After much thought on the question of religion, trying to come up with a concept I can use to detail my belief structure, I have finally hit upon something that hits the closest to my thought patterns concerning faith.

I worship words.

I am an acolyte to the temple of language. I believe that everything we can point to is consisted of words. We create ourselves with words, change ourselves with the same power. The universe was created with words. Both science and religion consist of highly evolved words and concepts.

My prayer is the activity of semantics, where I contemplate words and their meanings, building complex concepts that I use to interface with the rest of the world. I have both my inner landscape and outer surroundings mapped with poweful concepts that allow me to perceive my reality with ever -growing granularity.

I believe skillful use of words can bring you anything in life that you want.

I think that anybody who is missing something from their lives can improve their lives simply by redefining words that they have an incomplete understanding of.

God, Jesus, Buddha, enlightenment, personal success, happiness, the theory of everything; indeed, anything that people search for is a word that carries special meaning for them. These searches are concluded when a person is satisfied with the definition. Our entire lives revolve around these words and we don't realize it.

You would think that the worship of words would leave one hollow, like there is nothing in this world worth pursuing, but I have found that isn't the case. Semantics (something I am always doing) leaves me fulfilled and never bored. Entertainment comes easily as I have the ability to craft mental constructs at whim. I never run out of new ideas to chew on. For me, negative things doesn't really exist anymore, except on the theoretical and philisophical level.

I have an utter command of human discourse. I can start and end arguments and discussions at whim, reframing topics and shifting focus whenever it suits my fancy. I am immune to most fallacies, I can see right through them, in many cases I can quickly form an analogy to expose them.

Despite my overwhelming argumentative advantages, I find it nearly impossible to change minds. Irrational elements almost always intervene. I really only engage in discourse for entertainment, and as an input for my inner semantical games. I have little reason to lie anymore, except to avoid unneccessary argument. I never liked to do it anyway, even though I don't really believe in lies.

I would be interested in hearing what some of the more spiritually advanced souls around here think, as well as the more hardcore Christians.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I worship words.A worthy choice IMO. Though I doubt you mean it literally - unless you have a shrine with an immaculate copy of Webster's at the centre.
I am an acolyte to the temple of language. I believe that everything we can point to is consisted of words. We create ourselves with words, change ourselves with the same power. The universe was created with words. Both science and religion consist of highly evolved words and concepts.That's postmodernism as developed by Jaques Derrida. He points out that any word you look up in the dictionary is defined by other words in an endless loop. He argues words have no real-world referants and that we construct reality with words, rather than describe or reflect reality using words.
I have both my inner landscape and outer surroundings mapped with poweful concepts that allow me to perceive my reality with ever -growing granularity.Nicely put.
I believe skillful use of words can bring you anything in life that you want.

I think that anybody who is missing something from their lives can improve their lives simply by redefining words that they have an incomplete understanding of.There speaks the young middle-class American! Still, if you were right that would be wonderful news for the world's starving children.

Just because it works for you in your context (and reading your skillful posts I've no doubt you could make a living from words) doesn't mean it generalises.
Our entire lives revolve around these words and we don't realize it.Actually "we" do - this is pretty much orthodox thinking in modern social academia. That's not said to knock you - indeed, well done for arriving at similar conclusions of your own volition, napsterbater.
I have an utter command of human discourse. I can start and end arguments and discussions at whim, reframing topics and shifting focus whenever it suits my fancy. I am immune to most fallacies, I can see right through them, in many cases I can quickly form an analogy to expose them.You are a skillful wordsmith. But don't let ego be your downfall, young Annakin.
Despite my overwhelming argumentative advantages, I find it nearly impossible to change minds.Become a professional writer or academic. People will listen and be influenced then.
I would be interested in hearing what some of the more spiritually advanced souls around here think Bad luck. You got 'closed-minded' materialist Blob instead! ;)

A few reservations I have about your ideas:
it seems to me words do have real world referents (e.g. Pavlov's dogs phenomenon). Derrida's dictionary analogy is specious in my opinion.
reality does not care for us or words. It is partially but not entirely constructed by us. As Philip K Dick said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
words can not define us or reality because a single word such as "right" has multiple-meanings; there must be something else making the distinction between possible multiple meanings
there is no evidence of art, ornament, writing etc past 50000 years ago. It is conceivable that fully formed modern humans existed without language or thought as we know it for many thousands of years; i.e. language was "discovered" after our brains and vocal chords evolved (this is highly speculative but I find it a very inspiring idea)
sentiments such as "We create ourselves with words, change ourselves with the same power. The universe was created with words." are self-refuting because, by your own argument, you are constructing a new reality when you say that rather than describing an existing reality.


Of course I realise that all my reservations are also self-refuting because I have used words to construct them!!! :@@:

An interesting worship Napster.

On the other end of the scale, I find the most peace in the complete lack of words.
Often, the ramblings of humanity hurt my ears.
During these time I seek solitude.

To sit in the forest and listen to the quite lessons of nature and the whisper of the wind in the trees, surpasses any words the human tongue could speak.

Often times words are spoken only for the joy of the speaker,
at great expense to the listener.

Websters would be a horrible object of worship. Even an encyclopedia would be inadequate. Wikipedia comes close for a good object of worship. I spend much time on wikipedia.

I find postmodernism (as well as most purely academic writings) too blase and boring for my taste. In my younger days, I probably would have eaten it up, knowing no better. But I believe that your words must be applicable and meaningful to everybody if one is to benefit from them. I wrote an essay on academia in my rant that I will repost in another thread. I'm sure it will provide much entertainment for the argumentative amongst you.

Thank you for pointing out the anthropomorphism of my argument. Yes, indeed, it is coming from my point of view. But I would posit that even the starving children of the world are not immune to the power of words, as they reason they are starving comes from somebody elses words in the first place.

Also, those children do not have the power of words, they have something else entirely working in their favor, biology. That other people's words are enough to commute the basic biological need to provide for one's children is more proof.

You are right, as a professional writer or academic, I would be in a much better position to influence people. But I have almost completely lost the urge to influence people directly with my words. Yes, it would be nice to be influential and useful to society, but society itself has let me down so many times that I really don't want to bother anymore. I have my own truths and my own understandings, and I don't care to go to school to learn someone elses.

This is where "closed-minded" materialism fails to give one a true appreciation for life. Materialism doesn't just cut you off from God, it cuts you off from one's higher emotions as well. One has no method to commute the brute effects of nature on our lives and emotions, and makes us a slave to them. You could easily use materialistic arguments to argue your way out of it, but that isn't the point.

But, word mastery doesn't just involve clever discussion tactics. It is necessary to obtain mastery over ones emotions as well. This means braving the emotional waters of faith and trust and relationship and all that stuff. One must live and be experienced. This sounds pretty cute coming from a twenty-one year old, I know. But I have that kind of emotional mastery that people search their entire lives for.

To answer your reservations:
Words do have real-world referrants, but its a chicken and egg situation in my opinion. We are really incapable of seeing where the words end and reality begins, except in a laboratory setting, just like Pavlov's dogs. Most of us don't live in a lab, so we must deal with reality with words.

Reality is only partially constructed by us, but that part that is constructed by us includes everything that can not be abstracted out of the picture. When you think about it, that's a whole lot. The first world for the most part has abstracted hunger to the point where anybody who wants food can eventually get it, using words like "work," or "begging."

It is us that makes that distinction between multiple meanings of words. That is what makes words so powerful. We choose what the words we use mean. Those choices compose our entire subjective reality. Since we cannot discern objective reality except in a laboratory, our subjective lives rule our being.

That there was no language before vocal chords and brains evolved only points to the power and usefulness of words, to the exclusion of action and doing. We keep evolving the tools we use as humans, and language is the highest tool we have. Higher use of language, like that which I have stumbled upon, will not be confined to the ivory tower of academia when it emerges. The essay mentioned earlier on academia details this, but not in so many words.

The sentiments of "We create ourselves with words, change ourselves with the same power. The universe was created with words," are irrational. They are not meant to be taken literally, but figuratively, in the same way that your spouse means when she says, "You never listen to me!" Logical argument won't get anywhere. Word mastery includes a command over the irrational and emotional aspects of language, and it cannot be abstracted away.

And your last statement hits upon the utter futility of opposing my idea. Any attempt to refute it must be made without words, a near impossibility on a web forum, and indeed, for almost anybody else. It would be possible for a hardcore motherfucker to point a gun at me and make me shit my pants, thereby proving that words aren't everything. I doubt I would even flinch if anybody else pointed a gun at me, because of the command I have over my emotions, but I really am talking out of my ass here. :)

Ahh, you are very right, Dan, I know the pleasures of silence better than most, I think. I think silence is the language of existance, and to appreciate it is to come the closest we as humans will ever come to appreciating the vastness of existance.

Your last statement provokes no debate from me, but I will posit that all words spoken are spoken for the pleasure of the speaker.

But, even in the forest, one has the ever-present stream of thought running through mind. In every case, unless one is meditating, that stream takes the form of words. Meditation is the only way to get away from words, and most people use words to meditate, so they aren't getting away at all.

"You are a skillful wordsmith. But don't let ego be your downfall, young Annakin."

What your cute response doesn't appreciate is that all writing is an act of ego. Every statement, every word.

For an elaboration, try this essay. It's kinda long-winded, but fascinating reading.

http://clayreynolds.info/Cow_Can_Moo_Clay_Reynolds.pdf

I will add that I would not want to leave the impression that I am against communication.
I believe that the ability to communicate is the basis for compatibility with society.
Organization and communication go hand-in-hand.
No better evidence of this was the lack of such in the gulf coast situation, after the storm.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I find postmodernism (as well as most purely academic writings) too blase and boring for my taste.As well as plain crap quality more often than not.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
they reason they are starving comes from somebody elses words in the first place.It's due to a lack of food in their stomachs. That's why wordless animals starve to death too. But if you are suggesting starvation in the modern world can arguably and largely be traced to political and economic reasons then I agree.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
I have my own truths and my own understandings, and I don't care to go to school to learn someone elses.You do, but that is because you are standing on the shoulders of giants. An education is one way to learn about those giants.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
This is where "closed-minded" materialism fails to give one a true appreciation for life. Materialism doesn't just cut you off from God,Why is the master of words suddenly using a clumsy and ill-defined term like god?
Originally posted by Napsterbater
it cuts you off from one's higher emotions as well. One has no method to commute the brute effects of nature on our lives and emotions, and makes us a slave to them. You could easily use materialistic arguments to argue your way out of it, but that isn't the point.What nonsense. A person's stated philosophy is unrelated to their personality. I have a sensitive, optimistic and emotional disposition and always have. This has been consistent throughout my life and is irrespective of whether I was in a materialistic or spiritualistic phase.

You yourself have used materialist analogy in some of your posts, especially regarding fashionable aspects of physics such as quantum uncertainty.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
But I have that kind of emotional mastery that people search their entire lives for.Sounds like the naive clarity of youth.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Napsterbater
Since we cannot discern objective reality except in a laboratory, our subjective lives rule our being.I'm surprised you consider the lab to be objective. I don't and I bet you don't really.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
That there was no language before vocal chords and brains evolved only points to the power and usefulness of words, to the exclusion of action and doing.I agree - but remember it's highly speculative and based on lack of evidence because elsewhere (or elsewhen) evidence does exist.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
And your last statement hits upon the utter futility of opposing my idea. No it doesn't. It hits upon everyone, including you, being self-refuted the moment they open their mouths (or type at their keyboards or whatever) according to your ideas.

It would be rather like me saying "you are young therefore think you know it all". Any attempt you made to argue out of it would be automatically refutable because I could just declare "Aha! You see! You think you know it all!" (this is the strategy lokideviluk seems to be up against when his JWs come to visit). But just because I would have put you in a position of utter futility wouldn't make my position valid.

(Where I have not addressed a point you have made it is because I largely or generally agree. Enjoying your posts the way.)

Originally posted by Napsterbater
"You are a skillful wordsmith. But don't let ego be your downfall, young Annakin."

What your cute response doesn't appreciate is that all writing is an act of ego. Every statement, every word. That's hardly the point. You are there refering to ego implicit in words, but I was poking fun at your explicit boasting in your earlier post.

It is truly enjoyable to find someone with a similar appreciation for existance as me. With that said, let me show it by trying to rip you apart. :)

The political and economic aspects of starvation was exactly what I was getting at. That words are the most powerful aspects of our existance does not mean other parts of existance can't make words meaningless. Yet in this day and age there is little and rapidly diminishing excuse why we cannot use the power of words to make such biological problems meaningless in the same way that I dismiss the threat of influenza on my health. Influenza is not a harmless threat by any means, but it can and has been in the past made largely inconsequential, at least when you compare it to the nation-terrifying epidemic that it used to be.

I do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants. I derive great pleasure from reading and learning from these people. But that doesn't mean that I am required to conform to an academic approach to do so. I personally am more than free to learn and grow at my leisure, and the fact that others may not be does not mean that I need to do so.

I am very careful where I use loaded words like God. My preferred word for the idea is existance. I use that word when I want to call attention to the popular idea of God. I try to keep my prose simple and easy to read, so that those of average and below-average cognitive intelligence (half the whole country!) can read and follow and understand. At the same time, I fine-tune my words and their usage to make them focused and effective. It is a difficult balancing act that I am surprised that I have the ability to do.

And you are quite right about philosophy vs. personality. It reminds me of a saying I read awhile back, "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound statement may well be another profound statement." I for one have seen and felt the effects of a purely materialistic philosophy on a person's psyche. I can almost see their souls crying for help, if I might be allowed to drift into purely subjective, emotional language for a second. Yet the ones who don't seem particularly affected by their sworn lack of beliefs are the ones I can tell, on a purely subjective level, can benefit the most from venturing into the scary and disturbing world of faith, dreams and pure idealism.

If objective reality cannot be discovered in the laboratory, an environment specifically tailored for the discovery and revelation of objective truth, then we cannot discover objective reality anywhere, and it would be useless to look, because there would be nowhere one could do so.

Wow, I didn't realize I sounded like that (the opposition is futile statement) when I wrote it. I didn't really mean it was futile to oppose me, I meant that the assertions are logically unarguable. I was attempting an objective overview of the philosophy I had detailed, not an irrational ego statement. I detailed the irrational parts of it in my earlier posts, now I wish to discuss the rational parts.

That being said you're statements are exactly what I was trying to say. Those are exactly the sort of irrational elements that keep discussions of any sort from having any real effect on people's minds. What I want to do is bring attention to these obstacles so people can start understanding one another instead of making pointless stand after pointless stand, leaving us to our own devices.

The explicit boasting in my earlier posts was in fact me poking fun at ego being implicit in words. That is what makes, "IMHO." so ironic, because their words are not humble or honest at all. I decided to forgo the IMHO and make it IMAO, in my arrogant opinion, both for fun and to illustrate a point.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
It is truly enjoyable to find someone with a similar appreciation for existance as me.I'm enjoying your company too. :)
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Yet in this day and age there is little and rapidly diminishing excuse why we cannot use the power of words to make such biological problems meaningless in the same way that I dismiss the threat of influenza on my health.I would consider it to be the real world referants making the difference. The fact that international life expectancy has shot up from 30 years to ~70 years since 1870 is a strong argument against Derrida and the intrinisic power of words themselves.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
But that doesn't mean that I am required to conform to an academic approach to do so.Quite. Einstein would be a case in point.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
I am very careful where I use loaded words like God.Not this time you weren't. ;)
Originally posted by Napsterbater
My preferred word for the idea is existance.But in the context you used 'God' above, 'existance' would make no sense: "materialism cuts you off from existance". ??!??!

'God' is a string of meaningless letters on the screen.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
I for one have seen and felt the effects of a purely materialistic philosophy on a person's psyche.I'm not convinced there is a correlation between negativity and materialist beliefs. But even if there is you seem to be assuming well-being is preferable to wisdom. Maybe so, but I'm not decided.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
If objective reality cannot be discovered in the laboratory, an environment specifically tailored for the discovery and revelation of objective truth, then we cannot discover objective reality anywhere, and it would be useless to look, because there would be nowhere one could do so.That's a strangely black-and-white perspective for you. The lab is great for refining the granularity of powerful and effective ways of thinking - ways of thinking I personally admire above all others. That doesn't make it objective though - consider the political and social pressures on the 'purist' of scientists. E.G. - The majority of physicists work for the military at some point in their careers - a major reason I did not pursue a scientific career after my physics degree.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
What I want to do is bring attention to these obstacles so people can start understanding one another instead of making pointless stand after pointless stand, leaving us to our own devices.I thought you didn't want to influence anyone? ;)
Originally posted by Napsterbater
The explicit boasting in my earlier posts was in fact me poking fun at ego being implicit in words. That is what makes, "IMHO." so ironic, because their words are not humble or honest at all. I decided to forgo the IMHO and make it IMAO, in my arrogant opinion, both for fun and to illustrate a point. Far enough - I do see what your game is with the ego / self-deprication theme of your posts. And I like "IMAO" very much. lol

I don't mean to say that the real-world referants to our words don't exist, I am saying that words are our best method of dealing with them. Without words, their real-world counterparts would rule us just as effectively as they did in the pre-1800s. I think that the whole reason we are at this so-called pinnacle of civilization is a testament to the power of words and language to commute the power of nature. Without them, we would be unable to cooperate.

Hmm, you completely missed my point on the God, existance thing.

God, existance, any of those words are indeed meaningless strings of letters, until you give them weight with context. I could not convey to you with words what they mean to me, but we can deal with them in the popular definitions. Websters would do for finding out what I mean by God. You are aware that most people of the world believe in this concept called God, right? It is that concept I am attempting to bring to the table when I use that word. Materialism, by its very definition, cuts you off from God, (or a belief in God, if you prefer) because it places no value in the word, and places all its value on the material world. It cuts the whole concept out of the picture. That you are even having a problem with this is proof of what I am trying to say.

Here is the dirty secret behind religion. God isn't just the concept of some guy out in the sky that dictates what we are supposed to follow as a moral code so we can spend eternity with Him when we die. He isn't just some hateful father that wants you to do his bidding, or he'll punish you like a bad boy. I am using the Christian concept because that is the religion concept that is most prevalant amongst Americans. It is just as relevant to all religions, the reason for which I will give in a minute. God is the force that makes it all work together. Some people consider science as their god, and one can easily substitute God for science. The bad boy analogy can even hold with some creative thought.

Science is just another religion, as you who debates the objectivity of the lab should be able to attest to. And religion is just another science. Both Christianity and Science are models for how the universe works. That science does it a lot better than Christianity ever did doesn't mean that science is without its faults, or that the two belief patterns are fundamentally different. A difference in degree does not equate a difference in kind. Both are models for describing nature. They just do it in different ways.

What science fails to provide is a way to deal with the scary, irrational, experiential parts of life. It fails to provide a good pattern for living a decent life. Until now, the Christian mold is all we've had. We as a society need a new method that appreciates the greater granularity of Science as a model for the universe, because Christianity is built on two-thousand year old myth. Pure materialism isn't working, as one can easily see in the papers. Ignoring irrationalism does not make it go away.

"I thought you didn't want to influence anyone?"

I am forever changing approaches and attitudes. It is a part of the flexibility of mind that I detailed in an earlier post. But it is kind of ironic, isn't it?

That was an irrational statement. (my quote above) It is important to be able to tell the difference between the two, because they have different argumentative merits. Nobody can be wholly logical all the time, and it is a foolish thing to even try. An appreciation for irrationalism is needed for dealing with those attributes in oneself. Irrationalism is holistic, it generalizes. It is to be treated differently when it is used in an argument.

This is an amusing game to me as long as I do not try to take it seriously and change minds directly. I can take attitudes and abandon them at whim. Once I have such a focused goal in my mind, the changing of another mind, the amusement decreases. I'm just playing around, it would seem. But I don't play idly. It is like a video game to me. There are goals and objectives, and the key to a game is to do as best as you can, while still remembering that it is just a game.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Science is just another religion, as you who debates the objectivity of the lab should be able to attest to. And religion is just another science. Both Christianity and Science are models for how the universe works. That science does it a lot better than Christianity ever did doesn't mean that science is without its faults, or that the two belief patterns are fundamentally different. A difference in degree does not equate a difference in kind. Both are models for describing nature. They just do it in different ways.


I think you equate the ideas of science and religion too closely. While both pursuits attempt to explain our universe they do so in fundamentally different ways. Religion attempts to explain the universe by teaching a certain viewpoint as the truth, and tends to discourage people from thinking "outside the box" when it comes to their particular orthodoxy. Science on the other hand, teaches a way to find the truth through investigation, and experimentation. It encourages new ways of thinking and tests them to see if they accurately describe the observable universe. This seems to me to be two fundamentally different ways of dealing with a common dilemma.

Therein lies the difference. Religion doesn't evolve to reflect our current knowledge of the universe. Science does. Religion requires faith in things that are unprovable, while science demands that the unprovable be rejected.

Science and religion have different ways to explain the universe, perhaps even fundamentally different ways, but the goals are similar.

Religion often does teach a more experiential and investigative truth. For the Buddhist, there is no substitute for firsthand experience in meditation. It is the cornerstone of Buddhist faith. Earlier forms of Christianity included much of the mystical and magical occult aspects that are denied today. You should know this, one who calls yourself a pagan, if you have actually studied paganism and religion at all. Religion can be very investigative, and even Christianity has evolved with the times. Christian fundamentalism is a rather new form of Christianity. Earlier Christians were never as dogmatic and demanding and there was much variation and debate on different forms of faith. Now there are hundreds of different kinds of faiths.

And the opposite is often true for science. Dogmaticism and narrowmindedness are hallowed traditions of academia. It is the classic story where scientists who find new laws and new paradigms are rejected out of hand by the established orthodoxy.

There exists no real difference between the two methods of examining the world, it is all in how you care to look at it. The academic will obviously find his tradition more valid, because he has a put so many years into his path, he tends to tune out valid points that exist for the "enemy camp" Ditto for the religious person.

But the difference, as sharply as we might be able to draw the line, starts to fade when the right information makes itself clear. That is true for so many other things as well. An essay for another day.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Science and religion have different ways to explain the universe, perhaps even fundamentally different ways, but the goals are similar.

Similar only in the most general sense. They both strive to explain the universe.


Religion often does teach a more experiential and investigative truth. For the Buddhist, there is no substitute for firsthand experience in meditation. It is the cornerstone of Buddhist faith.

I thought we were confining ourselves to Christianity in our discussion of religion. My mistake.


Earlier forms of Christianity included much of the mystical and magical occult aspects that are denied today.

And earlier "scientific" thought held that the universe was permeated by an invisible ether. Again, I was speaking about science and Christianity as we know them today.


You should know this, one who calls yourself a pagan, if you have actually studied paganism and religion at all.

It's a SN. I'm no more a vile pagan than you are a napster bater. :)


Religion can be very investigative, and even Christianity has evolved with the times.

Very reluctantly, and very slowly.


Christian fundamentalism is a rather new form of Christianity.

Not true, there have always been Christians who've advocated a strict interpretation of the Bible.


Earlier Christians were never as dogmatic and demanding and there was much variation and debate on different forms of faith. Now there are hundreds of different kinds of faiths.

I disagree that earlier christians were neccessarily less dogmatic, and I'd point out that the fact that more denominations of Christianity have appeared over time is not evidence that this was a product of "investigation" or "experience".


And the opposite is often true for science. Dogmaticism and narrowmindedness are hallowed traditions of academia. It is the classic story where scientists who find new laws and new paradigms are rejected out of hand by the established orthodoxy.

While true, this is also an example of how to behave unscientifically. It may be human but such behavior has no relation to true scientific thought.


There exists no real difference between the two methods of examining the world, it is all in how you care to look at it. The academic will obviously find his tradition more valid, because he has a put so many years into his path, he tends to tune out valid points that exist for the "enemy camp" Ditto for the religious person.

Noting similarities in the behavior of the adherents to different philosophies in no way shows the similarity of the philosophies themselves. Again, the glaring difference between the two outlooks seems apparent, at least to my mind. One requires faith, the other rejects it.


But the difference, as sharply as we might be able to draw the line, starts to fade when the right information makes itself clear. That is true for so many other things as well.

No doubt you possess this information. :D

I do indeed possess the information, and I would be more than willing to share it. That is the purpose of the argument, is it not?

I at one point in my life called myself a pagan. I studied the newer pagan form of Wicca and the older religions that it draws from. What most people don't realize, and this is because Christianity has brainwashed them, is that religion once formed an excellent method to describe the world. I have heard it said that the best the Weather Channel can come up with won't even touch an ancient Native American shaman when it comes to accuracy. Christianity has warped the first world's ideas of what religion is, because Christianity is a political faith. One learns far more about politics in Christianity than one ever learns about God. Christianity doesn't so much as explain nature as it tries to supplant it. Many other religions are far more in tune with the natural world than Christianity and its offshoot, Islam. That is the reason Christianity has evolved slowly.

I would say that the reason more branches of Christianity have evolved is a direct result of a more experiential and investigative approach to religion. A person finds that the orthodox method doesn't work, so he starts a new faith, one more in line with his experiences and beliefs. A persons beliefs only partly rest on what he has been taught. The rest comes from experience.

True scientific thought, as you put it. is a wash. It is an ideal that is out of place in a supposedly realistic paradigm. True scientific thought is a term that is bandied about the scientific marketplace, used by scientists with political aspirations. Science is no less political than religion, and plays even more of a role in politics in America at least, due to the Seperation clause in the Constitution, than religion does.

And you are right, if I had made the adherant argument alone, it would have been inadequate. But I have sufficiently argued that the two methods are similar in scope and purpose and that the methods themselves share too many similarities to avoid the conclusion that they are largely the same, the question of faith notwithstanding.

I am sure you would be interested in the writings of Karen Armstrong. She wrote "A History of God," and "The Battle for God." The first is a history of monotheistic faith, written from a humanist perspective. The second is an account of the rise of Christian, Islamic and Jewesh fundamentalism, again written from the same standpoint. She could argue for the case of a relatively new rise of fundamentalism far better than I could. It is also thouroughly fascinating reading.

I have heard it said that the best the Weather Channel can come up with won't even touch an ancient Native American shaman when it comes to accuracy

Yes the tribal witch doctor sure can tell us more about swells and storm systems then a meteorologist with the most advanced surveying technology :rolleyes:

Christianity has warped the first world's ideas of what religion is, because Christianity is a political faith. One learns far more about politics in Christianity than one ever learns about God.

The term 'Modern Jackass' was coined to label this state.

-a person that talks expertly about something he/she actually knows nothing about

Christianity and its offshoot, Islam.

*buzzer sounds* WRONG!

That is the reason Christianity has evolved slowly.

They do not change with the times, for that would destroy the faith. All clergymen make an oath against modernity when they join.

I am sure you would be interested in the writings of Karen Armstrong. She wrote "A History of God," and "The Battle for God." The first is a history of monotheistic faith, written from a humanist perspective. The second is an account of the rise of Christian, Islamic and Jewesh fundamentalism, again written from the same standpoint. She could argue for the case of a relatively new rise of fundamentalism far better than I could. It is also thouroughly fascinating reading

I shall look into this

"Yes the tribal witch doctor sure can tell us more about swells and storm systems then a meteorologist with the most advanced surveying technology"

You would be surprised what the so-called backward pagan faiths have accomplished. It requires personal experience to believe it, chiefly because the political Christian faith destroys evidence to the fact, but once you have it, science fades into the background as just another attempt at categorizing the world, a method just as political and warped as any other. Such experience cannot be conveyed over such a forum, so I cannot back up my claims. You may be able to make yourself look good on a web forum, (not if I have anything to do with it, anyway) but you will still be ignorant and talking out of your ass; there just isn't anything I will be able to do about it. Chalk it up to the limitations of the web forum format.

I think you caught me on the Islam question, but your assertion that the Christian faith does not evolve brings much irony to your accusations of sophistry, as you will surely find out when and more importantly, if, you ever decide to read Karen Armstrong's books.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I do indeed possess the information, and I would be more than willing to share it. That is the purpose of the argument, is it not?

For me the purpose of a discussion is a mutual exchange of ideas...I'm not sure you see it that way. :)


I at one point in my life called myself a pagan. I studied the newer pagan form of Wicca and the older religions that it draws from.

So, you're more of a pagan than I am after all. Congratulations...are you more vile as well? :D


What most people don't realize, and this is because Christianity has brainwashed them, is that religion once formed an excellent method to describe the world.

I'm not sure why you think most people wouldn't realize that fact...on the other hand you do have a tendency to underestimte everyone's intelligence but your own.


I have heard it said that the best the Weather Channel can come up with won't even touch an ancient Native American shaman when it comes to accuracy.

I've heard it said that if you pee on an electric cow fence you'll hear the angels sing. If you believe that an ancient shaman could predict the weather more accurately than a competent meteorologist with access to satellite imagery, I would suggest you continue your studies.


Christianity has warped the first world's ideas of what religion is, because Christianity is a political faith. One learns far more about politics in Christianity than one ever learns about God.

The church is certainly political, but I'm not so sure about Christianity itself...care to explain this statement?


Christianity doesn't so much as explain nature as it tries to supplant it.

Hmm...in what way does Christianity supplant nature? Do you mean that some of it's teachings go against biological imperatives that drive humans?


Many other religions are far more in tune with the natural world than Christianity and its offshoot, Islam. That is the reason Christianity has evolved slowly.

Interesting...how do you think this effect applied to Christianity?


I would say that the reason more branches of Christianity have evolved is a direct result of a more experiential and investigative approach to religion. A person finds that the orthodox method doesn't work, so he starts a new faith, one more in line with his experiences and beliefs. A persons beliefs only partly rest on what he has been taught. The rest comes from experience.

I would say that new faiths have arisen as often over the political influences you mentioned as they have due to ideological differences.


True scientific thought, as you put it. is a wash. It is an ideal that is out of place in a supposedly realistic paradigm. True scientific thought is a term that is bandied about the scientific marketplace, used by scientists with political aspirations.

I'd have to say that's the closest thing to utter nonsense you've yet posted.


Science is no less political than religion, and plays even more of a role in politics in America at least, due to the Seperation clause in the Constitution, than religion does.

Once again you are referring to the behavior of some scientists, not science itself.


And you are right, if I had made the adherant argument alone, it would have been inadequate. But I have sufficiently argued that the two methods are similar in scope and purpose

Again, I agree in the most general sense they are similar in scope and purpose.


and that the methods themselves share too many similarities to avoid the conclusion that they are largely the same, the question of faith notwithstanding.

This is my main point, and one you have yet to address much less "argue sufficiently". The methods used by religion and science to achieve this similar goal are completely dissimilar.

You may wish to ignore the question of faith, but if you do, there is no way you can legitimately claim to even understand what religion is, nor can you compare it to science if you believe "true scientific thought" is a "wash".

Faith is an inherent part of any religion. Without faith there is no religion. Science by it's very nature cannot abide faith as part of it's method. In short, there is no room whatsoever for unsubstantiated belief in the realm of scientific inquiry.

Weather is a complex system, which in physics means that traditional determinalistic methods of prediction simply don't apply after a certain point. In weather, that point is about five days, past which any meterologist will be able to tell you that he might as well be throwing darts.

Shamans and witch doctors use different methods to arrive at predictions, methods that make more sense when you are initiated into them.

The main problem is that most of that knowledge was lost, lost to a rampaging American military machine which all but eradicated an entire civilization. Or did you forget basic American history? It is similar to how most of the truly powerful Chinese and Tibetan martial arts were lost to political and military grandstanding.

As modern spiritual techniques evolve, I am sure much of the ancient knowledges will be rediscovered.

accusations of sophistry

soph·is·try- A: Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
B: A deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
hehe i understand, my label of sophist, but in that use of the word changes the meaning in a massive way.

but your assertion that the Christian faith does not evolve brings much irony to your accusations

It is not supposed to evolve (as i have gathered from firsthand discussion with clergymen in a conversation on modernity), and does very slowly, and in minimal amounts.

if, you ever decide to read Karen Armstrong's books.

I read alot, i am sure i will get around to it after i finish my current title

Regardless of what a few clergyman might have to say about their faiths and the official Church doctrine, Christianity has evolved, and even more than it's younger cousin, Islam. You should also look into some of the history of the Bible and the language used in the Book of Genesis for an illustration. My preferred book on the subject is "Asimov's guide to the Bible," by the giant himself. Buy a copy, they are cheap these days.

"Hmm...in what way does Christianity supplant nature? Do you mean that some of it's teachings go against biological imperatives that drive humans?"

Not only does it do that, but it also preaches the doctrine (Official Catholic Church doctrine, the rule in Western Christianity up until the Reformation) that nature exists solely for humans to exploit in the name of God. God hath given these things to us, so to speak, and God will taketh away when we don't deserve it anymore. We were to use it for the goal of advancing the Christian faith. If that doesn't prove Christianity is more political than spiritual, I don't know what does.

This attitude carried itself into the pre-industrial age, when the predominantly Protestant American nation started expanding westward in a rather warlike manner. Indeed, the consumerist, materialistic attitudes of the day can be traced back to its religious roots.

"I would say that new faiths have arisen as often over the political influences you mentioned as they have due to ideological differences."

The two go hand in hand. Ideological differances provoke political maneuvers and vice versa.

"Once again you are referring to the behavior of some scientists, not science itself."

No it is you who is taking a lofty opinion of Science and defends it by passing the buck on to individual scientists. Very similar to the Catholic Church practice of condemning pedophile priests in practice while shuffling them around in private, avoiding the question of the causes of such behavior; the celebacy doctrine. You are condemning individual scientists and refusing to see the larger patterns that lead to such abuse of what you see as science's stated goals and objectives.

And faith IS religion, the two are indistinguishable. Religion is another word for faith and faith is another word for religion. Religion is the institution, faith is its bureaucracy, so to speak. What you are saying is basically, "Science does not have religion, so therefore Science!=religion." A meaningless statement.

And science does have something analogous. The Scientific Method, held to with every bit as much fervor as a theists faith. Even though Einstein himself has said that, "Imagination is more important than knowledge," and documented scientific phenomena like the placebo effect, science still holds on to the scientific method as a method of discovering truth, even though the doctrinal determinalistic model is being questioned by serious scientists.

So there. If you still think I have not argued the point sufficiently enough, I suggest you go back to earlier posts and come up with a true response to the proposition, as opposed to the reactionary arguing of single points.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Weather is a complex system, which in physics means that traditional determinalistic methods of prediction simply don't apply after a certain point. In weather, that point is about five days, past which any meterologist will be able to tell you that he might as well be throwing darts.

Indeed after 5 days the accuracy falls below 50%.


Shamans and witch doctors use different methods to arrive at predictions, methods that make more sense when you are initiated into them.

I'm sure that applies to us both.

The main problem is that most of that knowledge was lost, lost to a rampaging American military machine which all but eradicated an entire civilization.

Actually 90%-95% of the native american population was killed by disease long before America had a "military machine" that could "rampage".


Or did you forget basic American history?

Please lose the attitude of intellectual superiority Napster, the laughter makes it difficult for me to type. :)

Oh dear napsterbater. Some disappointing crankery is appearing in your posts.

You seem to aspire to the ideal of the noble savage. Wise and wonderful tradional knowledge of equal validity to modern science. I used to be the same. When I went to live in Africa I would 'open-mindedly' dig the wise words of African elders. I would stop the car and jump out to ask Masai herders what the weather was going to do in my rather good (at the time) Swahili. Took me about 6 months to realise they as were full of shit as any westerner who claims to be spiritual and wise.

It's no good claiming you have to have personal experience or tune in to their wisdom - if a village elder tells you it will "rain at dusk" (with a profound look on his face) and it doesn't then he's plain wrong. The argument "if you understood then you'd understand" or "if you'd had my experiences then you'd have my point of view" are moot.

Also Christianity is absolutism and its doctrines are considered eternal and certain. It changes despite itself as vile has pointed out. It claims to explain everything to the exlcusion of other beliefs systems.

Science is reletavism and its doctrines are considered temporal and uncertain. It is full of dogmaticists despite itself and vile is correct to distinguish between scientists and science. It claims only to explain simplified versions of reality in which a single variable can change and allows for poetry and art and music and so on as other valid ways to interpret reality.

The Scientific Method, held to with every bit as much fervor as a theists faith.No it isn't. Try to get any of the theists on this board to admit they are so "little" as 99% certain. They won't do it - I have explicitly tried to get them to do it many times.

Ask scientists if they are as "high" as 99% certain in the scientific method. They won't do it.

Faith does imply 100% certainty and only absolutist attitutdes such as theism or communism claim it. Science and other vocational practices do not.

It requires personal experience to believe it, ... Such experience cannot be conveyed over such a forum, so I cannot back up my claims. So now it's experience, not words, that are more fundamental.

Of course, anyone who has a different point of view presumably has never experienced profound emotions, a multicultural lifestyle or appreciated a beautiful sunrise. :rolleyes:

I aspire to no ideals, I am simply playing the cards existance has given me. That is all we can ever do, isn't it? If all the cards fall one way, that is the way I must go, for sanity's sake. I do realize that tribal elders can and often are just as full of shit as anybody else.That isn't what I'm getting at here. My point is that the knowledge existed, and some of it still does, in areas inside and outside of the weather, and my experience with it has been undeniable, for me. In fact, as soon as I get my shit together in the material world, I'm going back to Utah to pursue Indonesian martial arts, so I can prove it for myself, as you have done. Merely because existance showed you one part of the puzzle, doesn't mean there aren't other parts waiting to be found.

And as for the Scientific method, I said that the two were analogous, not exactly the same. That would go with the rest of my arguments to prove that Science and Religion are, in the main, simply slightly different methods of apprehending the same truth.

Another thing about faith. It gets stronger with the conviction you place in it. Many people think that to get a stronger faith, you have to just say it, which is why you find so many people that claim to be 100% faithful. Faith is a small piece of the God puzzle. The other is moving into the unknown and trusting that God, Spirit, Buddha, what have you, will protect you. That is faith, but you can never be 100% sure. It is also what makes religion so rewarding, because as you take more steps into the unknown, and you come out better than you did before, you gain more confidence and more ability. When you don't need God to protect you anymore, you throw him out and come to some new understanding. Everyone has their own Mount Everest to climb, and for many, God provides the means for a person to scale it. That has been my experience.

I can't say which is more fundamental, experience and words. I can just take the attitude, and argue for it, for amusement. I can just as easily take the other attitude and argue for it, because I am also a master of experience. Blob, you are a master too, you just have yet to realize it. So is everybody else in this forum. Some are farther up their mountain than others. As you get closer to the summit, you can look back upon the rest of everybody and see. Most people never even make the attempt, and stay bitter their whole lives. Some mountains are higher than others. They are harder to climb, but they let you see more.

It doesn't require climbing a mountain to experience profound things. But the climbing of that mountain gives you privy to the special experiences that existance has reserved for mountain climbers. They are the only ones with the perspective to fully appreciate it.

But, hell, this is all just words out of a dictionary. And I'm just amusing myself by weaving voodoo for you. The voodoo is just as meaningless as the amusement. But they give you glimpses of a larger world you _can_ comprehend, if you but make the effort.

But by hanging around me long enough, you will get the glimpses without the effort. It just happens naturally. I've seen it happen far too many times to deny it. Existance reserved 'something' for me that it didn't give everybody else. The surface interactions go on like anything else, but underneath, that something is working magic the whole time. I have some ideas as to what it could be, but thats the topic for another essay, another time, when the rest of you are ready to listen to me. Until then, we will keep having these exploratory debates. I have plenty of patience. Have fun guys!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I aspire to no idealsExcuse my phraseology. To put it another way you have fallen for the myth of the noble savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage).
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Merely because existance showed you one part of the puzzle, doesn't mean there aren't other parts waiting to be found.Oh dear. The argument from ignorance. I guess it had to rear its ugly head eventually. Your reasoning is flawed because anyone can say it to anyone else about anything. This is what I meant earlier by "if you understood then you'd understand" type reasoning.
Indeed, I hear it from theists and new-agers all the time here at allforums.net. It has been used on me to "prove" Jesus is my saviour, so-and-so is the new messiah, aliens built the pyramids and on and on.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Faith is a small piece of the God puzzle.Faith is part of god-belief but is no particular puzzle. It's merely celebrated and voluntary ignorance.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
The other is moving into the unknown and trusting that God, Spirit, Buddha, what have you, will protect you. That is faithYes but there are two kinds of faith. There is theistic faith that god exists - i.e. certainty despite no or counter evidence; and working faith - e.g. as in I have faith that my friends will look out for me if in trouble. Here you are talking about the second, pragmatic type of faith.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
When you don't need God to protect you anymore, you throw him out and come to some new understanding.Theists do not see their god-belief as a disposable catalyst in principle or in practice.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Blob, you are a master too, you just have yet to realize it.Argument from ignorance again.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
But they give you glimpses of a larger world you _can_ comprehend, if you but make the effort.

But by hanging around me long enough, you will get the glimpses without the effort. It just happens naturally.You're increasingly sounding like a stereotypical new-ager (http://www.infidelguy.com/members/rickyroma/na_harmony.htm). Hell, why not knock yourself out and tell us the blind men and elephant analogy whilst you're at it.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
I've seen it happen far too many times to deny it.Now you sound like a theist. As I mentioned arguing "if you were me you'd see it my way" is moot. You are merely projecting your emotions and desires onto reality.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Existance reserved 'something' for me that it didn't give everybody else.A good way to assess the validity of someone's argument is to ask whether it involves them being special and selected out for a higher purpose. What a coincidence that your profound insights point to personal superiority! Another steroetypical and widespread new-age characteristic.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
The surface interactions go on like anything else, but underneath, that something is working magic the whole time. I have some ideas as to what it could be Perhaps J K Rowling will reveal all in the final installment of her novels. :rolleyes:

Try not to fall into the "arguing from ignorance that I am special" trap that has snared so many a new-ager before you, napsterbater.

*Chuckles* Did I get you there, Blob? Kinda got under your skirt a little bit, I can tell. A little disappointed, are we? I didn't turn out exactly as you thought I was?

You can call it argument from ignorance, you can call it pure nonsense, you can call it whatever you want. I don't really care. But until you offer up some explanations of your own, until you can find your voice, your own expression, you will forever be reacting to whatever I have to say. You cannot have freedom of speech unless you have something to say, and thus far you have said nothing. Maybe you are afraid of looking like a jackass, I don't know. But that is what separates the leaders from the followers, and all you do have done so far since I joined up here is follow.

In the words of my favorite rapper, Obie Trice, I'm just rambling. Throwing shit up against the wall and finding whatever will stick. I've got a lot of it, and I keep finding more every day. Every little bit of it is a gateway, a portal into the world that I live in continuously. I just want you to visit with me for a little while. It's kinda lonely in here. I'm not asking you to live here, just keep me company for a short time and marvel at all the pretty sights and strange things. It really is Alice in Wonderland in here. No drugs needed, no shamanic trances necessary, no meditation, no blind men, and no elephants. All you need is an empty mind and an open heart.

http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/001760.html

Click the link for a round-trip ticket on the Hughtrain. When you get back try and tell me again that a person cannot project his desires and emotions directly into reality. Then try to tell me again how ignorant I am and how special I paint myself to be. You are speaking directly into a mirror.

Originally posted by Blob
Try not to fall into the "arguing from ignorance that I am special" trap that has snared so many a new-ager before you, napsterbater.

Well said Blob. I find the guy not even worth discussing anything with. Circular in thought and expression. Give him time to grow up and put some time on earth under his belt, then, just maybe, he will get over himself and his ideas enough to view the world in realistic terms.

I don't care for the realistic point of view. Its been too overdone and, quite frankly, its boring. Nor do I care to grow up. Joining the world of responsible adulthood just doesn't appeal to me.

"The secret of genius is to carry the spirit of childhood into maturity." - T. H. Huxley

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein

You sir, need to lose all that maturity, come to terms with yourself, and view the world through the eyes of the child you never were, or lost touch with.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I don't care for the realistic point of view. Its been too overdone and, quite frankly, its boring. Nor do I care to grow up. Joining the world of responsible adulthood just doesn't appeal to me.

Thank you for proving my point. In another 30 years you will understand. But for now, don't even try as it is something you will not be able to grasp.

Wah, wah, wah. Blob was just here pointing out the fallacy of arguing from ignorance, and here you are doing the exact same thing.

And as many mistakes as I might make on these boards, I will never make these (http://www.proft.org/tips/evil.html) mistakes.

Words are very effective for communicating but words are not real and can be very distracting.

Whoops, there went my whole religion! :)

Seriously though, how can you claim words aren't real when that is how you think, whenever you aren't thinking about basic survival? Or is thought not real either? Something so fundamental to our basic functioning as words, and you claim they aren't real, and are even distracting? Distracting from what? More words? Happiness, which is itself a word? You must be some hardcore Zen monk to think that way. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Napster, I loved the evil overlard stuff. Sent the link to my brothers. It was a good laugh. Thanks.

I'm here to help! :)

Originally posted by Napsterbater
*Chuckles* Did I get you there, Blob? Kinda got under your skirt a little bit, I can tell.No, but if you had it would only show you were being irritating, nothing more. For example Trav gets on my tits but it ain't due to his profound insights I assure you!

That said, I see you are attempting to be irritating here by *chuckling* and being sarcastic with a feminine insinuation. 8 out of 10 for effort, though. Well done.
A little disappointed, are we? I didn't turn out exactly as you thought I was?Yes disappointed, but because you have turned out to be what I suspected: a classic new-ager. As you can see, I am familiar of the argument from ignorance and the claim to be "holistically enlightened" to the point of making a spoof webpage (http://www.infidelguy.com/members/rickyroma/na_harmony.htm) about it. I had optimistically held on to you not fitting that stereotype but nevermind.

Nice attempt to be irritating again by using the royal 'we'. 9 out of 10 this time. Trav would be proud.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
You can call it argument from ignorance, you can call it pure nonsense, you can call it whatever you want. I don't really care.Thanks for the options but if it waddles and quacks and tastes good with hoisin sauce then I call it a duck. Here is what you said:Merely because existance showed you one part of the puzzle, doesn't mean there aren't other parts waiting to be found. Textbook argument from ignorance.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
But until you offer up some explanations of your own, until you can find your voice, your own expression, you will forever be reacting to whatever I have to say. You cannot have freedom of speech unless you have something to say, and thus far you have said nothing. Maybe you are afraid of looking like a jackass, I don't know. But that is what separates the leaders from the followers, and all you do have done so far since I joined up here is follow.Insults and self-declarations that you are "victorious" in the debate? Live that cranky stereotype napsterbater!

You started this thread, proposed words are worthy of worship, and requested feedback. It's no good when someone presents a challenge in your thread, as you asked, to accuse them of following. A poor substitute for addressing my actual points.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
When you get back try and tell me again that a person cannot project his desires and emotions directly into reality. Then try to tell me again how ignorant I am and how special I paint myself to be. You are speaking directly into a mirror. It's no good repeating the observation of projectionism back to me. I thought you were supposed to be the leader?

I didn't call you ignorant at all. I said you are using the argument from ignorance. Surely you know the difference.

You are the one who portrays yourself as special. One of many examples would be: Existance reserved 'something' for me that it didn't give everybody else.

Projectionism is indeed unavoidable to a degree, but that doesn't mean one can't attempt self-awareness, napsterbater.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Whoops, there went my whole religion! :) lol. I see you met Ed! Picks up on a keyword, doesn't read the thread, and throws in a half-baked comment he thinks is profound. :p

Truly a person worthy of discussion! I am truly grateful for the opportunity to match wits with you.

"No, but if you had it would only show you were being irritating, nothing more. For example Trav gets on my tits but it ain't due to his profound insights I assure you!

That said, I see you are attempting to be irritating here by *chuckling* and being sarcastic with a feminine insinuation. 8 out of 10 for effort, though. Well done. "

A page right out of my own book. Flinging debate tactics back in the faces of the persons using them. Well done!

"Yes disappointed, but because you have turned out to be what I suspected: a classic new-ager. As you can see, I am familiar of the argument from ignorance and the claim to be "holistically enlightened" to the point of making a spoof webpage about it. I had optimistically held on to you not fitting that stereotype but nevermind. "

What I am and what I am not, do not depend on temporary attitudes I might take during a debate. There are many facets to my being, and it will take a lot of time to show them all to you. Like I've said before, I have a lot of shit to throw. Sooner or later, some of it will stick, I'm sure. If it doesn't, well, such is life.

"Merely because existance showed you one part of the puzzle, doesn't mean there aren't other parts waiting to be found. Textbook argument from ignorance."

I was giving a reason and a justification for choosing to find life on my own terms, not making an argument. I am in fact claiming ignorance, not arguing from it. I am saying, "Well, I don't know about that, so I'm going to go and see for myself" Surely you can see the difference?

"You started this thread, proposed words are worthy of worship, and requested feedback. It's no good when someone presents a challenge in your thread, as you asked, to accuse them of following. A poor substitute for addressing my actual points. "

A poor substitute indeed. I wish I could actually address your points, but I cannot. You challenged me, so I met the challenge with whatever I had to bring to the table. It turned out to be substandard. Wouldn't be the first time it happened.

I do indeed project myself as special. I attempt to show it in my thought-provoking posts the best way that I can. I am really surprised that the game has held up as long as it has. I am going to keep playing it until I am bored with it. Then I will move on and find something else amusing.

I hope that has satisfied your demand for self-awareness. Congratulations on humbling me. I have been forced to do so many times, it doesn't bug me anymore.

But this isn't really a humble post, is it?

Ed thouroughly amused me. I never tire at looking at his avatar and wondering if that is how he really is in person. I love the oh-so-black tendancy to big, self-absorbed egos in that truly black way. It is why I love rap music so much.

It makes me want to buy him a few drinks and have him just ramble about things on the top of his head. I would learn a whole lot.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Truly a person worthy of discussion! I am truly grateful for the opportunity to match wits with you.Flattery will you get you far. I am most honoured that you deem me worthy, your highness.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
A page right out of my own book. Flinging debate tactics back in the faces of the persons using them. Well done!So we've both used wind up strategies and we've both called one another on it. I think I can safely assume that will be the end of any baiting between us.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
What I am and what I am not, do not depend on temporary attitudes I might take during a debate. There are many facets to my being, and it will take a lot of time to show them all to you. Like I've said before, I have a lot of shit to throw. Sooner or later, some of it will stick, I'm sure. If it doesn't, well, such is life.Nicely said as a generality. Hardly justifies arguing from ingorance, claiming to be special or other dreary tactics, though.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
I was giving a reason and a justification for choosing to find life on my own terms, not making an argument. I am in fact claiming ignorance, not arguing from it. I am saying, "Well, I don't know about that, so I'm going to go and see for myself" Surely you can see the difference?This another well-expressed general statement to gloss over a specific fallacy you committed. Namely, you were saying my knowledge is limited (true) to support your specific argument (i.e. from ignorance) about the validity, or even superiority, aboriginal-type knowledge regarding such things as weather prediction.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
A poor substitute indeed. I wish I could actually address your points, but I cannot. You challenged me, so I met the challenge with whatever I had to bring to the table. It turned out to be substandard. Wouldn't be the first time it happened.That takes the wind out of my sails regarding my strategy of labelling you as a new-ager thereby allowing me to adopt a world-weary "heard-it-all-before" attitude to anything you say. Skillfully done - but I doubt your sincerity.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
I do indeed project myself as special. I attempt to show it in my thought-provoking posts the best way that I can. I am really surprised that the game has held up as long as it has. I am going to keep playing it until I am bored with it. Then I will move on and find something else amusing.The old "I'm total control here and when I slip up it's actually a deliberate strategy" approach. Very slick.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Congratulations on humbling me.Don't push it!
Originally posted by Napsterbater
But this isn't really a humble post, is it? If it were sincere it would be.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I would learn a whole lot. I doubt that. He'd make uninformed absolutist assertions then tell you he knows that you know that he's right, even though you won't admit it.

Guys, I have somewhat enjoyed reading this thread as the two of you exchange words. You fense so skillfully, each with a thrust and a counter thrust.

Yet, somehow, there is an emptyness, sometimes. An emptyness- denoting that the words are mere shells of the reality they represent. Often, in the love of words, the character and strength of each phrase is missed, and the passion of the moment is lost.

To me, a great writer uses, not his, but the imagination of the reader to attain great heights.

I speak to one of you more than the other. I dare not say which.
Mine, is an interjection of selfishness. Mere thought aloud.

Blob, remind me never to debate you from anything less than a completely unassailable position.

"So we've both used wind up strategies and we've both called one another on it. I think I can safely assume that will be the end of any baiting between us."

Not so! Baiting is a fun and time-honored technique! Surely you wouldn't want to take the amusement away from my writings!

"This another well-expressed general statement to gloss over a specific fallacy you committed. Namely, you were saying my knowledge is limited (true) to support your specific argument (i.e. from ignorance) about the validity, or even superiority, aboriginal-type knowledge regarding such things as weather prediction."

Oh dear, such a logical and stuffy argument to match my honest declaration of my life's path. Can't you take my words at face value? Would it be that hard?

"Skillfully done - but I doubt your sincerity."

Nicely put, but you can either attribute it to skill or sincerity, not both. An honest man has no need for skill, and wins arguments by the sheer sincerity of his voice. Not to say I am an honest man, Diogenes would roll over in his grave!

""I'm total control here and when I slip up it's actually a deliberate strategy" approach. Very slick"

It's an old trick, but I am not claiming prior knowledge here. I was making an after-the-fact characterization of my actions. Nor am I claiming total control, which would make the entire post contrary to the argument. In fact, the character of the post seems to specifically indicate that I am not in control.

"Don't push it!"

Sure, sure.

"He'd make uninformed absolutist assertions then tell you he knows that you know that he's right, even though you won't admit it."

You give too little credit to those uninformed absolutist assertions. In fact, I have done little but make them ever since I got here. In fact, I will make one more. You will understand what I mean when you give up your resistance to that which I am trying to say.

Uninformed absolutist assertions are to me far better guages of a person than the best rational logic that person has to offer. You get to see the real person in those statements. What he went through in the past, what he believes, how he thinks. A true window into the soul. Anybody can learn logic. But to learn the language of the heart, that is a little more difficult.

"I speak to one of you more than the other. I dare not say which. "

I'm still learning! Dear god, won't everybody stop criticizing me! :)

But seriously, logic tends to do that to prose. Takes the wind out of the sails of authentic experience. The demand to be rational forces one to scour ones words for anything remotely considering fallacy, for fear that others will latch on to it, and is one of the things keeping me from pursuing an academic career.

Napster, can you use the "[quote]" tags please

I suppose I could. I'm surprised you are interested enough in our discussion to even bother. For that reason alone I am willing to consider changing over.

Thanks for the narration Dan & Vile!


Originally posted by Napsterbater
Not so! Baiting is a fun and time-honored technique! Surely you wouldn't want to take the amusement away from my writings!Ok. Your mother is a whore. ;)
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Oh dear, such a logical and stuffy argument to match my honest declaration of my life's path.This is an (informal) debate not poetry class. I have weathered far far too much usage of the argument from ignorance to let it pass. In fact it's pretty well all anybody bloody well presents me with. "You can't prove there's no gold in china therefore a flying spaghetti monster (http://www.venganza.org/index.htm) made the universe" and so on. It's the only logical fallacy you'll usually hear me whining about. Stop using it and you'll find I stop being stuffy (as much as it is possible for an Englishman to not be stuffy, that is.)
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Can't you take my words at face value? Would it be that hard?In a debate about the profundity of words it would be ridiculous of me to do so.
Nicely put, but you can either attribute it to skill or sincerity, not both. An honest man has no need for skill, and wins arguments by the sheer sincerity of his voice. Not to say I am an honest man, Diogenes would roll over in his grave![/b]I read that as you agreeing with my comment. I have I got that right?
It''s an old trick, but I am not claiming prior knowledge here. I was making an after-the-fact characterization of my actions. Nor am I claiming total control, which would make the entire post contrary to the argument. In fact, the character of the post seems to specifically indicate that I am not in control.[/b]Fair enough - you are not claiming foresight but acknowledging retrospection. I was mistaken.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
You give too little credit to those uninformed absolutist assertions. In fact,When I say "uninformed absolutist assertions" read "talking crap and not knowing it".
Originally posted by Napsterbater
I have done little but make them ever since I got here.No you haven't.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
In fact, I will make one more. You will understand what I mean when you give up your resistance to that which I am trying to say.Yes, now you are indeed talking crap, but I suspect you know it. Please stop using the "I'm right, just you wait and see" approach. I just spent an entire thread (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12183&perpage=15&pagenumber=2) being told that by the messiah himself.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
Uninformed absolutist assertions are to me far better guages of a person than the best rational logic that person has to offer. You get to see the real person in those statements. What he went through in the past, what he believes, how he thinks. A true window into the soul. Anybody can learn logic. But to learn the language of the heart, that is a little more difficult.Then allow me to indulge in an uninformed absolutist assertion: what a load of bollocks. Sheesh... "language of the heart" and "soul" my arse! Meaningless strings of random letters. You can keep your misty-eyed whimsical theism for another thread, thank you very much.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
But seriously, logic tends to do that to prose. Takes the wind out of the sails of authentic experience.The mantra of the confused. And I don't know what you're whining on about it for - I only mentioned one fallacy which you clearly committed. An awareness of the argument from ignorance might help you refrain from using it and improve your prose no end. It will also help you sound less like every two-a-penny new-ager out there - i.e. the type my website parodies.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
The demand to be rational forces one to scour ones words for anything remotely considering fallacy, for fear that others will latch on to it, and is one of the things keeping me from pursuing an academic career. Fear not. Academia is rife with woolly-brained postmodernists talking crap. You'd fit right in. ;)

You are falling apart here, Blob, and missing the entire point. I'm not going to be able to convince you here, so I'm going to do to you exactly what I did to Evakian in the last thread. Leave it alone and let everybody else decide what is really going on. I suspect that we have picked up a rather large audience, and I think I have parhaps touched a few souls back there.

Let silence speak!

You are falling apart here, Blob, and missing the entire point.A generic comment anyone can say to anyone about anything. You being evasively vague and fuzzy does not me falling apart make.

That's just the thing. You cannot claim to not be falling apart, because it isn't really up to you. You might think you are holding up well, but I am fairly confident that our latest exchange would be judged differently in the eyes of the people watching.

Nor is it really up to me. I am just planting the idea in the minds of the people watching and making those unaware of the flow of the conversation alive to the idea. It is out of our hands, but it never really was in our hands in the first place, though I am sure you would debate that too.

Incidentally, I am going to have to leave my comp for a while, they are taking the staircase out and the day is far too nice for me to strand myself up here. Adios for now!

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Blob, remind me never to debate you from anything less than a completely unassailable position.

Here Here!

Blob needs some sort of mock medal, sheesh its like Woody Allen versus Arnold Schwarznegger in a fight here at various allforums threads.

I see you're complaining about logical fallacies was a prerequisite for committing them by the dozen. Asserting people reading this thread will agree with you, and, what's more, that even if they do, that makes you right, for example.

My call is you are hiding behind a confused smokescreen of vague fuzziness and bailing out.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
You are falling apart here, Blob, and missing the entire point. I'm not going to be able to convince you here, so I'm going to do to you exactly what I did to Evakian in the last thread. Leave it alone and let everybody else decide what is really going on. I suspect that we have picked up a rather large audience, and I think I have parhaps touched a few souls back there.

Let silence speak!

Blob is actually fine, as usual. And actually you kept posting in that discussion with me, far from leaving it alone. And no, this is not a very big audience.

You'll touch souls when you start that cultural revolution of egoism, and the world ends because everyone is so prideful of themselves.

I can see it now: Bhutan attacking China....bwahaha
__________________________________________________

(referring to Blob's post above this one) He's a predator ;)

Hey, thanks for the encouraging comments guys! :)

Meh, you earned such merits.

Although i have a few small differences with you on some big issues, you can debate the hell out of it no matter what side you take.

As far as this worshipping of words goes: ridiculous, do you have a temple that you visit and pray and meditate to your word deities? Do you have a spiritual sense and moral guide provided by these words? Do these words help guide your social, economic, and other decisions throughout you and your family's days? Do these words perform goodwill towards others? Do these words raise your children to be good?

Words are a way to communicate with others who have learned the same form.

Although you may view religion as a silly, illogical practice, your children have a way to get involved in teh community, a place to learn values, and many other beneficial things, in example godparents.
There will come a time when they decide whether they will stay because they feel spiritually in touch or not, but that is for them to decide.
Much like the stork or santa claus, it can be used as a way to have kids behave and grow up well, when they grow, they start thinking for themselves and find these false figures were a system of control or a wonderful tale that helps children grow.
If my parents had not told me about santa claus, my world might possibly be a more cynical place without beauty and wonder. Since they did, i do not care if it is false and plan to teach my children it. it will help them grow.
My saying which i've painted on my wall is:

Imagination is everything

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Leave it alone and let everybody else decide what is really going on.

You never even came close Napster...you were seriously outclassed. On the bright side it was entertaining to watch. :D

Originally posted by Napsterbater
You might think you are holding up well, but I am fairly confident that our latest exchange would be judged differently in the eyes of the people watching.

Blob is doing fine, isn't breaking apart at the seams and is to be fair, holding back, considering his previous abilities displayed in these forums.

You've come on here with the deliberate intention of trying to get people to go "wow, your just amazing and clever and gosh golly I can't match wits with you". But have quickly found, that your not as intellegent as you think you are and have fallen into the god awful trap of telling us, "We are wrong, but can't see it yet" which is exactly the reason everyone stopped taking any notice of the Messiah.

You remind me of a really over done Flash website. Its complex, detailed and difficult to pull off without skill, but in reality theres not alot of actual content inside.

Cheers

Yea, Blob must've been on the debate team at his school across the pond. Or is just a very bright and stubborn individual with a fast internet connection :D

Anyway, this thread seems closed, right VP? Not much left to discuss

Originally posted by Evakian
Anyway, this thread seems closed, right VP? Not much left to discuss

I only close threads when the discussion goes downhill...otherwise we just let threads die of neglect. :D

Meh.

That's fine. Amusement was all I was really going after in the first place, and I largely succeeded in that, at least.

You've come on here with the deliberate intention of trying to get people to go "wow, your just amazing and clever and gosh golly I can't match wits with you". But have quickly found, that your not as intellegent as you think you are and have fallen into the god awful trap of telling us, "We are wrong, but can't see it yet" which is exactly the reason everyone stopped taking any notice of the Messiah.

You remind me of a really over done Flash website. Its complex, detailed and difficult to pull off without skill, but in reality theres not alot of actual content inside.

Damn. I have a whole new respect for you now Loki. You hit the nail square on the head.

One of the things I am going for is the "holy shit I can't believe he just did that!" effect, pulled off to incredible effect in the Tucker Max stories, using my own understandings and experiences. I just don't have the skills to pull it off yet, it would seem.

The way I look at this is, somebody is going to learn something. Either I will impress somebody enough that they will think that I have something to say that is worth listening to, or nothing will happen, and I learn a lot from the experience. I actually prefer to lose in chess more than I like to win. Winning is great and all, but I learn more from losing. It surprises the shit out of me to find out how good of a player I am. Not world class or anything, but people a lot better than me have to really be on their game to beat me.

It's like that for everything I do. When I took up boxing, within three months, I was winning exchanges with my teacher. Of course, he was still the better boxer, and yeah, he was probably holding back. But, damn, I gave him a bloody nose the last time we boxed!

I'm no real genius, but I am solid. Hard to knock around, impossible to ignore. And that is what I am really after. To keep people on their toes. Genius is nice and all, but its overrated, to me. I don't want to be famous. Putting that much effort into what I do is self-defeating, to me. I'm happy with what I have. I can pursue anything I want, go anywhere without tying myself down.

You never even came close Napster...you were seriously outclassed.

Sounds about right. I realized it when he cut right through all my bullshit and I was forced to retreat.

Napsterbater, you self-centered idiot!

Here are three words for you to worship:

YOU ARROGANT ASS!

Only a self-absorbed and prideful fool like you could even think of worshiping words and boast of one's mastery of language!

Do you like to make castles of your own dung too?

LOLOL, moron!

Welcome zionoracle!

I'm sure napsterbater won't take the bait but, rather, will tell you he likes your style, or something along those lines.

YOU ARROGANT ASS!

Not just my ass, it seems.

Do you like to make castles of your own dung too?

Since I am little more than one big ass, it would follow that anything that comes out of me would be dung. Writing to me is a lot like building sand-castles. So, yes, you would be absolutely correct.

Take that, Blob!

Admit it - you were torn between agreeing with him and disagreeing with me. ;)

Nope, I subscribed to this thread too, and started writing my reply at the same time as you. You got your's in first, due to your sharper mind. I didn't even see it until after I had finished.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Nope, I subscribed to this thread too, and started writing my reply at the same time as you.We were indeed both on-line posting at the same time
Originally posted by Napsterbater
You got your's in first, due to your sharper mind. Oh stop it. Or I'll send you my dick in the post to suck.

Originally posted by Blob

Oh stop it. Or I'll send you my dick in the post to suck.

Holy hell you can do that!! Think of the possibilities!!

Or I'll send you my dick in the post to suck.

The sad part of it is, most people (Americans) would just get to sucking, figuratively speaking, because they have no other way to deal with those that are obviously better than them in areas that matter to them. Well, other than abject denial and making foolish challenges, both again hallmarks of the American style.

Holy hell you can do that!! Think of the possibilities!!

Damn Britishers. Always upstaging me.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Damn Britishers. Always upstaging me.

Your using too many words :D

I actually realized that as soon as I made the post.

Your using too many words

You're*

Crimony, and you Britons invented the language! :D

Originally posted by Evakian
Your using too many words

You're*

Crimony, and you Britons invented the language! :D

Didnt we steal, change, and bastardise a bunch of other languages to get this one? In fact isn't that really in truth how most languages came about.

Twas merely a jest

you theives developed it off german and french dialects, and alot of latin, maybe a little of the native tongues.
Thieves! :)

At least we know how to spell sulpher. ;)

At least we know how to spell sulpher

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sulfur

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sulphur

today's episode is brought to you by the letter U

Originally posted by Evakian
Your using too many words

You're*

Crimony, and you Britons invented the language! :D

Cripes Evakian, it's Criminy :D

Hey, i can make up my own interjections :D

Originally posted by Evakian
At least we know how to spell sulpher

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sulfur

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sulphur

today's episode is brought to you by the letter U
Oh shit! And I didn't even do that on purpose!

There go my credentials as a science teacher.

:hitout: