Total posts: 5,653
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yes, I am talking about The Ultimate Reality. The way things actually are.And now we are actually talking about that so we can somewhere.You are correct in that when I say, "The Truth" does not mean "all things that are true". Yet, if something is true, it is only because The Truth is in it. Just as there is no reality without The Ultimate Reality.So when I say The Truth, I am saying "The Ultimate Reality".
Right, but to me, "all things that are true" and "the way things actually are" are just different ways of saying the same thing. So, of "all things that are true" is not "The Truth" to you, then we aren't talking about the same thing and I don't understand what you are talking about when you say "The Truth."
What is "The Truth" other than the sum of all things that are true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Thoth
What are you talking about? Ted Cruz is highly recognizable.
Created:
Posted in:
People being "permafried" by LSD are little more than urban legends. Like the one where a person allegedly drunk some obscene amount of LSD and now thinks he's a glass of orange juice, perpetually afraid he is going to fall over and spill.
Another issue with LSD being illegal is that people will resort to trying new chemicals which aren't strictly illegal, but are most certainly more experimental and, therefore, more dangerous, such as salvia (unpredictable, higher propensity for "bad" trips) and, until recently NBOM (high potency, risk of OD).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I already told you I'm not interested in debating the ethics of fornication.
I'm not asking you to debate anything, I'm asking you to explain something.
If you can't explain what you mean by things, then maybe you shouldn't bring up those issues? Like, I'm basing this stuff off of what you wrote, and you've written several posts railing against fornication but you seem unwilling to expand on your views on the matter.
What I think is the fundamental issue here is there is some missing component. When you say "The Truth" you mean something specific. When I read "The Truth" I conceive of it as something specific. But is seems like what you mean and what I conceive are different things, and this is leading to issues in conveying the idea here.
When I read "The Truth" I simply take it to mean: "all the things that are true." As if there was a book that listed every statement that was true. That's it and nothing more. When I read "The Ultimate Reality" I take it to me "the way things really are." For example, the development of scientific theories has resulted in finer and more accurate measurements of reality. That is, we are incrementally getting closer to measuring the way the universe actually is, and that thing we are continually approaching is "the ultimate reality."
But none of those things have attributes or properties that compel me to label them "God." I don't see from whence things like "sin" comes from.
Basically, I'm at Point A and you're at Point B. I'm asking for a map to show how to get where you are, but all you can do is pontificate about how good Point B is and how bad Point A is.
If you're unwilling to explain your view or how to reach that view from a starting point of ignorance, then just say so in clear terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Don't know if it's been suggested, but there should be a report button for users, posts, threads, and debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If fornication has nothing to do with the "Truth being God" then why is it a sin? In what way does the act of marriage change the act?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mister_Man
The better world would be the one where there is no rape and consent is validated every eight seconds.
Then, why when you approach the scenario described by the OP, do you immediately jump on the "criticize consent" bandwagon? If you recognize that rape is the greater evil and (I hope) recognize that the reason people are so hung up about consent is because of rape then surely you should be arguing against rape, rather than the reaction to rape vis-a-vis stricter views about consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But what's the difference between the two acts? They are physically, chemically, biologically, physiologically, emotionally the same. Yet one is a sin and the other is not. How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But you contend that one is sin and the other is not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mister_Man
Ok. So we've both presented unrealistic versions of either side (a world where men don't rape and a world where you must validate consent every 8 seconds).
Now, let's imagine you had a choice: a world where there is no rape, but consent is validated every 8 seconds, or a world where there is rape, but you aren't inconvenienced by having to determine whether or not your partner is willing.
Which do you think is the better world, overall?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You certainly haven't explained why. I had sex with my wife before we got married and I have sex with her now that we have married. Yet for some reason one is a sin and the other isn't. Magic, I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
When you are being controlled by lust, it is going to effect your sincerity in the sense that even if you were to strive for integrity, you have this lust effecting your judgment. You end up becoming a slave to this lust. It is truth in relation to the fulfillment of this lust rather than truth itself.
How does having sex outside of marriage mean a person is "controlled by lust" to the point of being incapable of sound judgment about the truth?
Created:
That's true, I'm not arguing against that. Pointing out differences of the average IQ scores between the two races is not racist.
Neither is wearing a white robe with a pointed hat and burning a cross. Yet...
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and is racist like a duck, I'm going to point out the racism.
The racial IQ thing is a "fact" inordinately brought out by people wishing to portray blacks in a negative light? Don't believe me?
Consider that Analgesic is just an alt account of Zarroette
Who posted a similar thread here:
In the other thread, Zarroette explicitly links black IQ as a predictor of their ability to "function" in society.
On other web sites, Zarroette has identified them as having a greater degree of probability of having undesirable genetics:
Oh, and she outlined an argument whose title was "Racism is Moral"
Do we really need to connect more dots?
When someone dresses up as a KKK member and starts burning crosses, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that they are a KKK member and are racist. When someone trudges out this "fact" that is almost always used by race realists trying to root their racism in science, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that they are a racist.
If we were to take this fact and divorce it of any and all context or social history, no it isn't racist. But guess what? I'm not going to evaluate it in a vaccuum. To ignore the context and history of the use of that fact is just intellectually dishonest.
If he said Keith was right that blacks are inferior, then I would consider him racist, as that's a blanket statement and he hasn't backed it with facts.
Again, you need to read what Keith wrote"
[Anal] says "That way, we can avoid disingenuous conflation", but what is disingenuous is not conflating his attitide towards blacks with Hitler's anti-semitism. What is disengenuous is his attempt to suggest they are any differerent.
Keith is saying that it is disingenuous to suggest that Anal's attitude towards blacks is different from Hitler's anti-semetism.
To which Anal responded:
Thank you both for posting reasonable interpretations of what I wrote.
Now, what is the more reasonable interpreation, that Anal actually read both of your posts and was giving honest praise, or he just skimmed the thread and saw two people who thought were disagreeing with me and responded because of thati
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm not having sex out of marriage. Now:
How does having sex outside of marriage mean I'm not being "sincere towards the truth?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
These things are symptoms of idolotry, which is worshipping the creature rather than the creator. Idolatries get in the way of being sincere towards the truth.
I don't see what one has to do with the other. How does having sex outside of marriage mean I'm not being "sincere towards the truth?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Wait, so... not knowing things is a sin?
What does that have to do with things like adultury, fornication, and sodomy? What do they have to do with "The Truth"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If God is nothing more than Truth, then what is "sin"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Earth
Speaking of spells:
secularmerlin/Eikka:
As a Cleric, in addition to your Cantrips and Domain Spells (Command, Identify) you get 3 spells you can prepare per day. Which 3 would you like to start the game prepared? Choices:
Bane, Bless, Ceremony, Create or Destroy Water, Cure Wounds, Detect Evil and Good, Detect Magic, Detect Poison and Disease, Guiding Bolt, Healing Word, Inflict Wounds, Protection from Evil and Good, Purify Food and Drink, Sanctuary, Shield of Faith
Earth/Grahf:
As a Wizard, in addition to your Cantrips, you get 4 spells you can prepare per day. Which 4 would you like to start the game prepared? Choices:
Burning Hands, Catapult, Disguise Self, Fog Cloud, Magic Missile, Sleep
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
For some reason, despite this thread having not been posted in in a week, it is at the top of my non-sticky posts. Of course, after I make this post it'll be there legitimately, so here is a screencap:
Created:
-->
@Mister_Man
I never said he believes Hitler is the only racist on Earth.So? He gave an example of an actual racist, that doesn't mean he believes that Hitler is the only racist on Earth.
No, it isn't. I understand what he means. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean he's doing a poor job at explaining the differences between racism and factual information comparable between ethnic backgrounds.
One could say that the quality of an explanation is directly tied to its ability to convey understanding, but I digress. The issue is not in the existence of factual information, but how it is used. It is factual information to say that blacks have a different skin tone than whites. Not racist. But to use that information to act in a discriminatory manner against blacks: racist.
I think Analgesic.Spectre made a good point that you're just over simplifying everything. He even replied saying I'm right, so looks like we've made progress and should be able to see eye to eye now, yeah?
Yeah, he @'d keithprosser as well, saying that he was right. Now I ask you to read what keith actually wrote in response to him and tell me what his position is on the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
They aren't "different" questions, they are differently worded questions. They are both asking the same thing, just one is more explicit than another. I know that sometimes we like to get tangled up in elementary school perceptions of "fact" and "opinion" but a "fact" is just something that is truth. That truth can be contingent. It can be relative. It can be temporal. It can be subjective. It can be a lot of things but that doesn't make it not a fact.Is/was Lauren Bacall pretty?If you are tempted to answer it, you would be answering a different question such as 'Do you think/judge Lauren Bacall was pretty'?
Consider motion:
"Do you know how fast you were going sir?"
If you said that the question has no answer because the answer depends on the frame of reference... then I'm sure there is a secret check mark on the ticket that adds $50 for such inane responses.
The point of reference is implicit as it is in the question about Lauren Bacall being pretty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
How does "The Truth" and "Ultimate Reality" have wrath? To me these are inanimate objects/ideas. Can you explain that in further detail? Is this just poetry that I need not be concerned about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I do not attribute validity based on the passage of time, so, "because lots of people did it for a long period of time" isn't a convincing argument, you'll have to try another.
And I am an atheist, and I'll thank you not to tell me what I am and am not.
I believe in truth, but I do not believe in god, because I do not agree with that definition of God. You ask why I reject it, and yet you provide the answer: "It is good to reject false beliefs." I consider "God = Truth" to be a false belief, so I reject it. You say it is not in my interests, but fail to explain how.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Truths exist independent of any ability to verify that truth. In fact, the ability to verify truths is a major part of epistemology.
However, some specific truths might be tied to the method of verification. The famous example: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Certain it makes vibrations but sound is specifically vibrations captured by various components in an ear that are transmitted into electrical signals interpreted by a brain. No person, no brain, no sound.
I could see where we could construct similar statements regarding sight. For example: is a given picture pretty?
The example in the OP, however? Not at all. Whether or not a pen is held is independent of your ability to visual ascertain that fact. Would this person then conclude that the truth of that statement flips between true and false every time they blink?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Right, but a definition is just a reference created by people. There mere existence of there being a definition doesn't make something true or valid. So I get, and accept, that you define God as "The Truth" and the "Ultimate Reality."Because this is a definition.
And, I accept that truth exists.
I also believe that there is, objectively, a reality that exists that is true.
But I don't see why I should define those things as "God." What is the purpose of making that assignment? Why not simply leave "The Truth" as "The Truth" or the "Ultimate Reality" as the "Ultimate Reality"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am always open to the possibility that I am wrong. And I'm not telling you to believe something else.
What you fail to realize that almost everything you said is mainly nonsensical. It makes as much sense to me as saying "God is an Apple."
So, let's start simple.
"God is the Truth."
This is the definition you have presented to me to accept. I don't accept it because I see no reason to accept it. Why should I accept it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The reason why I don't accept this premise is because it is patently false. In almost every culture across history, "god" is some sort of personal force that interacts with the world. Even among Christians, "God" is a thing. An entity. It isn't merely a collection of facts that represents the true nature of reality.The Truth is God, that is literally what is meant by the term "God"
Etymologically speaking, the word "god" has a somewhat murky past, but nothing I see that ties it to "The Truth" or "Ultimate Reality" rather the word seems to be associated with religious rituals.
Semantically speaking, there are definitions which include "Truth" in the definition of "God" but also include other attributes, such as: being an entity of some sort, having a mind, and other such things. This definition of the term seems mostly associated with Christian Science - does that describe you?
Regardless, that doesn't mean God literally means "the Truth." It would seem that there is more to it than just that, among all the other definitions for "God" that there are (upon which you've given me no reason to accept any of them, let alone yours over any other).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There is nothing about saying "The Truth is God" that implies any of the discrepancies you have.
Truth doesn't have gender, doesn't have wrath, doesn't speak or do things. What you just described as God is an entity that has and does those things. That is the discrepancy.
It sounds to me like you are superstitious.
I'm not the one that things truths can be angry.
You perhaps have a lot of unnecessary baggage surrounding the concept of "God".
The only "baggage" I have with respect to god concepts is that invented by theists.
Maybe you should stop attaching things you believe are untrue to The Truth.
I don't attached things I believe to be untrue to truths. For example, I don't believe "God" is "The Truth" so I don't attach him to it.
And then realize that when you talk about The Truth, that is what the word "God" means. Not everything you think God means is The Truth.
I don't realize that. Sorry. You might think you're shedding some light onto the subject or dispensing some knowledge, but you're talking in circles and riddles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Do you not believe me when I say that this isnhow theologians understand God? For thousands of years? Are you going to refute the words of an astronomer because you heard different and less true things from a few people who read an elementary astronomy book?
No. I don't believe you.
Can you really think of anything greater and more worthy to be called God than The Supreme and Ultimate Reality?
I don't think there is anything that exists that is worth of being called a god.
In doing so, are you going to fulfill the scripture that says,"For the wrath of God
Truths are simply facts of nature. They don't have thoughts, feelings, or "wrath." They are not conscious entities.
is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Truths are ideas. They are the state of things. They don't do anything, they just passively exist. They can't show anything to anyone.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Truths are don't have gender. It is nonsensical to call a truth "him" or "her."
Or are you going admit the evident truth that there is none greater, none more worthy to be called God?
You have described nothing I would admit falls into that characterization.
This is what I believe, and I do not stand alone. There is a cloud of witnesses to back me up stretching back to the beginning from every corner of the world.There is nothing innovative about what I am telling you. I am presenting you the gate to True Religion. Believe because it is good.
I haven't seen anything "good" about what you've written.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Look, that is what God means. If you don't believe me, there are scriptures, there is thousands of years of theological writings,
And why would I believe them if I don't believe you?
there are the two most well reputed English dictionaries in acadamia.
For example?
You are letting people who don't believe that there is truth to define your language for you. Think about that.
I am? How so?
No better place to look than the most influential theologian in western thought, Saint Augustine. Throughout every single one of his books he makes the identity of God very clear.
Ok, but you realize that someone just saying something is the case doesn't actually make it the case, right?
Believe me when I say, The Truth is God, and if you don't believe me, believe what I am saying because it is the evident truth that there is nothing else worthy to be called God than The Supreme And Ultimate Reality!
It is certainly not evident to me. The truth is just what happens to be the case. I don't see what that makes it "worthy" to be called "God".
I am a theist, and I am telling you that this is what God means. Go by what I'm saying. Maybe the others you have heard don't know what they are talking about, or maybe you haven't made the connection yet. I don't know
Or maybe you don't know what you are talking about? You've really given me no reason to accept your statements over any other random stranger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
To say, "There is no God" is to say, "It is the truth that there is no such thing as truth".To say, "Prove to me that God exists" is to say, "Prove to me that it is true that there is such a thing as truth."To say, "I don't know if there is a God" is to admit one has doubts, and if you have doubts you at least know it is true you have doubts. There is no truth unless The Truth exists.So everyone knows deep down that God exists.
You see, you accuse atheists of playing word games with the word "God" but, as an atheist reading this, that's all I see you doing. You've just taken the word "truth", capitalized it, then called it "God." I don't buy that. The refutations quoted above only work if I accept this association of The Truth = God. Well, I don't buy that association.
Like I said, I know what "truth" is, in the generic dictionary sense, and that's all you've really described: things that are true. I really don't see the magic equation that somehow converts this into God.
We already have a word to describe "ultimate reality" and things that are true: "truth." I don't see the point in also labeling this "God." If God is nothing more than "The Truth" then we already have a word for that and it isn't necessary to speculate about God. If God is more than "The Truth," then what is it?
When I say: "There is no God", I am not saying "There is no such thing as the truth" because I don't subscribe to your notion that "God" is nothing more than another word for the "Truth." And before you accuse me of making up strawman gods, consider that the only conceptions of God I have been exposed to are those presented to me by other theists.
Created:
Posted in:
I disagree with creating threads to call people out. But if you're going to do it, then do it. This passive-aggressive "one member" nonsense is for the birds. If you don't have the conviction or internal fortitude to actually identify the problem by name, then you really aren't in a position to criticize other people for not dealing with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Buddamoose
@Earth
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I am out of town this weekend. We will start the game on Monday or Tuesday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@vagabond
Do you know what is meant by "The Truth"?
No. I know what the word "truth" means in the generic, dictionary sense. I do not know what the "Truth" means. Perhaps you could explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And how does one do that?What matters is that you recognize God is The Truth
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Curiosity is why, for example, I might look into the math beyond some interesting cryptographic algorithm. Yes, in that sense I might "care" but also if I go throughout my whole live never knowing that bit of information, I'm not going to suffer ill consequences.
Does it matter whether or not I believe the Bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
and all manner of evil that leads to the destruction of a free society and the introduction of tyranny.
Name one society destroyed by a sexual revolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Why should anyone care what the Bible has to say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your posts about the "right" and "wrong" way to do sex and marriage are lacking in specifics. Could you elaborate?
Created:
It's probably because the latency is so high in their violent video games that it doesn't have the same ill effects as on American kids who can frag at 60 fps per minute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
I am not that familiar with the Fate system, but I'm always up to learn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I can easily imagine Mike being exasperated with all this inflammatory talk of what members have done or said off site. We can't seem to stop dragging DDO history into this. I know I find it hard to resist bringing it up sometimes. But it's just not his concern. I think how we're judged here should be earned by our conduct here only, and that goes for Zeichen and RM. Knowing how a member has behaved on other sites is certainly useful for one's own reference when dealing with that member, but it should be neither relevant or actionable to the administration. In my opinion, of course.
You're absolutely right and I agree. Which is why I decided to enter this place with a clean slate and just not interact with him at all. Yet here we are. I only referenced DDO because I was unsure of how much you knew.
As for RM's behavior here, he @'d me a few times in the debate voting thread as well, but quickly desisted. I admit I have very mixed feelings about publicizing these PM's. But I see that you did have to tell him three times. Did he permanently stop afterward?
The block was implemented shortly afterward, so yes, but not necessarily by his choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Case-in-point. You don't have to be talking to him, you just have to merely mention him and he'll seek you out. Look at the private message he just decided to blast out publicly: he approached me; he continued to message me despite me telling him I didn't want him to message me. At no point did I initiate a message; they were all responses. Yet he reframes it as me "spamming" and "framing" him.
While I agree that "ignoring" is the best solution, there is no accounting or predicting how he is going to perceive any given situation. A seemingly innocent post having nothing to do with him could be perceived as antagonistic and illicit a response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Without commenting on Zeichen, I will attest that RM does become unusually and inappropriately fixated on certain people. Back on DDO, he became fixated on me because I get him lynched in a Mafia game and he hounded me for months, apparently unable to separate reality from fiction. Here, I had to ask him to stop @ing me because my mailbox was filling up with his mentions of me for stuff that had nothing to do with me.
When I did, he decided to pester me in PMs, prompting me to jump on the "we need a block" bandwagon.
Now, while I agree that engagement can exacerbate the issue, let me assure you that, since joining here, I haven't engaged him. Save from: 1) asking him to stop @ing me; and 2) asking him to stop PMing me, I have not engaged him at all, yet I still end up being the recipient of this spamming and weird behavior.
Created: