to search the DNA of each individual thus resulting in the analysis of approximately one million markers to arrive at this conclusion.

TOPS Club, Inc., founded in 1948, is the oldest non-profit, non-commercial, weight loss support group with over 240,000 members worldwide and is headquartered in Milwaukee.'



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

How does that CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that the chromosome-3 portion of the human genome CAUSES obesity ?



again, i never said there was conclusive proof of a connection between a region of chromosome-3 and obesity. i said a genetic link to obesity is conclusive. what that statistical correlation proves is that there is a connection between those symptoms of obesity and the molecular markers on chromosome-3. now, whether or not there is a specific gene that influences obesity is not known. that's why they said 'may'... it may also be that obesity is indirectly caused by a combination of several other genes in that region of chrom-3. one gene, three genes, it doesn't make a difference to the claim that genetics and obesity are linked. i'm not saying that every fat person is pre-disposed to obesity genetically. i believe that in this country the vast majority are not... but if some are, why shouldn't we know it? maybe we can help. wouldn't it be irresponsible not to?

also, technically, nothing is ever proven conclusively in science. however, the evidence for a genetic link to obesity IS conclusive, in that there is not much reason to doubt it at this point. the evidence is very highly suggestive, and still mounting. there is a nuance to the word; i was technically wrong to use it, but, effectively, i stand by it.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

They are talking about genetic traits regarding our physical appearance specifically, not how FAT we will be no matter what we do. (how fat looks on us, how our body distributes it, etc.) That completely ignores our role of responsibility for our own health.



i forgot that it's the bible that tells us to get regular aerobic exercise and eat a balanced diet... for some strange reason i thought it was the american medical association.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If I am big boned, I am big boned because of genetics.

If I am big boned and FAT, then I am big boned because of genetics, and FAT because I eat too much and don't exercise enough.

do you have conclusive proof of that? i'd like to see you present proof that obesity is always a result of over-eating and lack of exercise.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

This same aspect of the chromosome-3 portion of the human genome is being said to cause diabetes.

Guess what ? DIABETES IS A DISEASE ! Obesity is not.



from dictionary.com

quote:dis·ease

1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.

2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.

yeah, it is a disease. this has nothing to do with whether or not there is a genetic reason for it.

and a doctor - no screw that, even a fitness expert - can help you treat it with science a lot more effectively than your preacher.



quote:And you are making fun of me...

While you are not hurting my feelings, I think you are "stooping", and I would be interested to know why you feel the need to do so.

i like to rib people... just fire back or call me an ass, it's ok.

Tyrant...get your booty on AIM, ya hear ?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Eil:

A scientific study has already been done for us by history itself.

Take every race of people that has ever been on the planet, no matter how isolated or integrated they may have been.

Give them no knowledge of anything.

Let them run their existential course.

100% of them have created some form of a spiritual creed. Perhaps not permanently, perhaps not as organized, and perhaps not as explicitly as others... but, indeed, they all have.



well, i guess that's what happens when people don't know anything.

besides being impossible to conduct that test, and therefore, unconvincing, it still wouldn't prove anything if true. it's a strawman. i never said people aren't universally predisposed towards fabrication, i said they are not universally predisposed towards 'spirituality'. prove that 100% of the people thus isolated would resort to religion for cogent 'spiritual' reasons, and not biological, cultural, or political reasons. remember, if it's not a universal spiritual recognition, it ain't human nature, and it ain't proof of spirituality... according to yourself.

otherwise, you're just repeating what i already said.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

to add, religion is a very broad term that encompasses many different world-perspectives. they do not all include visions of an afterlife, soul, or higher being, as does yours.

the only thing religions really have in common across the board is a reverence for ceremony... which atheists share in the exercise of skepticism.

ah, i'm tired. g'night.

quote:i forgot that it's the bible that tells us to get regular aerobic exercise and eat a balanced diet... for some strange reason i thought it was the american medical association.

Actually, smart ass, the Bible commands us to take care of our "temples".

That means not pumping them full of drugs, or nicotene, etc.

that's more like it, dig!! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

the body is a temple... it's a beautiful sentiment. i agree whole-heartedly. although the only hell you'll go through for not keeping up with its maintenance is the one of your own creation.

how does this relate to helping people trying to lose weight? they already know they shouldn't be fat for their own health.

unless they go on a diet of bible-eating, i don't see how the book provides such superior assistance to modern medical knowledge. especially once genetic engineers learn how to suppress the fat gene http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

being told they are gluttonous sinners on top of an already low self-esteem is not the best motivator...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Have we YET been able to measure the rate of evolutionary progress/change ?

in response to that whole post, yup.

quote:Mutation limits the rate of evolution. The rate of evolution can be expressed in terms of nucleotide substitutions in a lineage per generation. Substitution is the replacement of an allele by another in a population. This is a two step process: First a mutation occurs in an individual, creating a new allele. This allele subsequently increases in frequency to fixation in the population. The rate of evolution is k = 2Nvu (in diploids) where k is nucleotide substitutions, N is the effective population size, v is the rate of mutation and u is the proportion of mutants that eventually fix in the population.

Mutation need not be limiting over short time spans. The rate of evolution expressed above is given as a steady state equation; it assumes the system is at equilibrium. Given the time frames for a single mutant to fix, it is unclear if populations are ever at equilibrium. A change in environment can cause previously neutral alleles to have selective values; in the short term evolution can run on "stored" variation and thus is independent of mutation rate. Other mechanisms can also contribute selectable variation. Recombination creates new combinations of alleles (or new alleles) by joining sequences with separate microevolutionary histories within a population. Gene flow can also supply the gene pool with variants. Of course, the ultimate source of these variants is mutation.

i know how much you love talkorigins

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

A very SMALL amount of people MAY BE obese due to genetics.

"As a nation, we need to respond as vigorously to this (obesity) epidemic as we do to an infectious disease epidemic. National efforts are needed to encourage physical activity and better nutrition and to conduct research to identify effective educational, behavioral, and environmental approaches to control and prevent obesity." Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/info/perspectives/obesity.htm



I', not saying that you cannot make significant changes by diet and regular excercise. The point is, some people are still predisposed to obesity. Your own article stipulates this:

"Studies are showing that the genes are not destiny but are still a significant factor in developing obesity"



quote:

Are you saying the the DIRECTOR of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn't know what he's talking about ?

He seems to be saying that our current regimen regarding exercise and diet must be controlled and improved.

That means we PHYSICALLY CAUSE our own obesity, in the majority of cases.

Let's say someone is obese because of a thyroid problem...do you mean to say that if they regulated their diet, and exercised regularly, that it wouldn't affect said obesity in the form of improvement ?



No. I said they were genetically predisposed. to developing obesity.

Predisposed:

1. To make (someone) inclined to something in advance: His good manners predispose people in his favor. See Synonyms at incline.

2. To make susceptible or liable: conditions that predispose miners to lung disease.



How about next time you try READING what I say, before making thus huge, useless, strawman?



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-24-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

RUST

Being a fan of the theory of evolution, are you saying that what is "human nature" cannot evolve as well ?

Who is to say that what was human nature 3,000 ago isn't different (in varying degrees) from what is human nature today ?

What evidence do you have to prove EITHER WAY ?



You assume I believe there is such a thing as "human nature"; I don't.

Again, the very fact that what is supposedly "human nature" is different fromp person to person, can change depending on culture, and now you suggest that it can evolve, is reason enough to throw the idea to the trash can. It wouldn't be significant.

quote:

You keep making these statements, and not showing any "science" to back it up.

Tell me which statement necesitates me to back up with science, and I'll show you a statement that necesitates TYRANT to back up, since he made the allegations first.

(Not that I want you to Tyrant. I does not elude me, as it seems to elude DS, that some discussions are based on simple logic )

quote:

By the way, the examples you gave certainly ARE all a part of human nature.

I don't find it unreasonable to say that EVERYTHING we do as a race is directly tied to our "nature"..

1. We do it because we can think and we can decide for ourselves.

2. You can define human nature as that. Sure. Just don't use it in an argument supporting religion, because it would support incest, murder, rape, midget-fucking, shit eating, etc.

----

Sorry Eil,

"[i]Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in"

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Oh, and to clarify a definition, Rust:

What is normal is what is natural.

Then obesity is natural, at least in the U.S. Thanks.

Why even use the word natural in the first place, when it obviously has other implications...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-24-2005).]

America is an example of an environment based exclusively on individual freedom having a tragic effect on the natural tendencies of mankind.

And, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to hear what you'd respond to the post preceding the one you quoted.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Rust:

1. Name me an indigenous culture that doesn't have a form of religion in it and I'll concede.

I can't. So?

quote:

2. A religion, in spite of the exterior contextual characteristics, performs a distinct function for a human. When the religion becomes negated through the circumstances of the environment - inappropriate nurturing of these tendencies, inadequate logical consistencies provided, et cetera - it is replaced by secondary principle.

The principle in question thus counts as a religion because it serves the same existential function that religion does.

And you arrvied at all of these conclusions, arbitrarily. Great. I already got that much from your previous reply.

The only thing you've managed to accomplish is to generalize the definition of religion so much, that anything, no matter how fucking stupid it may be, may apply. Congratulations.

quote:

3. As per the nature/nurture conclusion, a person's natural tendencies (a behavioral phenotype of sorts) can be reduced almost to the point of negation by the effects of its surroundings. This makes it no less a natural tendency; just one in a disadvantageous setting.

You'd have to prove there was a natural tendency in the first place, which you cannot. That's exactly what were' debating here.

PS. Oh, the fact that genetics predisposes someone to obesity, completely refutes the claim that health (or being fit) is somehow "the natural tendency of mankind".



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-24-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ArchVile:

I'm 16 and I'm a philosophical satanist. My parents are zealous christians. How do I explain to them that i shouldn't have to go with them to fuckin mass every goddamn sunday without them having a preist perform and exorcism on me?

Or at least how could i explain that i don't believe in god/jesus, without bringing up the satanist part of it?

quit being a pussy and take a stand. a true satanist would do that. also, from this i figure you're not a real satanist but claim to be because you took a quick glance at www.firstchurchofsatan.com (http://www.firstchurchofsatan.com) and decided it would be utterly 1337 to be a child of satan. you're not.

just go home.

and if you paid attention in sunday school, you'd fucking know that in the christian religion, there are no priests. that's catholicism. christians have pastures.

i know because the new pasture yelled at me for checking the clock. dick.

christians have pastures!!!! ROFLMAO!!!! you dumbass!

This thread SO got hijacked from Archville

between tyrant, rust, digital, extreem, tribe, myself, and a few others, there ain't a thread on totse we can't hi-jack and turn into a debate on evolution.

Fuck UBB.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Actually, smart ass, the Bible commands us to take care of our "temples".

That means not pumping them full of drugs, or nicotene, etc.

Oh, my God....I didn't write that.

*looks around*

Do you guys think it would matter if I contacted a webmaster ?

Seriously...I didn't say that.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

seriously? if you're not kidding, i would contact them and change my password...

quote:and if you paid attention in sunday school, you'd fucking know that in the christian religion, there are no priests. that's catholicism. christians have pastures.

You mean those large areas of grassy land where horses and cows graze ?

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

christians have pastures!!!! ROFLMAO!!!! you dumbass!

LMAO

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

seriously? if you're not kidding, i would contact them and change my password...

I just don't see how anyone could have obtained my password. I am an IT...password security is not a foreign subject to me, and I can't imagine how anyone could have done that. I predominantly use this forum at home.

That isn't very nice. You shouldn't laugh at the fact that he was made fun of. It was an honest mistake. Are you without mistakes?

quote:Originally posted by actionfaad:

a true satanist would do that.

We sure demand a lot from our Satanists out here, don't we?

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

between tyrant, rust, digital, extreem, tribe, myself, and a few others, there ain't a thread on totse we can't hi-jack and turn into a debate on evolution.

Hahaha, the real challenge would be to try that in Spurious or Rock and Roll.

Rust:

I can't. So?

If religious devotion was something that came only out of the minds of a select few seeking to control the greater population, wouldn't there be at least ONE culture that didn't have anything like that?

And you arrvied at all of these conclusions, arbitrarily. Great. I already got that much from your previous reply.

The only thing you've managed to accomplish is to generalize the definition of religion so much, that anything, no matter how fucking stupid it may be, may apply. Congratulations.

And?

If a certain creed performs the same functions as a previously accepted archetype of a religion - explains the origin of man's place in the world, gives him enthusiasm and inspiration, gives him some kind of intellectual standard against which he bases his decisions, and gives his life purpose and direction - what prevents it from being a religion?

You'd have to prove there was a natural tendency in the first place, which you cannot. That's exactly what were' debating here.

Read my response to Eil, and contemplate the meaning of the fact that you cannot name a human culture that is bereft of religion. Ignoring this culturally unanimous sociological phenomenon, and denying what humans have substituted it for in recent eras, means we cannot have an intelligent debate.

PS. Oh, the fact that genetics predisposes someone to obesity, completely refutes the claim that health (or being fit) is somehow "the natural tendency of mankind".

This statement implies that it is a natural inclination for mankind to be obese, which I don't think you believe is true. I doubt you, being a devout believer in evolution, could see any kind of strategical advantage in lumbering after elk with a beer gut and big, semi-circular man boobs flopping around.

[EDIT: You'd be surprised how the omission of the word 'is' makes an entire sentence sound like a grammatical abortion.]

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 02-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



If religious devotion was something that came only out of the minds of a select few seeking to control the greater population, wouldn't there be at least ONE culture that didn't have anything like that?

You just answered your own question! If they are "seeking to control the greater population", why wouldn't they have religion?

quote:

And?

If a certain creed performs the same functions as a previously accepted archetype of a religion - explains the origin of man's place in the world, gives him enthusiasm and inspiration, gives him some kind of intellectual standard against which he bases his decisions, and gives his life purpose and direction - what prevents it from being a religion?

Because ANYTHING can be described as such. ANYTHING. The word then loses all meaning and thus, no possibility of fruitful debate exists.

quote:

Read my response to Eil, and contemplate the meaning of the fact that you cannot name a human culture that is bereft of religion. Ignoring this culturally unanimous sociological phenomenon, and denying what humans have substituted it for in recent eras, means we cannot have an intelligent debate.

No, the fact that you get to arbitrarily decide what religion is, that's what doesn't produce fruitful debate.

You see I'm not ignoring that phenomenon, that's a misunderstanding on your part. I acknowledge it, I just don't use circular logic to deem it "human nature".

You don't even see the problem with that horrible definition of yours. By your own definition, "not-having religion" would be a religion! See the idiocy in that? Please, for the love of "Religion" tell me you do...

quote:

This statement implies that it a natural inclination for mankind to be obese, which I don't think you believe is true. I doubt you, being a devout believer in evolution, could see any kind of strategical advantage in lumbering after elk with a beer gut and big, semi-circular man boobs flopping around.

If what one is predisposed to do, before any social decisions or indoctrinations take place to change this, is what you deem "natural" or "human inclination", the obesity IS human inclination, thus refuting your point.

Moreover, evolution doesn't have anything to do with "natural inclinations"...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-25-2005).]

well you can believe me or not but the truth is that there is no god or devil and this is just a world now in other words...

alchemy once ruled and the world it was inhabited by imortals and demons and monsters but thats gone now!!!

were did it go?

all these imortals/demons wanting fame and money so they performed miracles like noahs ark etc and made their own religeon its just money now

end of world:summer solstice of 2045

do u believe me?

[This message has been edited by goldensundance (edited 02-26-2005).]

too bad totse can't vote to erase other people's posts.

alright ill bite..2045-where did you come up with that? was it writin in the stars or beside the urnial?

quote:Originally posted by LeperMessiah:

alright ill bite..2045-where did you come up with that? was it writin in the stars or beside the urnial?

The Egyptians

they knew everything

they prediced WWIetc

summer solstice=the longest day of the year

[This message has been edited by goldensundance (edited 02-26-2005).]

Digital, for the last several days I appeared to be IP banned from totse. This is my first post that I've been able to make. There's definately something weird going on.

[This message has been edited by SurahAhriman (edited 02-27-2005).]

Rust:

You just answered your own question! If they are "seeking to control the greater population", why wouldn't they have a religion?

Let me rephrase, because I think you misunderstood the intention I held.

If the principle of religion is only utilized by a select few people seeking to dominate the will of others for personal gain, wouldn't religion as a whole be limited to the feeble-minded environments that could entertain such a treacherous clan?

Because ANYTHING can be described as such. ANYTHING. The word then loses all meaning and thus, no possibility of fruitful debate exists.

No, the meaning of the word is merely clarified to ingest a wider scope than the generally labeled mold of religion originally allows.

To suggest that the replacements for religion man has found cannot be seen as a religion is like saying that fetishism - a replacement for biologically organized sexual behavior - cannot be seen as sexual behavior because "the word then loses all meaning."

No, the fact that you get to arbitrarily decide what religion is, that's what doesn't produce fruitful debate.

You see I'm not ignoring that phenomenon, that's a misunderstanding on your part. I acknowledge it, I just don't use circular logic to deem it "human nature".

The fact that man constructed religion to orient himself towards higher principles can be seen from a sociological perspective as falling under the same category of the tendency for cooperative hunting, or the formation of a systematic government. Every civilization has it. Every race of man has it. It served a specific function in the time of primordial man and satisfied certain existential appetites. The fact that - in a select few circumstances - these religions still exist signifies that it continues to serve this function.

I don't know how else to clarify ANYTHING being human nature other than to point out that it permeates every mortal 'why' and 'wherefor' of our psychological lives.

You don't even see the problem with that horrible definition of yours. By your own definition, "not-having religion" would be a religion! See the idiocy in that? Please, for the love of "Religion" tell me you do...

Without a context behind it, yea, it looks idiotic. But what you're doing now is merely illustrating the semantic fallacy in making an affirmation of something that's just been negated. If you're talking about a specific person, then a mediocre investigation can reveal a thinly veiled system of priorities and values - upon which this person either consciously or unconsciously arrived - that performs the same duties for that person as an organized, historical religion performs for a particular acolyte.

If what one is predisposed to do, before any social decisions or indoctrinations take place to change this, is what you deem "natural" or "human inclination", the obesity IS human inclination, thus refuting your point.

A cold that settled in from a variety of temperature changes that could only have been achieved from a super villain's weather control machine keeps me from investigating your discussion with Digital_Savior about nature/nurture and the obesity argument.

However, I will state this: obesity is a medical condition - ultimately, an anomaly - arrived at ONLY when one lives in a circumstance that allows unrestricted indulgence, such as America, which you've previously cited.

Because this is limited to such countries as America, where consumer freedom and adaptation to a culture of responsibility alleviation allows such unabashed culinary onanism, and Mauritania and like countries, in which obesity is both a status symbol and a dominant sexual fetish - all contextual circumstances - we can conclude that not only is obesity NOT a natural human inclination (honoring a tongue-in-cheek recollection of YOUR very argument suggesting that, if the contrasting situation appears at all, the original principle is not 'natural'), but that it is also very much a conditioned result.

A second thought on obesity, which would serve to clarify the statement concerning evolution.

Obesity is not a 'tendency', but the abuse of one: namely, ingesting food for sustenance. To claim that it, reduced to itself, was a human inclination implies that it has a purpose greater than the condition itself.

It is a medical condition, not a behavioral process.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



Let me rephrase, because I think you misunderstood the intention I held.

If the principle of religion is only utilized by a select few people seeking to dominate the will of others for personal gain, wouldn't religion as a whole be limited to the feeble-minded environments that could entertain such a treacherous clan?



The answer is the same.

That's a truism. Of course it would only be limited to those environments that entertain it... if they don't entertain it, then it couldn't exist there!

It, as a truism, offers no real point. The only relevant question would be, why is religion utilized in all these "environments" and, like I said before, you yourself answered that.

In any case, this is just a strawman. You're putting words in my mouth by implying that I believe religion's only use is for control.

quote:

No, the meaning of the word is merely clarified to ingest a wider scope than the generally labeled mold of religion originally allows.

... and that "wider scope" allows for anything.

quote:

To suggest that the replacements for religion man has found cannot be seen as a religion is like saying that fetishism - a replacement for biologically organized sexual behavior - cannot be seen as sexual behavior because "the word then loses all meaning."

Terrible logic since fetishism IS a sexual behavior in the first place. The pile of dogshit, or the absence of religion, is not a religion; at least that's what is up for debate. Your example therefore, is a poor one.

quote:

The fact that man constructed religion to orient himself towards higher principles can be seen from a sociological perspective as falling under the same category of the tendency for cooperative hunting, or the formation of a systematic government. Every civilization has it. Every race of man has it. It served a specific function in the time of primordial man and satisfied certain existential appetites. The fact that - in a select few circumstances - these religions still exist signifies that it continues to serve this function.



I don't know how else to clarify ANYTHING being human nature other than to point out that it permeates every mortal 'why' and 'wherefor' of our psychological lives.

You've just described a tool, not "human nature". That they are both tools, that is, that both serve the same function (i.e. they both serve as world outlooks), does not mean they are the same.

Again, Religion cannot be the absence of religion.

quote:

Without a context behind it, yea, it looks idiotic. But what you're doing now is merely illustrating the semantic fallacy in making an affirmation of something that's just been negated. If you're talking about a specific person, then a mediocre investigation can reveal a thinly veiled system of priorities and values - upon which this person either consciously or unconsciously arrived - that performs the same duties for that person as an organized, historical religion performs for a particular acolyte.

Which brings is to your horrendous definition of what is "Religion". Within your definition, you entertain the possibility of the impossible, thus negating it being a viable definition in the first place. This is the result of you claiming that because they both have similar uses, they must be the same, which is not true.

quote:[b]

A cold that settled in from a variety of temperature changes that could only have been achieved from a super villain's weather control machine keeps me from investigating your discussion with Digital_Savior about nature/nurture and the obesity argument.

However, I will state this: obesity is a medical condition - ultimately, an anomaly - arrived at ONLY when one lives in a circumstance that allows unrestricted indulgence, such as America, which you've previously cited.



Because this is limited to such countries as America, where consumer freedom and adaptation to a culture of responsibility alleviation allows such unabashed culinary onanism, and Mauritania and like countries, in which obesity is both a status symbol and a dominant sexual fetish - all contextual circumstances - we can conclude that not only is obesity NOT a natural human inclination (honoring a tongue-in-cheek recollection of YOUR very argument suggesting that, if the contrasting situation appears at all, the original principle is not 'natural'), but that it is also very much a conditioned result.[/i]

That's exactly what the genetic predisposition to obesity refutes! That it is NOT merely the result of "unrestricted indulgence", but that it is part of our genetic makeup.

The genetic predisposition to obesity proves that this is not simply a result of "unrestricted indulgence". That "unrestricted indulgence" adds to the problem of obesity? Of course. But that does not refute it being part of our genetic make up, which is what does not make it our "human inclination" to be fit.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-28-2005).]

What in the fuck am i hearing. Stand up to your fucking parents, dont listen to these fucks. Either that or get the new Nintendo DS to take with you there.

quote:Originally posted by ArchVile:

Response to shawn: Until i have a job and can support myself and get the fuck out of this bullshit household, I'm basically at their mercy. No that does not make me a pussy.

Reponse to insanity: I said philosophical. That doesn't mean you believe in god, because i don't believe in satan either. I believe in the PHILOSOPHIES of satanism, not just devil worship.

Additionally, in the christian religious sect of my parents, jesus/god/holy spirit form a trinity, so denial of one is denial of the others in their eyes. Stupid ass. I'm fairly sure most christian religions believe in the trinity, so how bout you think a bit before posting



The philosophies of Satanism, like drinking kittens' blood and murdering anyone who annoys you?

Rust:

Cast away all semantic pussyfooting cowardly politician 'rules of debate' nonsense, and answer one question.

What is the origin and purpose of religion?

quote:Originally posted by dex_tree:



If you are a Satanist, you DON'T believe in God. Heres some advice, research before you try to tell someone what their own religion is.



Go Go gadget Google! Church of Satan (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=church+of+satan)

Actually, Dex is right. satanists believe in god, they just hate him.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



Cast away all semantic pussyfooting cowardly politician 'rules of debate' nonsense, and answer one question.

What is the origin and purpose of religion?

I cannot give an answer to what is the purpose of religion because that can only be answered by each individual who holds that belief, and since I do not hold a religious belief, at least not in decent definition of the word, then I must base myself on what purpose it serves to others, which I cannot; the answers are infinite.

If you want examples of what I perceive are some of the purposes, then among those purposes, there is the explaining of the currently not explained, a tool to control, a tool to cope with emotions, etc.

As for the origin, that hinges completely on the definition of "religion" one uses. Arguably its origins lay with the origins of the first civilization.

Now please spare these accusations of "semantic pussyfooting" since it is you, not me, who has seen fit to completely devoid the meaning of "religion" via the most exhausting mental gymnastics I've seen, in order to satisfy the childish belief that 'because you believe in religion, everyone else must also'; even if it means the devaluation of the very word that makes it worth debating in the first place.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by papabear107:

Actually, Dex* is right. satanists believe in god, they just hate him.

*I meant the first guy who posted

You can edit your posts you know...

Rust:

I cannot give an answer to what is the purpose of religion because that can only be answered by each individual who holds that belief, and since I do not hold a religious belief, at least not in decent definition of the word, then I must base myself on what purpose it serves to others, which I cannot; the answers are infinite.

You have just verified exactly what I've been arguing for five pages.

If you want examples of what I perceive are some of the purposes, then among those purposes, there is the explaining of the currently not explained, a tool to control, a tool to cope with emotions, etc.

You're repeating the words you yelled at me for putting in your mouth...

Wouldn't these reasons be inherent in the mental processes of mankind, from genesis to modernity?

As for the origin, that hinges completely on the definition of "religion" one uses. Arguably its origins lay with the origins of the first civilization.

Of which there were several, since many different civilizations grew independent of one another. So, could I go so far as to assume that it lay within the origins of the first civilizations?

And thus, I could further argue - and prove - that its tradition has been carried out from the original civilizations to... well... today.

And thus, I could continue to postulate that, for the entire existence of mankind, the formation of the religion had a purpose.

Which, since it is in every culture, during every epoch, and for the greater majority of mankind, would make it - dare I say - inherent in the human thought process.

Which would make it a natural tendency.

Now please spare these accusations of "semantic pussyfooting" since it is you, not me, who has seen fit to completely devoid the meaning of "religion" via the most exhausting mental gymnastics I've seen, in order to satisfy the childish belief that 'because you believe in religion, everyone else must also'; even if it means the devaluation of the very word that makes it worth debating in the first place.

Who's putting words in whose mouth now?

I never said, "I believe in religion; therefore, everyone else must also." I have, however, said, "Since everyone DOES have a religion, no matter its disguise, there must be an existential and psychological reason."

What philisophicly is a satanist moral standpoint on life ingeneral?

Just curious

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



You have just verified exactly what I've been arguing for five pages.

I have? Care to clue me in?

quote:

You're repeating the words you yelled at me for putting in your mouth...

I said you were implying that's the ONLY reason. You can take a look, it's there, you should read it.

quote:

Wouldn't these reasons be inherent in the mental processes of mankind, from genesis to modernity?

No.

quote:

Of which there were several, since many different civilizations grew independent of one another. So, could I go so far as to assume that it lay within the origins of the first civilizations?

And thus, I could further argue - and prove - that its tradition has been carried out from the original civilizations to... well... today

And thus, I could continue to postulate that, for the entire existence of mankind, the formation of the religion had a purpose.

Great!



quote:

Which, since it is in every culture, during every epoch, and for the greater majority of mankind, would make it - dare I say - inherent in the human thought process.

Which would make it a natural tendency.

No. You're taking a huge leap which you deliberately fail to acknowledge. Again, it being done by humans does not make it "inherent in the human thought process", and you have yet to prove that it does.

Hell, the fact that it came from the first civilizations, that is, if we agree on that, means that there were many other people who DIDN'T have religion! Thus not inherent in human nature.

This all boils down to you having a piss-poor definition of religion, and being able to claim that every little thing a man does is religion, regardless of it contradicts the premise in the first place, because of it.



quote:

Who's putting words in whose mouth now?

I never said, "I believe in religion; therefore, everyone else must also." I have, however, said, "Since everyone DOES have a religion, no matter its disguise, there must be an existential and psychological reason."

I'm not claiming you said it. I'm saying what I think your little fetish consists of.

Rust:

Care to clue me in?

Well, if the purpose of religion is specific to the wielder of that belief, that would mean that ANYTHING can be described as such. ANYTHING.

Which is the point I've been making.

No. You're taking a huge leap which you deliberately fail to acknowledge. Again, it being done by humans does not make it "inherent in the human thought process", and you have yet to prove that it does.

It's impossible to prove a metaphysical concept like this in a manner you would see fit. Much like history and psychology, existential conditions have a distinct problem with not having much physical evidence to prove they were ever there in the first place.

All that we can do is point out certain sociological and psychological trends throughout human existence, and postulate on their functions and purpose.

Religion has existed, in some disguised form or another, for the entire history of mankind.

BECAUSE religion deals directly with an abstract principle, it's safe to say it wouldn't exist without man's willing it there... which means that he either wants it, or needs it.

Hell, the fact that it came from the first civilizations, that is, if we agree on that, means that there were many other people who DIDN'T have religion! Thus not inherent in human nature.

Interesting how you say "many," but remain impotent in naming one.

This all boils down to you having a piss-poor definition, and being able to claim that every little thing a man does is religion, regardless of it contradicts the premise in the first place, because of it.

Nah, it has more to do with your keeping the definition of religion exclusive to the naive confines of brick walls, crosses, and prayers.

I'm not claiming you said it. I'm saying what I think your little fetish consists of.

Either way, you're still wrong about it.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



Well, if the purpose of religion is specific to the wielder of that belief, that would mean that ANYTHING can be described as such. ANYTHING.

Which is the point I've been making.

The PURPOSE. A hammer has a million purposes. It can hit nails, remove nails, kill people, serve as a paper weight, etc. All of these are possible purposes of a hammer. That doesn't change what a hammer is.

I'm talking about PURPOSES of religion, not what religion is.

By your logic, anything that kills people is a hammer because hammers can be used to kill people...



quote:

It's impossible to prove a metaphysical concept like this in a manner you would see fit. Much like history and psychology, existential conditions have a distinct problem with not having much physical evidence to prove they were ever there in the first place.

All that we can do is point out certain sociological and psychological trends throughout human existence, and postulate on their functions and purpose.

Religion has existed, in some disguised form or another, for the entire history of mankind.

BECAUSE religion deals directly with an abstract principle, it's safe to say it wouldn't exist without man's willing it there... which means that he either wants it, or needs it.

Which is exactly why I take offense at you deliberately deluding the definition of religion to fit your argument, and therefore allow you to postulate that everything is religion and therefore everyone in the world has had it.



quote:

Interesting how you say "many," but remain impotent in naming one.

I didn't think I needed to, since this is common historical information. The first civilization was the Sumerian civilization. Are you arguing that men didn't exist before that? No? Then I'm referring to those men.

quote:

Nah, it has more to do with your keeping the definition of religion exclusive to the naive confines of brick walls, crosses, and prayers.

Who said that? Nobody. You wrongfully assume I define religion as anything resembling Christianity, which is not the case.

Apparently to you, not believing horseshit equals religion, or that a definition must not contradict itself in usage, is "naive"...



quote:

Either way, you're still wrong about it.

I disagree, I think it's a great explanation to your actions.

Rust:

The PURPOSE. A hammer has a million purposes. It can hit nails, remove nails, kill people, serve as a paper weight, etc. All of these are possible purposes of a hammer. That doesn't change what a hammer is.

I'm talking about PURPOSES of religion, not what religion is.

By your logic, anything that kills people is a hammer because hammers can be used to kill people...

Wrong.

If you don't have a hammer, a wrench can work just as well to get the job done.

THAT's my logic.

Which is exactly why I take offense at you deliberately deluding the definition of religion to fit your argument, and therefore allow you to postulate that everything is religion and therefore everyone in the world has had it.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Everything that serves the same existential function of giving man a purpose in his life is a religion. Everyone in the world has it.

I didn't think I need to, since this is common historical information. The first civilization was the Sumerian civilization. Are you arguing that men didn't exist before that? No? Then I'm referring to those men.

EDIT: "Interesting how you say 'many,' but remain impotent in naming one [of the alleged 'many other people who DIDN'T have religion'].

Who said that? Nobody. You wrongfully assume I define religion as anything resembling Christianity, which is not the case.

What religion other than Christianity has been used to control anybody in the past two thousand years?

Apparently to you, not believing horseshit equals religion, or that a definition must not contradict itself in usage, is "naive"...

Don't put words in my mouth.

What part of what I said ever contradicts the definition of religion? All I've done is say that the common organization of religion is not the only kind of religion man has created for himself. Understand that, or we're stuck in this loop forever.

I disagree, I think it's a great explanation to your actions.

Yea. And Oswald shot a magic bullet.

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 03-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Wrong.

If you don't have a hammer, a wrench can work just as well to get the job done.

THAT's my logic.



No, you're not following your frame of thought to completion.

They can have the same purpuse (i.e. to hit an object), that doesn't mean the wrench is a hammer.

You're saying that "lack of religion" is "religion" because they serve the same purpose, which if we use that same thought( but with hammers and wrenches), means that you're claiming "wrenches" are "hammers" because they can have the same purpose!

Thus why I said that by your logic, "anything that kills people" is a "hammer".

quote:

Don't put words in my mouth.

Everything that serves the same existential function of giving man a purpose in his life is a religion. Everyone in the world has it.

Which amounts to deluding the definition of religion to suit your purposes! Where have I put words in your mouth again? I don't see it.

quote:EDIT: "Interesting how you say 'many,' but remain impotent in naming one [of the alleged 'many other people who DIDN'T have religion'].

Why repeate yourself? The answer is the same.

Like I said, if we take the religion as being created with the FIRST CIVILIZATIONS, then that means that anyone else alive BEFORE THAT didn't have religion. Right? Since religion wasn't created till then. Thus my question, are you claiming that no human existed before the Summerian Civilization (i.e. the FIRST civilization)? No? Then those who lived before then, DIDN'T HAVE RELIGION!

quote:

What religion other than Christianity has been used to control anybody in the past two thousand years?

Once again you assume that the only purpose I see in a religion is to control. But I'll bite and give you Islam as an example.

Oh, and what does this have to do with the fact that I do not consider practices similar to Christianity as what falls under "religion"? Nothing.

quote:Don't put words in my mouth.

What part of what I said ever contradicts the definition of religion? All I've done is say that the common organization of religion is not the only kind of religion man has created for himself. Understand that, or we're stuck in this loop forever.

The part where you said that the lack of religion is a religion! That's logically impossible.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-01-2005).]

Rust:

No, you're not following your frame of thought to completion.

They can have the same purpuse (i.e. to hit an object), that doesn't mean the wrench is a hammer.

You're saying that "lack of religion" is "religion" because they serve the same purpose, which if we use that same thought( but with hammers and wrenches), means that you're claiming "wrenches" are "hammers" because they can have the same purpose!

Thus why I said that by your logic, "anything that kills people" is a "hammer".

Wrong again.

Because I like how smoothly analogies make sense for my argument, and you have to perform grammatical magic tricks to make it appear as though the analogy in question is in your favor, let's 'follow the frame of thought to completion,' and re-analyze your concluding analogy.

If you have a specific requirement - for the analogy's purposes, to kill people - and an ideal weapon is not within reach - a gun, for example - you must settle with the only available alternative - namely, a hammer.

See the difference between what my logic actually says and how you twist it to make me appear wrong in the analogy?

Which amounts to deluding the definition of religion to suit your purposes!

How does that defy the ultimate meaning of religion?

Like I said, if we take the religion as being created with the FIRST CIVILIZATIONS, then that means that anyone else alive BEFORE THAT didn't have religion. Right? Since religion wasn't created till then. Thus my question, are you claiming that no human existed before the Summerian Civilization (i.e. the FIRST civilization)? No? Then those who lived before then, DIDN'T HAVE RELIGION!

So the Cro-Magnons, painting the spirits of the hunt on the walls of religiously reserved caves, eluded your historical recollection?

Once again you assume that the only purpose I see in a religion is to control. But I'll bite and give you Islam as an example.

Oh, and what does this have to do with the fact that I do not consider practices similar to Christianity as what falls under "religion"? Nothing.

1. When has a Muslim acted involuntarily for the sake of his religion?

2. Making a point, but ultimately amounting to nitpicking, so I'll move on.

The part where you said that the lack of religion is a religion! That's logically impossible.

Hardly.

Read the first sermon in Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra. That which the child would seek to create becomes his new religion, even if he cast off the principle of religion as a lion.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



Wrong again.

Because I like how smoothly analogies make sense for my argument, and you have to perform grammatical magic tricks to make it appear as though the analogy in question is in your favor, let's 'follow the frame of thought to completion,' and re-analyze your concluding analogy.

If you have a specific requirement - for the analogy's purposes, to kill people - and an ideal weapon is not within reach - a gun, for example - you must settle with the only available alternative - namely, a hammer.

See the difference between what my logic actually says and how you twist it to make me appear wrong in the analogy?



Again, you said that lack of religion was religion because it had the same purpose. Hence, by your own logic, a gun is a hammer because (if I use them to kill people) they both have the same purpose. As you can see, I'm not twisting anything; this is further supported by the fact that you didn't even point out what I supposedly twisted!

It's highly entertaining to see you phrase this in the form of a nice story, as if this somehow alleviated the inherent logical inconsistencies in your "logic". You deliberately stop short of presenting the full story, that is, that you claim that because two things have the same purpose, they must be the same (which you did when you claimed that lack of religion is religion).



quote:

How does that defy the ultimate meaning of religion?

What else do you think arbitrarily deciding what religion is to suit one's own argument, regardless of devaluing its meaning in the process, is?

quote:

So the Cro-Magnons, painting the spirits of the hunt on the walls of religiously reserved caves, eluded your historical recollection?

No, no, no. I've been saying that all of this is true if we take religion as having started with the first civilizations.

By virtue of saying this, we are also saying that what Cro-Magnon man had in its caves does not amount to religion. That doesn't mean they didn't have anything, it means it doesn't amount to religion. Like I've said, that is if we take the start of religion with the first civilization.

quote:

1. When has a Muslim acted involuntarily for the sake of his religion?

Brainwashed people act "voluntarily", as it seems to them. That doesn't make the control religion has over them any less evident.

quote:

Hardly.

Read the first sermon in Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra. That which the child would seek to create becomes his new religion, even if he cast off the principle of religion as a lion.

As if Nietzsche were any authority on what is logical and what is not. Lack of religion by definition cannot be religion, to claim so is logically invalid; and you have yet to argue otherwise, other than present Nietzsche as if he somehow refuted this in a blurb that mainly dealt with the stages of human development, not logic.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-02-2005).]

Rust:

I woke up late today, I'm cranky, and your unfoundedly pompous attitude is especially obnoxious under these circumstances. That being said, I'm going to avoid the quote-and-reply method and just focus on direct points.

On the Definition of Religion

The fundamental basis of religion is the recognition of the purpose of man. No matter how many gods, buildings, commandments, or devotions it has, if one dedicates their life to a specific purpose, it is because his perspective on his purpose requires him to do so. It is therefore his or her religion.

On the Lack of Religion as a Religion

When you speak of a "lack of religion," you are referring specifically to an organized form of religion, with hierarchical leadership, a geographical worship grounds, a specific state of mind in which to commune with higher forces, et cetera. This is not the only kind of religion there is in the world.

A scientist holds Science as his religion because everything that he does is for its betterment. A patriot holds Country as his religion because everything that he does is for its betterment.

On the Power of Religion on the Human Mind (The Muslim Question)

What you say of Islam is complete modern Fall-Of-The-Towers conditioned and I-Hate-Usama-Bin-Laden differentiated horseshit. And you speak to me of brainwashing.

Your inability to calculate and measure the origin of a religious man's resolve does little to invalidate the honesty and validity of that devotion, no matter how mindless and brainwashed it may appear to a man who understands nothing without formulae and the approval of scientific journals.

On Zarathustra's Sermon of the Three Metamorphoses

It wasn't human development he was speaking of, but the course of man through the application of values - the determining factor of logic. To overlook this obvious fact is to prove you know little of him.

On my Sublime and Infuriating Impatience

I will ask you one last time to validate your crucial point - to prove to me that what men have replaced religion with should not count as a religion - or else the conversation concludes now. My tolerance for your linguistic mudplay has ended.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



I woke up late today, I'm cranky, and your unfoundedly pompous attitude is especially obnoxious under these circumstances. That being said, I'm going to avoid the quote-and-reply method and just focus on direct points.



How wonderful. Would you like to hear my life story?

Sorry to be an ass, what else do you expect me to do when all I get is this attack?

quote:

On the Definition of Religion

The fundamental basis of religion is the recognition of the purpose of man. No matter how many gods, buildings, commandments, or devotions it has, if one dedicates their life to a specific purpose, it is because his perspective on his purpose requires him to do so. It is therefore his or her religion.



Then we disagree. To me it is unreasonable to label a tool (religion) as the purpose. In doing so, you label the vast of purposes that religion can have, and therefore the numerous other things that can share those purposes (e.g. lack of religion), as religion, which is logically impossible.

quote:

On the Lack of Religion as a Religion

When you speak of a "lack of religion," you are referring specifically to an organized form of religion, with hierarchical leadership, a geographical worship grounds, a specific state of mind in which to commune with higher forces, et cetera. This is not the only kind of religion there is in the world.

When I'm speaking of a "lack of religion" I'm speaking of the very absence of those things, since if those things were present, there wouldn't be a lack of religion in the first place!

quote:

A scientist holds Science as his religion because everything that he does is for its betterment. A patriot holds Country as his religion because everything that he does is for its betterment.

Which is the fundamental disagreement in our arguments. You're claiming since Science has the same purpose has religion, then it is his "Religion", which is completely illogical.

quote:

On the Power of Religion on the Human Mind (The Muslim Question)

What you say of Islam is complete modern Fall-Of-The-Towers conditioned and I-Hate-Usama-Bin-Laden differentiated horseshit. And you speak to me of brainwashing.

Are you arguing that suicide bombers are not controlled into committing suicide for their religion, and therefore that they do not serve as an excellent example of religious control?

quote:

Your inability to calculate and measure the origin of a religious man's resolve does little to invalidate the honesty and validity of that devotion, no matter how mindless and brainwashed it may appear to a man who understands nothing without formulae and the approval of scientific journals.

You asked me for an example of how religion is used to control, and I gave you one. Resolve has nothing to do with it, since it is not mutually exclusive to brainwashing.

quote:

It wasn't human development he was speaking of, but the course of man through the application of values - the determining factor of logic. To overlook this obvious fact is to prove you know little of him.

1. "The course of man" IS its development!

2. To imply that Nietzsche was somehow arguing the logic in A being the equal of B since they hold the same purpose, now that shows very little knowledge of Nietzsche. It is not me, but you, who are using Nietzsche in an argument about logic... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

On my Sublime and Infuriating Impatience

I will ask you one last time to validate your crucial point - to prove to me that what men have replaced religion with should not count as a religion - or else the conversation concludes now. My tolerance for your linguistic mudplay has ended.

I already have, it is only your stubborn attitude that does not allow you to see the fundamental flaw in your argument. Moreover, it is YOU who have to validate something here, not I.

Lack of religion cannot be religion, since if it were, then there wasn't a "lack" of it in the first place. You have yet to even offer a reply to this, to even re-conciliate this with logic; all you have managed to do is evade it.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-03-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That isn't very nice. You shouldn't laugh at the fact that he was made fun of. It was an honest mistake. Are you without mistakes?

Heck, no, I'm not ! And I'll be the first to admit it. *laughs*

What WAS funny was that said individual was trying to be intelligent and indignant at the same time, all while misspelling the word offering the key focus to his point.

It was funny. I don't think him to be any less intelligent, or anything. I didn't say, "You're an idiot."

I don't think there was anything "not nice" about it.

I laughed. (not because he had been made fun of, either. You can see what I selected to repeat from his post. It didn't include any sort of ridicule)

I can't believe you are being such a softy about this guy, yet you have enough anger and animosity for ME to call me a whore.

Is laughing against the rules on Totse now, too ?

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Digital, for the last several days I appeared to be IP banned from totse. This is my first post that I've been able to make. There's definately something weird going on.



No kidding ? If Totse had any real money, I'd send in my resume.

This is simply unacceptable !

*LOL*

Glad you're back in...

Rust:

1. Religion is not the ultimate purpose; religion is a tool, used to orient man alongside principles and disciplines that make him, according to his perception of himself in the world, the best type of man he is equipped to be. A scientist whose every thought and action is for the sake of Science is completely identical in mentality, logical conclusions, and behavior to a religious acolyte whose every thought and action is for the sake of God. Prove otherwise.

2. Your term 'lack of religion,' according to the view which I put forth and defend, is an illogical vacuum in and of itself. A person who claims to not have a religion still has a systematic way to perceive things, some kind of an ethical absolute, and a goal to his life.

3. Yes, I would argue that suicide bombers are not controlled into committing suicide for their religion, and they certainly do not serve as an excellent example of religious control. You are without authority to claim otherwise.

4. In "The Three Metamorphoses," a man becomes a camel, willing to uphold any virtues placed on him. THAT - obedience and burden-claiming - becomes his religion; it re-identifies his place in the world.

From there, the camel becomes a lion, and casts away all the virtues previously placed on him because he did not create him. THAT - defiance and authority-rejection - becomes his religion; it re-identifies his place in the world.

Finally, the lion becomes a child, who now creates a new system of values - a new religion - by which to judge himself.

5. Point 2 has already addressed this, but because it is imperative to the fundamental points of our argument, I shall reiterate and elaborate.

Religion is what gives a man a purpose in his life. It is the reason he gets up in the morning, it is how he sees the world as he progresses in it, it is that to which he consecrates every word he says, every bite of food he eats, every breath he draws, and every beat of his heart.

The conventional uniforms of what religion has been cannot cloud our recognition of it elsewhere, in a separate backdrop.

Not a single man on this earth lives without at least one inflexible law beyond himself by which he lives, even if law is "Do what thou wilt."

The moment a man loses this perspective is the moment he destroys himself - not in a mental or existential way, but in a physical way: he commits suicide.

Even you have some law, some principle by which you live that requires you to do so; otherwise, you would be dead.

What more logic do you need than the purpose behind your defiance of death to prove there will always be some principle or law greater than yourself by which you live?

That is your religion, despite your kicking and screaming.

This is why religion is a natural tendency - on an abstract plane, we as humans require purpose to survive.

I will not recognize any responses to the previous points, because all my necessary clarifications have been made, and my side issues resolved. This is the final and crucial point - address it and it alone. Do not accuse me of stubborn attitudes or wield holier-than-thou mentalities. Do not complain about evasion unless the direct point - which you must devote yourself to making as clear and unambiguous as linguistically possible - is avoided by myself. I will promise to do the same.

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 03-03-2005).]

quote:TYRANT – “What is the origin and purpose of religion?"

quote:RUST – “I cannot give an answer to what is the purpose of religion because that can only be answered by each individual who holds that belief, and since I do not hold a religious belief, at least not in decent definition of the word, then I must base myself on what purpose it serves to others, which I cannot; the answers are infinite.”

If you don’t hold the beliefs of Christianity, you shouldn’t be “against” it, by your own reasoning.

quote:RUST – “This all boils down to you having a piss-poor definition of religion, and being able to claim that every little thing a man does is religion, regardless of it contradicts the premise in the first place, because of it.”

I think I need to modify that statement for you…based on my “evidence”, which consists of observation, and deductive reasoning: “This all boils down to Rust having a piss-poor understanding of religion…”

You fail to see your (personal) weakness in your arguments, which is that you don’t understand religion, and even in spite of that, you think you remain justified in presenting vehement attacks against them.

Your arguments inevitably lead your opponents into a labyrinth of unrelated topics about semantics, science, or materialism.

You truly do hijack every topic, by averting them to the three main topics I just gave.

It seems that you CAN’T argue religion, just by itself.

So, why are you hanging out here in MGCBTSOOYG ?

Also, you have gone out of your way to try and prove that through Tyrant’s obvious disagreement with you on this subject, he is somehow a moron.

Saying things like, “You can take a look, it's there, you should read it.” can be translated as “you didn’t read it, and this bears great relevance to the level of your intelligence, which I feel is inferior to my own.”

By saying, “It's highly entertaining to see you phrase this in the form of a nice story, as if this somehow alleviated the inherent logical inconsistencies in your "logic". you are really saying, “You’re an idiot.”

quote:RUST – “You're saying that "lack of religion" is "religion" because they serve the same purpose, which if we use that same thought( but with hammers and wrenches), means that you're claiming "wrenches" are "hammers" because they can have the same purpose!”

I have many more examples I could use, just in this one thread, but I think my point has been made.

And you’ve completely changed gears on this thread. You WERE talking about whether or not obesity is genetic, to which you had no decent defense of, and now you have managed to manipulate the conversation to be about whether or not a “lack” of religion IS religion.

I take that to mean that (and I am going to simplify it here) essentially, “you got nuthin’”.

To support that theory, you say,” Moreover, it is YOU who have to validate something here, not I.”

How many times have you fallen back on that crutch ? You NEVER HAVE TO VALIDATE, REFUTE, OR PROVE anything, according to yourself !

Why is that, Rust ? Because you just want to argue. You don’t actually want to provide the fruits of your research so that we can understand your view of the world.

You are satisfied with simply arguing (purpose be damned)…and demanding that everyone else support their opinions with data. (yes, you actually posted some things about thermodynamics, but they were all from Talk Origins, and provided no real scientific evidence of anything you were trying to say. It was also a rare move on your part.)

In conclusion, I have to say that not only is Tyrant among the most intelligent on this thread, but he could not be considered (in any way, shape, or form) a moron, an idiot, or likewise, by description alone (we’ll leave out perception).

You use this kind of attack to discredit your opponent, but it’s just not working, Rust. It just makes you seem immature.

I think you should lay off…he has been nothing but patient, continuing to explain the exact same concepts to you over and over again, which seems to be your favorite thing to try and do with everyone you don’t agree with.

Just debate…not using just your own opinion (which was formulated from SOME sort of education), but by providing something to support it (psychology, science, etc.) as well.

You couldn’t even admit that you were “wrong” about your unfounded claim that there have been societies that didn’t practice a religion of some sort. You couldn’t name ONE. So, instead of conceding, you changed topics ever so slightly, to divert the attention off of your lost argument point.

Bottom line ? Tyrant is a smart mofo, and you can’t take that away from him by trying to pin the “stupid” label on him every chance you get.

At least that’s how I see it…I could be way off the mark (and I am sure you will spend the next 5 pages telling me why), but I am willing to bet that a few people who have been following this thread will agree with my perception.

This is not a “Bash Rust” post. This is an, “I implore you to try and stick to the facts, and leave personal opinions (by themselves) out of your posts.” plea.

Anyway…there’s my 2 cents. Wanted, or not. Important, or not.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Heck, no, I'm not ! And I'll be the first to admit it. *laughs*

What WAS funny was that said individual was trying to be intelligent and indignant at the same time, all while misspelling the word offering the key focus to his point.

It was funny. I don't think him to be any less intelligent, or anything. I didn't say, "You're an idiot."

I don't think there was anything "not nice" about it.

I laughed. (not because he had been made fun of, either. You can see what I selected to repeat from his post. It didn't include any sort of ridicule)

I can't believe you are being such a softy about this guy, yet you have enough anger and animosity for ME to call me a whore.

Is laughing against the rules on Totse now, too ?



You quoted Eil calling him a dumbass and laughing, and you laughed. I think it's safe to say that you laughed at him being making fun of?

I don't give a shit about that guy. I'm just pointing out the hypocrasy of a Christian finding it humrous that someone is being laughed at / being called a dumbass.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Rust:

1. Religion is not the ultimate purpose; religion is a tool, used to orient man alongside principles and disciplines that make him, according to his perception of himself in the world, the best type of man he is equipped to be. A scientist whose every thought and action is for the sake of Science is completely identical in mentality, logical conclusions, and behavior to a religious acolyte whose every thought and action is for the sake of God. Prove otherwise.

So his behaviors are similar? Great. It's the same thing as saying they have similar purposes. I agree with that.

quote:

2. Your term 'lack of religion,' according to the view which I put forth and defend, is an illogical vacuum in and of itself. A person who claims to not have a religion still has a systematic way to perceive things, some kind of an ethical absolute, and a goal to his life.

Great! So? He has values and goals which do not amount to religion, or better said, cannot.

quote:3. Yes, I would argue that suicide bombers are not controlled into committing suicide for their religion, and they certainly do not serve as an excellent example of religious control. You are without authority to claim otherwise.

They commit suicide because their religion tells them they should. Not only does it tell them they should, it tells them that they will be treated as heroes in the afterlife.

I think its clear they are being controlled. The only one not seeing this is you, I'd venture to guess.



quote:

4. In "The Three Metamorphoses," a man becomes a camel, willing to uphold any virtues placed on him. THAT - obedience and burden-claiming - becomes his religion; it re-identifies his place in the world.

From there, the camel becomes a lion, and casts away all the virtues previously placed on him because he did not create him. THAT - defiance and authority-rejection - becomes his religion; it re-identifies his place in the world.

Finally, the lion becomes a child, who now creates a new system of values - a new religion - by which to judge himself.



Again, you're using Nietzsche to somehow prove that lack of religion can be religion, as if Nietzsche had any authority on logic. He does not. And you using it to that effect, speak volumes of your lack of logical understanding, or of understanding Nietzsche himself.

quote:

Not a single man on this earth lives without at least one inflexible law beyond himself by which he lives, even if law is "Do what thou wilt."

I'm willing do give you that. I do not deny this. What I deny is what you claim below:



quote:

That is your religion, despite your kicking and screaming.

This is why religion is a natural tendency - on an abstract plane, we as humans require purpose to survive.



You've just repeated yourself to no end. You, again, have yet to reconcile how lack of religion can be a religion, until you do so, you're merely stating something totally illogical.

You've merely stated that they have similar purposes, much like a hammer and a wrench can have similar purposes. What you fail to do is show how they are the same, how a hammer and a wrench are the same since they have similar purposes.



quote:

I will not recognize any responses to the previous points, because all my necessary clarifications have been made, and my side issues resolved. This is the final and crucial point - address it and it alone. Do not accuse me of stubborn attitudes or wield holier-than-thou mentalities. Do not complain about evasion unless the direct point - which you must devote yourself to making as clear and unambiguous as linguistically possible - is avoided by myself. I will promise to do the same.

May I ask why even bother replying with the other points?

Since you've now delineated what you want, I'll do the same:

Please include quotes in your reply, and quote every single point I make. This "list form" easily allows you to evade an argument, whether it be on purpose, or simply a mistake.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-03-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If you don’t hold the beliefs of Christianity, you shouldn’t be “against” it, by your own reasoning.

Huh? What does me not holding a certain belief have to do with me opposing other people having that belief? Nothing.

I said I cannot speak of a purpose because I don't have religion, therefore don't personally know of a purpose. How does that mean I can't argue against it? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



quote: think I need to modify that statement for you…based on my “evidence”, which consists of observation, and deductive reasoning: “This all boils down to Rust having a piss-poor understanding of religion…”

Great. Answer me this, do you think a piece of dog shit is religion?

quote:You fail to see your (personal) weakness in your arguments, which is that you don’t understand religion, and even in spite of that, you think you remain justified in presenting vehement attacks against them.

Your arguments inevitably lead your opponents into a labyrinth of unrelated topics about semantics, science, or materialism.

Pray tell, how don't I understand religion? I have a very clear definition of what religion is, me and Tyrant simply disagree on that definition. How the hell does that amount to me "not understanding religion"?



quote:It seems that you CAN’T argue religion, just by itself.

So, why are you hanging out here in MGCBTSOOYG ?

We ARE arguing religion! Please, if you have no clue what is going on, then do not post.

quote:Saying things like, “You can take a look, it's there, you should read it.” can be translated as “you didn’t read it, and this bears great relevance to the level of your intelligence, which I feel is inferior to my own.”

That wasn't him "no agreeing with me", that was him claiming I believed something, which I did not. That I made it in a pompous attitude? Yes. Why? Because I don't like people claiming something, when I've made it clear of the opposite; I was frustrated, and so I retorted with an attitude.



quote:By saying, “It's highly entertaining to see you phrase this in the form of a nice story, as if this somehow alleviated the inherent logical inconsistencies in your "logic". you are really saying, “You’re an idiot.”

Yes. So? He's done the same.

This is simply the result of both of us being a little frustrated with having to repeat our arguments, and therefore offer these little "jabs".

If it really bothers Tyrant, I think he's completely capable of telling me so. He doesn't need you to do it for him.

quote:And you’ve completely changed gears on this thread. You WERE talking about whether or not obesity is genetic, to which you had no decent defense of, and now you have managed to manipulate the conversation to be about whether or not a “lack” of religion IS religion.

No decent defense? Obesity IS genetic... your own article argued that!

"Studies are showing that the genes are not destiny but are still a significant factor in developing obesity"

- From your own article.

quote:To support that theory, you say,” Moreover, it is YOU who have to validate something here, not I.”

You're laughable. You took that completely out of context, since I wasn't even talking about obesity when I said that... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:How many times have you fallen back on that crutch ? You NEVER HAVE TO VALIDATE, REFUTE, OR PROVE anything, according to yourself !

Why is that, Rust ? Because you just want to argue. You don’t actually want to provide the fruits of your research so that we can understand your view of the world.

Tell me something I have to "back up" and I will. Every time I ask you to show me this, you don't. Now please, either show me this, or admit that you cannot.

The very example you cite of me not "backing something up", I easily refuted because I your own article argued what I was arguing. I don't need to "back it up" since your article did it for me.

quote:You use this kind of attack to discredit your opponent, but it’s just not working, Rust. It just makes you seem immature.

I've already explained this. Tyrant has done the same. This happens when a discussion becomes heated.

I apologize to Tyrant if he's feelings got hurt. Now please, don't meddle here.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-03-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

But Satanism is a joke from ground zero. Why should his parents take it seriously?

And Christianity is... ?

Rust:

No one lacks a religion.

When a man creates a law by which to judge his actions, that law becomes his religion.

Address this concern.

I will not recognize any responses to the previous points, because all my necessary clarifications have been made, and my side issues resolved. This is the final and crucial point - address it and it alone. Do not accuse me of stubborn attitudes or wield holier-than-thou mentalities. Do not complain about evasion unless the direct point - which you must devote yourself to making as clear and unambiguous as linguistically possible - is avoided by myself. I will promise to do the same.

Run Screaming:

And Christianity is... ?

A legitimate religion rooted in historical traditions and metaphysical logic.

Digital_Savior:

Thank you for the kind words, and for speaking in my defense.

I'm on AIM all the time now. Where are you?

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



No one lacks a religion.

And how did you reach this conclusion? None other than your arbitrary decison.

In fact, that's circular logic. 'Nobody lacks religion and becuase nobody lacks religion, religion is inherent, and therefore nobody lacks it'... Right? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

When a man creates a law by which to judge his actions, that law becomes his religion.

No. That makes it so that they have similar purposes; that does not make them equal. Like I've asked you a thousand times, does a wrench equal a hammer becuase they can have the same purpose?

quote:

Address this concern.

No. I refuse to answer this until YOU address what I've wanted you to address since the beginning of the argument, and you've yet to do so.

This is simply a way for you to shift the argument and therefore to evade the crucial question.





[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-03-2005).]

Rust:

1. Nobody lacks a religion because they replace it with something else. Science is your religion because you accept it unconditionally, will not accept any postulate unless it has Science's direct permission to be true, and everything you do is subject to the judgment of Science itself.

The attitude is fundamentally the same.

2. Yes, a wrench is a hammer because a wrench could potentially do what a hammer may not be able to do in a given circumstance.

3. Lack of religion is religion not because of any grammatical logic to the sentence reduced of meaning, but because there is no such thing as a lack of religion.

An IM conversation with you might be fun. What's your screen name?

quote:2. Yes, a wrench is a hammer because a wrench could potentially do what a hammer may not be able to do in a given circumstance.

I'll only reply to this because the rest become redundant, as this reply covers them as well.

By saying this, then everything is everything.

My shoe is a hammer because I can use it to hit nails with. These cigarettes? Hammers as well, as I can burn a hammer an inhale the smoke. My fingers? Hammers. Feet? Hammers. Head? Hammer. Elbows? Obviously hammers.

As you can see, then only thing you've succeeded is in removing the meaning of any an all things!

Moreover, the implication that they must be religion is tantamount to the "One drop rule" where one must be "black" if he has even one drop of "black" blood in his heritage, ignoring that he could very well be considered "white" because he has "white" blood as well!

So even if we ignore the complete destruction of language your logic brings, I could still then argue religion is lack of religion. Here:



You see Tyrant. Lack of religion is inherent in man. We've seen lack of religion since the beginning of times, and as such lack of religion is human nature. Religion is merely lack of religion because religion is simply a world outlook as, is lack of religion. The moment religion is created, it becomes lack of religion, therefore, there is no such thing as religion, only lack of religion. As you can see, everyone lacks religion.

What about hammers? Well those are undoubtedly wrenches!

quote:An IM conversation with you might be fun. What's your screen name?

The only thing I have is messenger and I don't use it. I'd rather have this conversation here. Barring that, then e-mail.





[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-03-2005).]

Rust:

They may not make very effective hammers, but yes, your shoes, cigarettes, fingers, feet, head, and elbows can certainly be hammers if the circumstance permits.

Likewise, Science and Patriotism do not always provide existential meaning and purpose as effectively as a typical religion does, but it functions as a religion nonetheless.

Your race argument, by the way, is shitty and irrelevant.

And your italicized paragraph is incoherent garbage that traded any logical authority for the opportunity to ridicule me - both of which have failed.

Let's return to a previous argument I made.

Sexual behavior can, by analysis of the meanings of the respective words, be defined as behavior relating to sex. Notwithstanding shitty modern liberalist interpretations of the word, sex is typically defined as an interaction between members of opposite genders for the ultimate purpose of copulation.

A fetishist or a homosexual replaces the typical script of sexual behavior - the one with copulation as the biological result - with a remodified one that suits their particular biological reactions.

Would you say that this is not sexual behavior, because the typical script of sex has been redefined?

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Rust:

They may not make very effective hammers, but yes, your shoes, cigarettes, fingers, feet, head, and elbows can certainly be hammers if the circumstance permits.



There is no "when the situation permits" because you're not affording that possibility to religion or lack of it.

They either are equal or they are not.

quote:

Likewise, Science and Patriotism do not always provide existential meaning and purpose as effectively as a typical religion does, but it functions as a religion nonetheless.



And again, sharing similar function does not mean they are the same.

quote:

Your race argument, by the way, is shitty and irrelevant.

And your italicized paragraph is incoherent garbage that traded any logical authority for the opportunity to ridicule me - both of which have failed.

How so? It clearly points out how you deliberately and arbitrarily decide that it is lack of religion that is religion and not the other way around. Which would explain why you evaded it and decide not to refute it. I don't think it would be so hard considering you think it's "shitty".

quote:

Sexual behavior can, by analysis of the meanings of the respective words, be defined as behavior relating to sex. Notwithstanding shitty modern liberalist interpretations of the word, sex is typically defined as an interaction between members of opposite genders for the ultimate purpose of copulation.

A fetishist or a homosexual replaces the typical script of sexual behavior - the one with copulation as the biological result - with a remodified one that suits their particular biological reactions.

Would you say that this is not sexual behavior, because the typical script of sex has been redefined?

I already addressed this before. Fetishism is already a sexual behavior and does nothing to prove your point. Fetishm isn't the lack of sexual behavior, so you're in essence bringing a truism as if somehow vindicated your argument. It does not.

Rust:

1. There is no "when the situation permits" because you're not affording that possibility to religion or lack of it.

Yes I am.

A replacement for a conventional religion is most definitely no legitimate substitute, since things like Science and contemporary sense of Patriotism don't have a worldview that is completely integral or answers his fundamental existential questions.

Nevertheless, they are placed in the hole religion was created in order to complete. I never said they were perfect religions; merely replacements.

2. Essentially, yes it does.

3. I have never said lack of religion is religion because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LACK OF A RELIGION.

Are you asking about atheism?

Atheism functions as a religion because it defines man as being without the help of any gods, and attributes divine forces to which men have previously dedicated their lives to the imagination of those very men. This is the beginnings of nihilism - the worldview that says that life has no meaning.

4. I never said that fetishism is the lack of sexual behavior; its the misapplication of it.

And, to further draw the analogy, would you claim that there is such a thing as a lack of sexual behavior in the natural course of life?

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 03-03-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



Yes I am.

A replacement for a conventional religion is most definitely no legitimate substitute, since things like Science and contemporary sense of Patriotism don't have a worldview that is completely integral or answers his fundamental existential questions.

Nevertheless, they are placed in the hole religion was created in order to complete. I never said they were perfect religions; merely replacements.

The point is, they are religions regardless of situation, and therefore a wrench must be a hammer regardless of situation.

quote:

2. Essentially, yes it does.

It means they have similar purposes, that does not mean they are the same because obviously a wrench is not a hammer. That it can serve the same purpose? Yes. So what?

quote:I have never said lack of religion is religion because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LACK OF A RELIGION.

Which you arrived with circular logic. Sorry, but circular arguments aren't arguments at all.

quote:theism functions as a religion because it defines man as being without the help of any gods, and attributes divine forces to which men have previously dedicated their lives to the imagination of those very men. This is the beginnings of nihilism - the worldview that says that life has no meaning.

Keywords, "functions as", as in, "has similar purposes". That, again, does not mean they are the same.

quote: I never said that fetishism is the lack of sexual behavior; its the misapplication of it.

I never said you said it was. I'm saying that because it ISN'T a lack of sexual behavior, it doesn't serve to support your argument.

You're bringing a statement that is already true (i.e. that Fetishism is a sexual behavior) and then using that fact as if it supported you somehow, when it does not.

---

See why I want you to quote what I've said? You evaded one of my points. Here:



How so? It clearly points out how you deliberately and arbitrarily decide that it is lack of religion that is religion and not the other way around. Which would explain why you evaded it and decide not to refute it. I don't think it would be so hard considering you think it's "shitty".

quote:Huh? What does me not holding a certain belief have to do with me opposing other people having that belief? Nothing.

By carefully avoiding attack on Christianity itself, you allow yourself to remain virtually untouchable.

However, you attack Christians on a personal level (which means that you regard them on the same level, by the way), which means you are essentially attacking Christianity.

You are trying to be clever and manipulate this into how you don't oppose people believing differently than you do, except all of your posts would indicate otherwise.

You not holding a belief seems to warrant your steadfast opposition of it. So, the two ARE IN FACT related.

But that is WAY off topic...just wanted to expound on why I said certain things the way I did in my last post.

quote:I said I cannot speak of a purpose because I don't have religion, therefore don't personally know of a purpose. How does that mean I can't argue against it?

It doesn't mean that you can't argue against it.

Againn, you are twisting the intention of the statement I made.

The fact that you don't personally know of a purpose (which seems to be synonymous with religion here) means that you shouldn't rule out the possibility of purpose, in metaphysical form.

Personally, you have not experienced God (you just said it yourself..I am plugging in the word "God" in place of "purpose"), and millions of others haven't either. But millions have. To say that God can only believed once He is observable through traditional science based on these facts is fallacy.

If observation was the method to which all things could be proven fact, then how do you explain your denial of the existence of God, in light of the fact that MILLIONS of other people have ?

quote:Great. Answer me this, do you think a piece of dog shit is religion?

To a starving _____________________ (enter wild animal of choice here), it is.

Perception is everything...and since we all perceive religion differently, it cannot be said that any ONE way of thinking about any given religion is correct.

Hypothetically, if the Bible were the true word of God, it alone would serve as the constant in the religion of Christianity, not men's perception of it.

You have never really tried to debate religion, in any form, that I have seen.

You perpetually turn the threads on this forum into humanity debates.

Could you TRY to debate a specific religion, and not the entire institution of it ?

I am asking honestly, with no insult, reprieve, or hidden agenda implied.

quote:Pray tell, how don't I understand religion? I have a very clear definition of what religion is, me and Tyrant simply disagree on that definition. How the hell does that amount to me "not understanding religion"?

If someone is ignorant about a certain subject, they tend to stay away from it, unless they are skilled pathological liars.

You tend to stay away from debates about religions (each specifically). This tells me that you don't really know a whole lot about it, other than what you learned in your hunmanities class (or equivalent) in high school.

That's how I cam to that conclusion.

I am not saying this in respect to the conversation you are having with Tyrant alone. It is the conglomeration of your debates that bring me to this conclusion.

It wasn't meant to be offensive...I understand religion differently than you do, since I am deeply involved in one.

You have admitted that you see no purpose, so how can you argue against it ?

Your lack of understanding it gives you the right to deny it exists ?

quote:We ARE arguing religion! Please, if you have no clue what is going on, then do not post.

Semantics.

You ARE arguing religion, but nothing specific...which would require an accurate understanding of any given religion.

If you haven't been a part of any organized religion, then how can you understand it ? By reading about it ?

Can you say the same of driving a car ? We can all say that we understood the concept and mechanism of operating a motor vehicle before we actually performed the act, but now that we drive, don't we have a better understanding of it ?

I could not tell my parents how to drive before I had actually done it, because all I knew was theory, and not actual application.

quote:That wasn't him "no agreeing with me", that was him claiming I believed something, which I did not. That I made it in a pompous attitude? Yes. Why? Because I don't like people claiming something, when I've made it clear of the opposite; I was frustrated, and so I retorted with an attitude.

Your explanation does little to affect the intention of your statements.

You have always (since I have known you) been focused on belittling your opponents, as though proving that someone is less intelligent than you are makes it so, and that this somehow justifies your logical position, and therefore makes you right.

You didn't need to explain. We are all pretty much the same.

When I do what you have done to Tyrant, I do it for the same reasons you do.

I understand it, and don't hold it against you.

What I do hold against you is your lack of repentance, and inability to learn and grow beyond your own boundaries.

I am embarassed when I am rude to people...I may not show it right off the bat, but I am repentant eventually. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Yes. So? He's done the same.

He has insinuated that you're an idiot ?

I missed that. Please point it out.

I think his offer to chat with you on AIM was a compliment. He respects you, no matter how hard you try to make him NOT respect you. *lol*

I think you need to step back a little, and re-evaluate.

quote:This is simply the result of both of us being a little frustrated with having to repeat our arguments, and therefore offer these little "jabs".

I understand frustration...especially when it comes to arguing with you.

No matter what, you refuse to see all angles...which can be said of anyone.

You just happen to be a prick about it. Sorry...that is not meant to offend. I think you know you are a prick, and relish in that fact.

If I am wrong, I again apologize.

quote:If it really bothers Tyrant, I think he's completely capable of telling me so. He doesn't need you to do it for him.

I don't think it bothers him the way it bothers me.

He is perfectly capable of defending his beliefs, and doesn't need me to help him in any way shape or form.

He is far more eloquent than I...I simply felt the need to point out that you were being a complete jerk again, and in spite of that, he remained objective (mostly).

I thought you could afford him a little more respect than you were.

I have the right to give my opinion here...just as you do.

quote:No decent defense? Obesity IS genetic... your own article argued that!

"Studies are showing that the genes are not destiny but are still a significant factor in developing obesity"

- From your own article.

And you are manipulating again...

First, that was in NO WAY a conclusive statement, in support of your opinion.

Genes have not been proven to CAUSE obesity. They have been shown to provide contributing factors...for example, the "slow metabolism" example I gave (which you completely ignored.)

Your genes dictate how fast your metabolism is...but they DON'T make obesity a predestination for ANYONE.

Ultimately, diet and exercise can modify the effects of a slow metabolism (i.e. lethargy and obesity), which means we have definitive control over how fat we get.

Is that so hard to understand ?

quote:You're laughable. You took that completely out of context, since I wasn't even talking about obesity when I said that...

And now you're doing it to me...I'm laughable ? Meaning what ? I'm too stupid to take seriously ?

I didn't say you WERE talking about obesity when you said that.

Contextually, I was correct. Read it again.

You were telling Tyrant that he needed to back up his opinions on religion. Your response to that is what I was addressing.

Once again, I am not only referring to this single instance.

You have told many of us that we need to back up our "assertions", yet you hardly ever do.

I find that to be hypocritical.

quote:Tell me something I have to "back up" and I will. Every time I ask you to show me this, you don't. Now please, either show me this, or admit that you cannot.

There you go again..."Do it, or admit that you can't."

Can you apply this adage to yourself ?

Here's something I would like you to back up with fact: lack of religion.

You claim that lack of religion has run rampant amongst the human race.

Prove it.

quote:The very example you cite of me not "backing something up", I easily refuted because I your own article argued what I was arguing. I don't need to "back it up" since your article did it for me.

And I have explained why you were wrong in perceiving the article the way you did.

You are guilty of removing the possibility of the number 2 in any given equation, making 1+1 logically impossible, though you insist that it exists.

I don't post articles that oppose what I believe...and I don't even have to resort to using sites that are biased (Christian) !

If you read the articles with the understanding of what I was saying, you would see the obvious support of my beliefs.

Taking one little sentence from 8+ articles I posted and manipulating it does NOT back you up, nor does it prove that I am wrong.

It proves that you are arrogant, and think yourself to be above getting in "knee deep".

You don't read what is posted in its entirety, and then you take one sentence and try to twist it to fit your views.

Doesn't work that way.

quote:I've already explained this. Tyrant has done the same. This happens when a discussion becomes heated.

I apologize to Tyrant if he's feelings got hurt. Now please, don't meddle here.

You try and explain this as though I couldn't have possibly understood this on my own.

You also seem to think that this relieves you of your responsibility to be a decent human being.

You have to start taking a better look at yourself...you pretty much get the same reaction from everyone...so, isn't it reasonable to say that YOU are the common denominator ?

It is YOU that resorts to personal jabs and unwarranted ridicule first.

Then you point the finger when it is done to you (previous arguments...not necessarily this one).

So, how do you justify me not responding when I see you being completely unfair in a debate ?

You can have your opinion, but be a gentleman about it !

I don't need to butt out...I have had enough interraction with you on a debate level to give my opinion about how you are treating other people here.

If anything, you will be twice as effective as a debater if you learn to respect others...which seems to be important to you (to be the best debater), so I'd think that it would be appealing for you to try.

I don't think it is necessary for you to say, "How dumb can you be ?" in every other sentence you write...it's not only offensive, but it detracts from your opinion and makes it unrespectable.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

By carefully avoiding attack on Christianity itself, you allow yourself to remain virtually untouchable.

However, you attack Christians on a personal level (which means that you regard them on the same level, by the way), which means you are essentially attacking Christianity.

No, you said that if I don't hold the belief of Christianity I shouldn't be against it, which is completely illogical.

quote:It doesn't mean that you can't argue against it.

Again, you are twisting the intention of the statement I made.

The fact that you don't personally know of a purpose (which seems to be synonymous with religion here) means that you shouldn't rule out the possibility of purpose, in metaphysical form.

1. Twist? I'll quote YOU:

"If you don’t hold the beliefs of Christianity, you shouldn’t be “against” it, by your own reasoning." http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

2. I DIDN'T rule out the possibilities of purposes, which is why I go on to enumerate various purposes.

quote:To a starving _____________________ (enter wild animal of choice here), it is.

Perception is everything...and since we all perceive religion differently, it cannot be said that any ONE way of thinking about any given religion is correct.

Great. Then this leaves is back where I said that me and Tyrant disagreed with our definitions.

quote:If someone is ignorant about a certain subject, they tend to stay away from it, unless they are skilled pathological liars.

You tend to stay away from debates about religions (each specifically). This tells me that you don't really know a whole lot about it, other than what you learned in your hunmanities class (or equivalent) in high school.

So? Let's say this is true, which it is not, this still has nothing to do with me being able to argue what I know.

quote:You have admitted that you see no purpose, so how can you argue against it ?

Your lack of understanding it gives you the right to deny it exists ?

I'm not denying religion exists. If you're talking about a deity, I deny it because not only is there no proof, but there are logical inconsitencies in virtually all religions that hold these dieties.

I can see these logical inconsistencies without having to be a member of a religion.

quote:Semantics.

You ARE arguing religion, but nothing specific...which would require an accurate understanding of any given religion.

You claimed we weren't talking about religion when we were. That isn't semantics.

quote:If you haven't been a part of any organized religion, then how can you understand it ? By reading about it ?

How do you know this?

quote:He has insinuated that you're an idiot ?

I missed that. Please point it out.

I never said idiot. I said he attacked me, which holds the same purpose:

Cast away all semantic pussyfooting cowardly politician 'rules of debate' nonsense, and answer one question.

quote:Genes have not been proven to CAUSE obesity. They have been shown to provide contributing factors...for example, the "slow metabolism" example I gave (which you completely ignored.)

The point was, and it was that since the beginning, that people are genetically PREDISPOSED to obesity. Not that one must be obese. Your own article argues this, thus it proves my case entirely.

Here are even more articles:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/958023.stm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/index.php?newsid=8619

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/4/597



quote:Contextually, I was correct. Read it again.

No. You said,

"To support that theory, you say,” Moreover, it is YOU who have to validate something here, not I."

What theory? The one you were just done talking about. Which one? That people are genetically predisposed to obesity. What you go on to quote has NOTHING to do with "that theory", hence you took it out of context.

quote:There you go again..."Do it, or admit that you can't."

Can you apply this adage to yourself ?

Here's something I would like you to back up with fact: lack of religion.

You claim that lack of religion has run rampant amongst the human race.

Prove it.

Proving non-existence is impossible. Also, you're changing the subject.

quote:And I have explained why you were wrong in perceiving the article the way you did

The only one wrong here is you, who is mistaken about what I was arguing. I said PREDISPOSED, not DESTINED.

Predisposed:

"1. To make (someone) inclined to something in advance.

2. To make susceptible or liable."

What does having a lower metabolism do? Makes you susceptiple to obesity... thus obesity can be PREDISPOSED via genetics.

quote:Then you point the finger when it is done to you (previous arguments...not necessarily this one).

The only time I've pointed a finger at someone attacking me is to point out hypocrasy; be it that they are not supposed to insult anyone (their religion forbids it) or when I'm absolutely certain I haven't insulted the person. None of those are hypocritical.

In any case ,you're absolutely right. I was being an asshole, and I apologize.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-04-2005).]

After having read through all 9 pages of this, the only appropriate reaction would be to feign a high strike on Rust, then smash him in the abdomen like Ujio in Last Samurai.

^as long as we're in japan, why not just drop a nuke on the lot of them.

(yeah i know i posted too)

Christianity opposes insult ?

First, I would like you to read Matthew. Jesus insults people constantly.

Second, insult is inflicted only on those who allow it to.

If you said to someone with down syndrome, "You're a moron !" they would either stare at you as though you hadn't made any sense, or would laugh hysterically.

They wouldn't be insulted...why ? Because they aren't.

If I say you know nothing about the Bible, you can CHOOSE to be insulted by it, whether it was intended as an insult or not.

I honestly don't believe that Tyrant was trying to insult you. It is just not really his style.

We have all long since figured your debate mechanics out, and what he said was completely truth.

Therefore, it cannot be construed as an intended insult, unless you choose to perceive it as such.

While it certainly wasn't a positive outlook on your personality and debate style, it was accurate.

Is he not supposed to be accurate, because it might insult you ?

And even if it was intended as an insult, why does that justify you doing it back ?

Try and be the better person, just once, ok ?

And your apology (heartfelt or not) is accepted, though that was an overshot.

I just wanted you to see how we were reading you...didn't really want an apology.

It's cool that you offered it, though.

Rust:

For the past four days, every single time I made an attempt to post a response, I lose interest and abandoned the attempt.

I will now avoid the quote-and-reply method, as it only further proliferates confusion and distractions from the primary purpose.

A religion is, at its strictest common denominator, an identification of man's purpose and destiny according to guidelines appropriate to the nature of the man there involved.

A secular Weltanschauung performs the exact same function, accompanied by the same unconditional affirmation of that view that many typical religions hold.

We can therefore draw the conclusion that the behavior of men in their world view is parallel - and, in fact, synonymous - with the way men view religions.

That is his religion, in every conceivable psychological, sociological, or behavioral context of the word.

Prove otherwise.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



I will now avoid the quote-and-reply method, as it only further proliferates confusion and distractions from the primary purpose.

You're avoiding it NOW? Must I show you how many times you've avoiuded it, and therefore many of my points (as you just did now), in the past?

quote:

A religion is, at its strictest common denominator, an identification of man's purpose and destiny according to guidelines appropriate to the nature of the man there involved.

That's YOUR definition. Great.

quote:

A secular Weltanschauung performs the exact same function, accompanied by the same unconditional affirmation of that view that many typical religions hold.

We can therefore draw the conclusion that the behavior of men in their world view is parallel - and, in fact, synonymous - with the way men view religions.

You can draw the conclusion they are "parallel" if by that you mean they serve the same purpose. That has no bearing on them being equal.

quote:

That is his religion, in every conceivable psychological, sociological, or behavioral context of the word.

Prove otherwise.

It is impossible to "prove" otherwise, when not only have YOU not even proven that what you've said its true, but also this is subjective.

The only thing I can do is show how ridiculous it is, and I think I've done this quite succesfully; so succesfully I might add, that you have seen fit to ignore my arguments.

Again, by your definition, everything in the world is everything. My shoe is a hmmer, this piece of shit is a hammer, this computer is a hammer; this goes on ad nauseum. This leads to the complete destruction of rationality and therefore logic. Who in the world would deam a definition, that carries with it the underlying destruction of logic, as "true" or "good"?

Moreover, like I already argued, and you again ignored, you can very well say that religion is lack of religion, that is, even if we take your lacking definition as true!

As you can see, the argument against your definition is very real, and you've done everything but address it.

What is so inflexible about the definition of religion that my definition remains impotent?

This is your shot, tough guy: verify all your accusations by making a stand worth my attention.

If all you can do is whimper about how infallible the subjectivity of pre-conceived ideas are, and how unfair it is that the definition of a word has been applied to something that is effectively synonymous, using nothing but your vehement opposition to it, then fuck off.

I have nothing more to say. It's your move.

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 03-06-2005).]

RUST

Just because he doesn't want to keep playing verbal tennis with you, after he has long since given his point of view in an eloquent, sufficient manner, does not mean that he has either conceded to you, or that he is wrong.

What an arrogant thing to insinuate.

All you could really say is that you have "out-argued" him, which I don't think is admirable. It just means you are more persistent than he is.

That doesn't make you right.

quote:this piece of shit is a hammer

You have a piece of shit laying around, readily available for reference in an argument ?

Hmmmmmmmm.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 03-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

What is so inflexible about the definition of religion that my definition remains impotent?

This is your shot, tough guy: verify all your accusations by making a stand worth my attention.

If all you can do is whimper about how infallible the subjectivity of pre-conceived ideas are, and how unfair it is that the definition of a word has been applied to something that is effectively synonymous, using nothing but your vehement opposition to it, then fuck off.

I have nothing more to say. It's your move.



Congratulations! You did it again. You evaded all arguments against your definition! What a surprise.

I've already explained my arguments numerous times. They are there for you to read and refute. It is therefore, your move, since my arguments are lain out for you to offer a rebuttal.

That you don't want to? Fine! But please spare me this melodramatic bullshit, when it is your turn to act, not mine. Again, it is YOU who have evaded the arguments not me; evident not only in this last reply of yours, but numerous ones before.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

RUST

Just because he doesn't want to keep playing verbal tennis with you, after he has long since given his point of view in an eloquent, sufficient manner, does not mean that he has either conceded to you, or that he is wrong.

What an arrogant thing to insinuate.

All you could really say is that you have "out-argued" him, which I don't think is admirable. It just means you are more persistent than he is.

That doesn't make you right.

Where did I say that? Nowhere. Thank you.

quote:The only thing I can do is show how ridiculous it is, and I think I've done this quite succesfully; so succesfully I might add, that you have seen fit to ignore my arguments.

Which translates to: "You didn't answer me, so I must be right."

quote:Moreover, like I already argued, and you again ignored, you can very well say that religion is lack of religion, that is, even if we take your lacking definition as true!

Which translates to: "You didn't answer me, so I must be right. Oh, and you're wrong."

http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Since you have no clue of why the hell I write something, and therefore what I meant to say with it, I will translate this for you... and by that I mean, that I will translate it for you. (just in case) :

"The only thing I can do is show how ridiculous it is, and I think I've done this quite succesfully; so succesfully I might add, that you have seen fit to ignore my arguments."

Translation: You want me to "prove" something when you've ignored all of my arguments by evading them? Fuck you.

"

Moreover, like I already argued, and you again ignored, you can very well say that religion is lack of religion, that is, even if we take your lacking definition as true!"

Translation: Since you've ignored this as well, I'll make it my duty to point it out to you, in an effort to show how silly it is for you to ask me to "make my move", "take my shot" or "prove you wrong", when you've evaded the majority of my arguments.



P.S. I'm waiting for you to reply on other threads.

Translation: You haven't replied to the other threads and I want to make sure you're not evading them.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-06-2005).]

The moderator should ban Rust. He's a troll hiding behind the guise of percieved intellectualism. I say "percieved" because he brings nothing intelligent to the table; you could narrow each of his arguments down to "yeah, well, I'm right and you're wrong" and "what the hell are you talking about? I never said THAT..."

Yeah, I'm for free speech and all, but this guy is a TROLL.

[This message has been edited by Charles Thunder (edited 03-07-2005).]

You're absolutely right!

I had a feeling you'd agree.

Well, what else could have I done?

Why should I waste my time on you, when if I ask you to back up anything you've said, any single piece of the bullshit you've just spewed, you're not going to do so; hell, you'd actually say that it is me saying "yeah, well, I'm right and you're wrong"...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Bu hey, in that spirit, I'll join you:

The moderator should ban Charles thunder. He's a troll hiding behind the guise of perceived intellectualism. I say "perceived" because he brings nothing intelligent to the table; you could narrow each of his arguments down to "yeah, well, I'm right and you're wrong" and "what the hell are you talking about? I never said THAT..."

Yeah, I'm for free speech and all, but this guy is a TROLL.

* Please note I didn't incorrectly spell "perceived". If you're going to attack my intellect, at least put efforts into yours.

Thanks for proving my point.

No, thank you for proving mine.

Here is Rust's favorite movie. (http://badmovies.org/movies/troll/index.html)

He's got a thing for Sonny Bono.

Oh, the irony!

Dagnabbit owned everybody's asses, why are you still arguing?

quote:Originally posted by unchewed_meat:

Dagnabbit owned everybody's asses, why are you still arguing?

Dude, it's Rust...

Which is precisely why you shouldn't be arguing with me...

Too fucking easy.

Rust:

You copped out AGAIN!

I 'evaded all your arguments' because all your bravado amounts to is a quagmire that serves only to obscure the true issue - which, when confronted, YOU'VE now evaded.

Define religion.

Now.

The irony of you of all people speaking of "copping out" when you haven't replied to ANY of my points in the last three of your replies, and in many of them before that!

How convenient that it is my argument that "obscures the issue" but the colossal logical inconsistency in your piss-poor definition, one which makes debate impossible, does not...

But, here, in the hopes that no fucking imbecile ever dares blame me for not cooperating in this thread, I'll oblige, once again. Hopefully, you'll take notice and oblige at least once... :

Religion:

"A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."

Rust:

Not that I don't want to, but I can't argue against you because, no matter how hard I try, I know that all you're going to say is "Hey, stupid fucking asshole, since you are incapable of understanding anything I write and/or have avoided arguing against anything I've said, even if you DID happen to provide a feasible and intelligent dichotomy to my argument, I will re-iterate my points in a highly condescending manner because I know you're far too stupid to understand anything I say. By the way, your beliefs suck and they're stupid even if I agree with them, in which case I'm going to argue against them" or something akin to that.

I'm going to say that now. Yup.

I conduct myself with respect with people that deserve my respect. You'll never see me insulting, or being an asshole towards Sephiroth, Dark_Magneto, deptstoremook, Eil, Rawk, Lost_Cause, among others. Why? Because it is my opinion they deserve it. That's not to say that in the course of a prolonged debate I may not do so, but that is only because I grow frustrated, and I usually apologize when I do so.

You on the other hand, are a fucking moron, therefore I'll be condescending as hell. Just to be an ass. That's right, for no other reason other than the delightful pleasure I derive from being an ass.

---

Now please, care to shut up? I don't think anyone here gives a shit about your feelings.

quote:Originally posted by Sanity0verRated:

If you are a Satanist, you DO beleive in God. Heres some advice, learn the religion before you convert to it.



Dumb fucking post kid,so you do believe into the beast and eternall punishment and existance of lord?Hmmm so you follow the belief of religion dumb ass

This is follow up to Dagnabitt's post on page 4:

But my points for debate provide 2 different questions for as follows:

1) Are God's commands right, because God commands them?

2) Or are God's commandments commanded, because they are right?



Both choice 1 & 2 have problems.

Choice 1 is wrong for obvious reasons. This implies that the idea of right and wrong are totally arbitrary. God could have just as easily commanded to lie, cheat, steal, and kill. Because God commands this, it must be right. And essentially, this strips God of all his righteousness and character. I am just summarizing the basic idea of my point of view, but you get the idea. I am not trying to rewrite an essay I have written before.

Choice 2 implies that God commands what is right, because they are right. In other words, what is “right” exists independently of God’s existence, and he is only a means with which “right” is communicated, because he knows of it. (This could imply that what is “right” has been in existence prior to God’s existence.)

Thus, this also strips God of his omniscience-ness, righteousness, divineness, and his Christian-outlined character. Following from this, what is “right”? If “right” has always been, then there is no perception of “wrong”, and destroys the whole idea together. It is like the argument, “What is good without evil? What is light without dark?”

Considering this, it also could be that God’s interpretation of “right” was wrong, or partly mistaken! (Much in the same way a human’s interpretation of God’s word could be wrong.)

Well, this is some food for thought.



[This message has been edited by Aeon (edited 03-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Charles Thunder:

The moderator should ban Rust. He's a troll hiding behind the guise of percieved intellectualism. I say "percieved" because he brings nothing intelligent to the table; you could narrow each of his arguments down to "yeah, well, I'm right and you're wrong" and "what the hell are you talking about? I never said THAT..."

Yeah, I'm for free speech and all, but this guy is a TROLL.



In his defense, he is always consistent. *lol*

But I have to say that he is hurting like everyone else, and as long as he is here, he will see everyone's "truth", so that he can finally decide for himself. (and I am not saying that Christianity ought to be what he chooses.)

I agree with you about what his arguments end up boiling down to, but...

I wouldn't say he's a troll.

An ogre, maybe.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Aeon:

It just shows that an accurate understanding of the idea of god precludes a devine morality. The idea of a "commandment" is not logical, as God is "Omni". God wants for nothing. If he wanted it done, it would be - instantly, without constriction of time, space, or human. "Good" and "God" are synonymous terms, because god is perfect. That means that reality as it exists, with all its flaws (flaws to us), is exactly Gods will. There is not room for "morality" when contemplating this. All behaviors are necessarily Gods will, by the very definition of god.

Neat little addendum though, thanks.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The irony of you of all people speaking of "copping out" when you haven't replied to ANY of my points in the last three of your replies, and in many of them before that!

How convenient that it is my argument that "obscures the issue" but the colossal logical inconsistency in your piss-poor definition, one which makes debate impossible, does not...

But, here, in the hopes that no fucking imbecile ever dares blame me for not cooperating in this thread, I'll oblige, once again. Hopefully, you'll take notice and oblige at least once... :

Religion:

"A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."



Um, he has replied.

He has said, "Enough of this childish banter. Get back to the issue."

How can he argue against your opinion, if you won't give one that is actually related to your own personal beliefs ?

You throw out some pretty obscure "facts", and then say, "I don't have to back it up. It's your responsibility !" after finding a clever way to turn it around to make it NOT your responsibility.

While we're cutting and pasting, why did you purposely leave out this definition of the word religion: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." ?

It completely supports what Tyrant was saying, which is that religion can encompass ANYTHING man chooses. It isn't restricted to theology and dogma.

You refuse to acknowledge that, because it completely blows your viewpoint out of the water.

You know, there are completely eloquent, respectful ways to say, "I was mistaken."

Pick up your chips, Rust, and change tactics.

It's not working for your anymore.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 03-07-2005).]

Aeon - I would have to say #2.

"God's commandments are commanded, because they are right."

God is good, and nothing else.

What we perceive to be "right" is all up to fallible interpretation, so that cannot be applied to God (#1).

God will never have a debate with us over what is right, because He is the template for it, and has ordained the universe to fall into step with that.

He sets the precedent for what is "right", or "just", or "good", and whether we understand it (or agree with it) or not is irrelevant to what it is. It will not change.

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Aeon:

It just shows that an accurate understanding of the idea of god precludes a devine morality. The idea of a "commandment" is not logical, as God is "Omni". God wants for nothing. If he wanted it done, it would be - instantly, without constriction of time, space, or human. "Good" and "God" are synonymous terms, because god is perfect. That means that reality as it exists, with all its flaws (flaws to us), is exactly Gods will. There is not room for "morality" when contemplating this. All behaviors are necessarily Gods will, by the very definition of god.

Neat little addendum though, thanks.



Even as lowly humans, we do not test ourselves intellectually ?

If God was all-knowing, and all-powerful, don't you think it the slightest bit possible that He would create us with the ability to choose Him or reject Him, with just enough information and spirituality to "bait" us in to it without force ?

His desire for a meaningful relationship with anything He created would be nullified by His ability to "make it happen", by your definition.

Your presuming that god relies on us for something, or "requires" something of us. God would have neither of these "lackings". It is impossible to concieve of God "disappointed".

"Created us hoping we'll choose him" makes no sense.

quote:His desire for a meaningful relationship with anything He created would be nullified by His ability to "make it happen", by your definition.

Thats right. Your treating god as if he was a person, and not a perfect being. A pefect being need not even contemplate. Reality is synonymous with Gods will.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 03-07-2005).]

If He didn't desire something of us, he wouldn't have created us. There is a purpose, ya know.

And no, I am not turning God into a human. I am relying on His statement that we are made in HIS IMAGE.

That means that on some levels, we are similar.

Anything else ?