Tangents

Level 23
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
3,565
. . .

El/Steel_Stallion, you can't just make up the fact that people go around burying their children alive.

Shados said:
Poot, it's less that they're uneducated and more that they, like the rest of us, are more or less driven by natural selection. If your kids are unlikely to survive, you get this powerful instinctual psychological drive to have more of them, so that at least some continue the line.

It's mostly due to the fact that in rural/developing communities, more workers are needed to farm/hunt/ect. Same thing occurs in most rural societies, where you get families with avg. number of children 6+ (Made statistic up).
 
Level 14
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
578
So then why do gays even exist, if he hates them so much.

Also, then: find me where it (the bible) says God hates gays.

I don't know how it is according to other Religions, But in my Religion we believe that life is a test.
And in this test God has created things that will hurt us and things that are forbidden to us.
Do good deeds and and it will be counted as a good one, Do a bad one and it'll be counted as a bad one.

If there were no evil and no possibility to commit sins then what's the point with calling it a test.
As many say ''I don't believe in God because there's too much evil in this world''

As we also believe that God knows the future, You may ask ''Then why is there a test when he knows who will go to Hell and who will go to Paradise,
Why doesn't he just send everyone where they belong?''
Because: How would it feel to be punished without knowing why, And people being rewarded without knowing why.
That is why we have this test, So we're our own witnessess to what we self do, So when we stand infront of God, we'll know why exactly we're punished or Rewarded.

And what I'm aware of is that, Islam doesn't allow Muslims to be Gays.
You can be Gay or similiar stuff as long as you're not a muslim.
 
Level 14
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
578
Me and Poot discussed this for a long time over at MSN, We came to the conclusion, ''I have my faith, And you have Your stance''
I learnt what Poot's Opinion was and what he had to say, And hopefully he learnt mine.

Oh and, I advice Hakeem to Discuss this matter with Poot.
 
Level 14
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
578
DOUBLE POST FTW.

Now Poot, You said the laws of physics are impossible to change - Even for God.
I told you that I believe God can do everything, Including changing the laws of physics and you told me no.

I never bothered to ask why they're not changeable, Why are they not?
I want to continue this conversation a bit
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
god goes and spends like fourteen billion years on creating this elaborate ruse to make us think the universe and everything in it could have come about by the laws of physics, and then he goes and fucks it all up by impregnating some random woman. I mean, why the hell would you bother?
I take it you haven't heard about _why?

Virgin birth isn't exactly a physics defying miracle, though.
God has yet to make an appearance and teach the masses about how, exactly, he works.
What if he did? What if he did it hundreds of years ago? Would it not then make you a fool?
Your god creates people knowing full well they'll be tortured for eternity, tells them if they don't live up to things he has guaranteed they won't live up to they deserve it, and then punishes them for it,
Okay, but that makes God immoral. It does not affect the morality of the religion.
 
Level 33
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
5,367
Your god creates people knowing full well they'll be tortured for eternity, tells them if they don't live up to things he has guaranteed they won't live up to they deserve it, and then punishes them for it,

To make it more accurate, and to remove your inaccurate information.

God creates people knowing full well what each of their choices will bring, and gives them free will to make said choices that will either give them eternity in peace, or eternity being tormented. The consequences of their choices are deserved, because they are the consequences of THEIR choices. "Responsibility" and all that.

However, God knows that mankind is not capable of making all the right choices, and that mankind is faulty, and fallible, and being a merciful God who in his full right and authority doesn't need to have anything to do with his creation, or even care, which would inevitably drive them to Hell by their own choices anyway...

He offers a solution. A pardon.

Accept the pardon, and be free from Judgement, in which case God will work in your life to make you not just acceptable, but deserving by all the moral standards of man, and acceptable by the standard of God.

However, accepting the pardon is also a choice, and is infact, the prime choice. You are brought before the court of life and given the choice, a pardon, or jail time for your crimes.

It is up to the defendant to accept freedom, or accept his chains. God will set you free, or he will dish out the consequences of your actions, of which you have fully earned by your choices.

It is not his fault, if you refuse the pardon. It is yours as the defendant.

This is the nature of God, in regards to this situation. He does not put you in a hopeless situation, without giving you a way out of it.

The above statement is the nature of God according to Christian belief.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
It isn't.

The religion is what God tells people to do to get to paradise, and what to do to get to hell. Immoral that God may be, he makes a religion that is perfectly moral. He doesn't say, "Act like me." If he did, then you might conclude that the religion is immoral. Nowhere does he say to act like him. In fact, many times in the Qur'an it is said to not associate things with him. "Don't pretend to be me," to paraphrase. If anything, he tells people to not be like him.

If they don't want to go to hell, anyway.
 
Level 14
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
1,395
I would, generally, agree with you Hakeem. The idiocy and ineptitude at arguing/debating that I see on the forums is one of the main reasons I barely ever come to the Hive anymore.

The last "debate" was I involved in the other person, having absolutely no point of his own, asked the people debating him to kill themselves. Absolutely lovely. Really great debate, that one was.

The personal attacks on someone who disagrees with you (Elenai is a prime example, just because he thinks differently than some people they attack him not the validity of what he's saying) has to stop. Case and point with Trax's last post. There was no reason to post that. Hakeem used those quotes to prove his point. If you read the rest of the thread that they were quoted from, you would have realized that the thread was littered with comments like that, and not just from that one specific person.

Ok, you don't like that person. Too bad. Attack the validity of what they're saying, not them.
 
Level 11
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
931
I posted a link and one post later I felt that it became pointless and stopped participating in a "debate" if you could call that abominable thread such a thing, maybe someone should do a tutorial on something like this.
 
Level 11
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
931
avoid posting a link that has .com or .net or such as a cited source, they can be unreliable, sites such as .edu and .gov are generally more reliable in validating or unvalidating a point.

Reason why I left that in there, not "anyone" can put up whatever they want on domains like that, for the most part its controlled and generally accepted statements, data, ideas etc. that are placed there, one of the reason's wikipedia is .com

But based on your statement then it is utterly useless to cite anything at all online if you actually believe what you said applies to any and all sites, for that matter would you actually watch experiments upon experiments of something like marijuana being performed and furthermore understand the results and properly interpret their meaning? Most people probably wouldn't, especially not on a wc3 modding site, we have to make due with what we have and what we believe is within the ability of someone to comprehend information that is given to them, if someone can't do something so simple as read information and data that was gained from experiments like from the link I posted which you could easily find your experiments that lead to said results, then it would make this entire statement of a response to what you said unnecessary. This is what makes debating so tedious and why I choose to simply leave when people just ignore points that are placed and continue to argue, or as they might put it, "debate" in their own way, as was done with the marijuana thread, and before that done on the Vegetarian thread. In my opinion topics that are controversial like that are better left elsewhere and should simply be closed once they reach the point of becoming flat out arguments where people go around and around in circles citing hardly any sources for their statements and providing next to no evidence, or somewhat questionable evidence. Debating on this site has become far too tedious and frustrating, as they stop becoming debates (as I think I've said before), so I think its in reasonable and sane people's better interest to stay in the Tower or go to a site that takes debating more seriously if they want to find a stimulating and informative discussion on subjects and topics that are controversial.
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
Reason why I left that in there, not "anyone" can put up whatever they want on domains like that, for the most part its controlled and generally accepted statements, data, ideas etc. that are placed there.
Some have strict regulations about what they publish but the majority do not, and not just in the .com and .net top level domains. Universities often allow their users to publish their own personal web sites.
One of the reason's wikipedia is .com
Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia foundation in general, are all .org. Also, Wikipedia is highly moderated. The admins there can block IPs and accounts. Not to mention the hoards of people who willingly devote their time to reverting abuse.
But based on your statement then it is utterly useless to cite anything at all online if you actually believe what you said applies to any and all sites, for that matter
I don't recognize any current methods of measuring qualification. Mostly because there really isn't anybody who is qualified to regulate qualification itself.

It turns out you really don't need to trust a source to derive information from it. If you want to go for any real accuracy, you don't go by some "credible" publication. The only way to get accurate information without conducting the experiments yourself is to read a vast collection of sources and determine what is reliably verified.

One person can always lie, but the crowd sucks at lying.
Would you actually watch experiments upon experiments of something like marijuana being performed and furthermore understand the results and properly interpret their meaning?
Not marijuana, no, because it does not interest me. :p
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
1,977
I find that a good way to debate is do not post massive walls of text. It makes things hard for people to see the point you are trying to get across, and it could mean several completely different things all in one message.
 
Level 13
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
1,027
Most people will keep on using their 'facts' interpreted in such a way to prove their point. There isn't anything that can be done about this. In reality, a fact is just a generally accepted opinion. Case and point: Around 1000+ years ago it was a fact that the world was flat and one could fall off the edge.

However, I am likely to disagree with the masses. Think of how stupid the average person is and then realize that half of them are stupider than that...

//\\oo//\\
 
Level 20
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
3,682
Most people will keep on using their 'facts' interpreted in such a way to prove their point. There isn't anything that can be done about this. In reality, a fact is just a generally accepted opinion. Case and point: Around 1000+ years ago it was a fact that the world was flat and one could fall off the edge.

A fact is something that's true and proven. So no.
 
Level 13
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
1,027
A fact is something that's true and proven. So no.

8 centuries ago Sol orbited Earth. That was fact.

During the time of the Romans the Olympians existed. That was fact.

...both Iraq and Afghanistan had weapons of mass destruction. That too was a fact.
[/sarcasm]

The closest thing to an actual fact is the fact that there are no facts. Just accepted/proven opinions of the majority of the people.

Well note that something is proven by the technology/science of the time
Some things in the past were considered truth and proven since they didn't know how to disprove it

I'm making the arguement that facts are as real as perfection, in other words they're entirely subjective.

//\\oo//\\
 
Level 17
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
1,100
To make it more accurate, and to remove your inaccurate information.

God creates people knowing full well what each of their choices will bring, and gives them free will to make said choices that will either give them eternity in peace, or eternity being tormented. The consequences of their choices are deserved, because they are the consequences of THEIR choices. "Responsibility" and all that.

However, God knows that mankind is not capable of making all the right choices, and that mankind is faulty, and fallible, and being a merciful God who in his full right and authority doesn't need to have anything to do with his creation, or even care, which would inevitably drive them to Hell by their own choices anyway...

He offers a solution. A pardon.

Accept the pardon, and be free from Judgement, in which case God will work in your life to make you not just acceptable, but deserving by all the moral standards of man, and acceptable by the standard of God.

However, accepting the pardon is also a choice, and is infact, the prime choice. You are brought before the court of life and given the choice, a pardon, or jail time for your crimes.

It is up to the defendant to accept freedom, or accept his chains. God will set you free, or he will dish out the consequences of your actions, of which you have fully earned by your choices.

It is not his fault, if you refuse the pardon. It is yours as the defendant.

This is the nature of God, in regards to this situation. He does not put you in a hopeless situation, without giving you a way out of it.

The above statement is the nature of God according to Christian belief.

God is not mercifull. He is Vengefull. God partakes every single emotion or description. God is both good and bad. Basically like 2 coins. Everything which exists must have its alter ego or balance. Blah blah blah yeh its like Feng shui and ying and yang w/e

Satan is the alter part of God although satan is a fallen angel.


If you read the old testiement through it definetly does not make god seem all to mercifull and friendly.

Religion is nots god fan club. Any religious person who says that if your not religious you will go to hell but if you go and join a religion you are guaranteed to go to heaven has no clue of what they are talking about. Absolution is possible penace etc. But you don't have to be religious to have absolution. All you need is to lead a good life. All religions are simply guide lines or a good lifestyle. Nothing more.

Each one is based upon some sort of figure or prophet or god. or multiple gods figures etc For which somone can base there affection and aims at. They can try and get to a point. They are person or figure to look up to.

This is because people need something to base their views of. It is rare they suddenly create a vision from nothing of what they want to be or what they want to do without external intervention. This is why religion have these figures as a must for a balance to which people can measure themselves.


God is a balance of both everything evil and everything good. For you cannot define evil or good without a view point. So its just 2 substance or variables which we choose to decide which is which and measure. Simply just get a balance and you cant go wrong that is the idea.



Edit: Bad time to realise these posts were 2 years old :(
 
Level 13
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
1,027
God is not mercifull. He is Vengefull. God partakes every single emotion or description. God is both good and bad. Basically like 2 coins. Everything which exists must have its alter ego or balance. Blah blah blah yeh its like Feng shui and ying and yang w/e

More like two sides of the same coin. 'Good' and 'Bad' only describe the context of a thing in regards to the speaker (or whoever the speaker is emulating).

All religions are simply guide lines or a good lifestyle. Nothing more.

The billions of people that have been killed in the name of religion or another disagree with you.

This is because people need something to base their views of. It is rare they suddenly create a vision from nothing of what they want to be or what they want to do without external intervention. This is why religion have these figures as a must for a balance to which people can measure themselves.

People don't need something to base their views off of. They're more than capable of making it up as they go. Every religion in existance is proof of that. Religion is anything but rare, your current arguement is invalid. A religion pulls these 'figures' out of thin air and then mandates that everyone, especially those not of said religion, behave in accordance to these 'figures' lest they be deemed <insert religious insult against non-believer>. The balance doesn't exist, just a contraption assembled to benefit it's current operator.

... For you cannot define evil or good without a view point. So its just 2 substance or variables which we choose to decide which is which and measure. Simply just get a balance and you cant go wrong that is the idea.

Not true. Evil can only be defined as not-good and good can only be defined as not-evil; the definition is circular. Evil and good can be used as comparators describing a view-point in regards to others. They are interpretations and/or evaluations of something relative to something else.

//\\oo//\\
 
Level 17
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
1,100
The 1 and 5th quote is both what i meant. But meh.

The billions of people who died for there religion are the people who took religion seriously The fools and extremist or the ones who died for there country and religion was just used as a name for the war. Which was actually based of human greed.

Every View is not made up by a human . And you cannot say you make it up as you go along. Everyone has there own view. But this view is created not from genetics which are unique or can be similliar in case of twins. This view is created from people growing up and life experiances. Now this is unique. Thus every view somone has though of is due to external factors and not internal.

The reason why i didn't use 2 sides of the same coin instead of 2 coins is because lucifer is diffrent to god :p
 
Level 13
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
1,027
The 1 and 5th quote is both what i meant. But meh.

The billions of people who died for there religion are the people who took religion seriously The fools and extremist or the ones who died for there country and religion was just used as a name for the war. Which was actually based of human greed.

Every View is not made up by a human . And you cannot say you make it up as you go along. Everyone has there own view. But this view is created not from genetics which are unique or can be similliar in case of twins. This view is created from people growing up and life experiances. Now this is unique. Thus every view somone has though of is due to external factors and not internal.

The reason why i didn't use 2 sides of the same coin instead of 2 coins is because lucifer is diffrent to god :p

~5th quote?

~All wars are fought for 3 reasons. God (religion), Glory, and Gold (resources). Any one of the 3 can start a war, but all 3 are involved long before the war ends.

~The existance of religion is proof that people make it up as they go. Also, I did say, therefore I can ::p

~Devil is a construct of god, operated by god, and directed by god; therefore the difference is non-existant. ...unless you're among the ranks of followers who believe in Free Will and not the Divine Plan.

//\\oo//\\
 
Level 17
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
1,100
Of course the god would force an angel to disobey him. Anyway 4th quote >.<
No war is fought over religion. -- None. religion is mask for other reasons. I>E the Crusades Pope urban just wanted more influence in the east. So he sent europeans to aid the byzantium forces.

The only real ever possible considered religious war would be the war of terrorism. But thats all extremist idiots who just want total domination. So its the leaders personal greed and undenyable ignorance. not the religion itself


"The proof of religion is that people make it up as they go along"

That is exactly the same with science. They make it up as they go along
 
Level 13
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
1,027
Of course the god would force an angel to disobey him. Anyway 4th quote >.<
No war is fought over religion. -- None. religion is mask for other reasons. I>E the Crusades Pope urban just wanted more influence in the east. So he sent europeans to aid the byzantium forces.

The only real ever possible considered religious war would be the war of terrorism. But thats all extremist idiots who just want total domination. So its the leaders personal greed and undenyable ignorance. not the religion itself


"The proof of religion is that people make it up as they go along"

That is exactly the same with science. They make it up as they go along

Name one war you think religion never took part in.
Religion consists of greedy leaders/founders. There are catholics starving to death who still pay tribute at a church, which is untaxed, and ultimately increases the pope's lifestyle (apologies if pope doesn't head the catholic church, it's all the same to me). Religion is ran by extremist idiots which rapidly convert their followers to the same interpretation or drive them out (hence all of the sects of the christian religion as example).

The difference between science and religion is that science can be challenged. There is a certain reluctance from the challenged/established fields, but science rarely resorts to burning people alive, or worse, because they disagree about something; a favorite pastime of the major religions (Christianity and Islam, probably Judaism as well).

//\\oo//\\
 
Level 17
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
1,100
1. The Roman catholic church is a bad example. And the "Leaders of a religioN" Are usually wrong. I cannot agree with the catholic church.

2. Religion is not the cause of a war. But ofc it takes place in a war. In war you want high moral so every country says that God is on your side to the troops. Thus increasing the morale. They use religion as a boost. It is the people who misuse religion who cause the issues not the religion itself.
I.e People who missuse guns are the ones who cause the problems no the guns themselves.

3. Your wrong Religion is regullary challanged, but the difference between religion is and science is that Science is constantly evolving and has no solid base. Religion has a solid base and therefore does not need to evolve. Religion has already explained the universes creation and made a simple answer for everything. While science only tries to overcomplicate things.

4. Extremists are rare and the minority of religions. There maybe a few burnings but this is more of a scare factor used in religious countries for a Facist state. You cannot compare a Free democratic religious community and a Facist community. This is not down to religion but down to freedoms and righs and the way the country is ran.
Again it is the people misusing the religion for something it is not. When in the Bible does it say KILL ALL THE DEFILERS> when in Any holy book does it saction killing.

Not any holy book of the main religions sanction killing as a justifiable act. IT is but the people who say GOD WILL MAKE YOU GO TO HEAVEN FOR KILLIG THE MUSLIMS (Crusades) Etc etc Not the religion itself. SO it is not religion it is the Leaders who are corrupt.

You cannot argue against something due to flaws in human nature and the human part of it. For Religion as a whole is unhuman. And does not relate to how we want to percieve it. Religion is religion it is only people who make it anything worse than it is. For they use the words and quote them wrongly and try to find loop holes or insuation of kill everyone who is a defiler or non believer. These are the extremists. Religion was always meant to be taken lightly. Never 100% Fact.

This obvious due to the outlandish stories. I.E Noah's ark - A 600 year old man -.- who took 2 of every animal (Manging to capture the billions of animals- Then amazingly to feed them carry weeks worth of food on the ship. Look after every animal with just his familly and everything else). This is obvs not true and should be taken metaphorically.


You think poor people who donate improve the popes lifestyle. Have you ever been to the vatican. Not much changes and there is a good amount of money of the popes which goes to charities. Such as the Catholic orphanges funded by the Catholic church.

(Although in a religious way the Roman Catholic Church is Corrupt and wrong-The pope shouldn't even be the pope) this is another story for a later date.
 
Level 13
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
1,027
1. The Roman catholic church is a bad example. And the "Leaders of a religioN" Are usually wrong. I cannot agree with the catholic church.

2. Religion is not the cause of a war. But ofc it takes place in a war. In war you want high moral so every country says that God is on your side to the troops. Thus increasing the morale. They use religion as a boost. It is the people who misuse religion who cause the issues not the religion itself.
I.e People who missuse guns are the ones who cause the problems no the guns themselves.

3. Your wrong Religion is regullary challanged, but the difference between religion is and science is that Science is constantly evolving and has no solid base. Religion has a solid base and therefore does not need to evolve. Religion has already explained the universes creation and made a simple answer for everything. While science only tries to overcomplicate things.

4. Extremists are rare and the minority of religions. There maybe a few burnings but this is more of a scare factor used in religious countries for a Facist state. You cannot compare a Free democratic religious community and a Facist community. This is not down to religion but down to freedoms and righs and the way the country is ran.
Again it is the people misusing the religion for something it is not. When in the Bible does it say KILL ALL THE DEFILERS> when in Any holy book does it saction killing.

Not any holy book of the main religions sanction killing as a justifiable act. IT is but the people who say GOD WILL MAKE YOU GO TO HEAVEN FOR KILLIG THE MUSLIMS (Crusades) Etc etc Not the religion itself. SO it is not religion it is the Leaders who are corrupt.

You cannot argue against something due to flaws in human nature and the human part of it. For Religion as a whole is unhuman. And does not relate to how we want to percieve it. Religion is religion it is only people who make it anything worse than it is. For they use the words and quote them wrongly and try to find loop holes or insuation of kill everyone who is a defiler or non believer. These are the extremists. Religion was always meant to be taken lightly. Never 100% Fact.

This obvious due to the outlandish stories. I.E Noah's ark - A 600 year old man -.- who took 2 of every animal (Manging to capture the billions of animals- Then amazingly to feed them carry weeks worth of food on the ship. Look after every animal with just his familly and everything else). This is obvs not true and should be taken metaphorically.


You think poor people who donate improve the popes lifestyle. Have you ever been to the vatican. Not much changes and there is a good amount of money of the popes which goes to charities. Such as the Catholic orphanges funded by the Catholic church.

(Although in a religious way the Roman Catholic Church is Corrupt and wrong-The pope shouldn't even be the pope) this is another story for a later date.

2) I think we're saying the same thing here...

3) I haven't heard of any challenges to any religion. As for the "base" religion and science exist to adress the same things, they just go about it differently. A decent representation:

Religion consists of answers that may never be questioned,
Science consists of questions that may never be answered.

4) Extremists by definition are rare, but they often comprise the majority in the leadership of their religion. I don't have access to any holy book, so I can't quote from it, but I'm sure a simple internet search can answer your question.

Religion was always meant to be taken lightly. Never 100% Fact.
Religion is the oldest form of government and the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it dictates the dos and don'ts of people and teaches them as to how they shall think and percieve the world around them. It doesn't function very well when it's taken lightly, the number of spin-offs of each church in the US is proof of that.

The poor/needy don't donate to churches to benefit some man's lifestyle, but they do it inadvertently. They donate to try and improve their lifestyle after they're dead.

I get the impression that you're arguing that religion is a tool and that it's being misused. I'll make the arguement that religion is a tool and that it's never been misused, as it is wielded by those in power to benefit and preserve those in power.

//\\oo//\\
 
Level 17
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
1,100
Argument denied. People do not donate to imrpove there lifestyle after your dead. You cannot say that in any true religion there is payment for a place in heaven or tipping the scale to god. While Charity is greatly accepted. Although some religions like Hinduism all most pay a toll as part of there religion and this is put into the community and charities and funding of the actual running of the churches/temples.

You simply cannot say that every religion where people donate it goes to rich greedy people. Im sorry to say but what religion are you reffering to because all the religions i know it doesn't these are the mainstream ones. I.e Buddhism you donate to a temple and it uses these funds to feed its people and to keep the upkeep of the temple.

This is the same for A temple in hiduism. Or islam. Hidu temples also use that money to feed people. This is Temple food and voluntary workers cook it and serve it.

Or in Muslim faith again any donation made is known as a Zakah a charity and is made sure it goes directly to the most needy and poorest of the muslim community.

While in Christian faith. Any donation made goes directly to the Church fund. This either goes towards the local church or is spread out to other churchs across the country or world. Usually it is the local church for the Churches of england. While if it was a donation to a Roman catholic church it may or may not go to the vatican and then be disputed im not exactly sure of the process.

Most likely in Roman catholic churches it goes to the vatican and then is distributed, so that Schemes may also be funded. For missonaries in africa to go around spreading the faith. And for the funding of the repairing and building of churches or to charities.

That is the truth most of it goes to charities. Yes the Vatican is sitting on alot of wealth. But your forgetting the Vatican is a Country in its own right a state. So it has taxes doesn't it. This is not just all donations. The whole area of Vatican city is run by a elected church member decided by the pope for a five year term.

Just go online and google Catholic Christian charities you will find tonnes.

The catholic church in reallity compared to member amount is quite poor.

Catholic Wealth is a myth. The vatican city budget is no more than any other cities and usually ends up in the red. The vatican doesnt take much money nor do the priests. They have no need for it. Yes catholic money is used to provide food and to accomdate for housing for the pope. But these costs are payed for by the tourism. Tourism makes more than the pope costs to house and feed. While the Vatican is like say the queen.

Englands queen lives in buckiham palace. Obama lives in the white house. So why not The pope the vatican.

There is no argument plausable to say how the Pope is a drain on the Roman catholic communities pockets if he brings in a profit. Not to mention the majority of his day is filled with prayers and some times fasts. Would you prefer him to be living in rags souvier property and to be barely able to stand from hunger and thirst. Would you really think a religion could look up to a leader so deprived. No they can't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14002700
They have only started to get back into the black

if you so believe they embezzle all there money just take a look Since 1981 they have been posting finace reports of all finacial transitions. They are seethrough like glass. Something most governments are too afraid to show or do. While the vatican has done it.

Now can you honestly tell me they sit there and get rich?


@4. They take the holy book out of context even if you searched and read every line of the bible or any holy book. It would never tell us directly to kill others or that killing was good.
 
Level 5
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
170
I noticed how Medivh's Tower has a thread about how to NOT argue, but there is not one that says how to argue effectively. I don't understand why this concept is learned so late in educational settings, especially in the public sector.

There are people here who undoubtedly already know this, but there are just as many who do not.

Before We Start

Understand four things:

1. Arguments are NOT bad. An argument is ANY claim made by a person. This entire post is an argument about making sure people who use Mevidh's Tower understand how to argue effectively and responsibly. Arguing and fighting are completely different things, but every once in awhile, I hear people saying they are the same thing. THEY ARE NOT. Arguing gained a negative connotation because people who use the word don't know how to read a dictionary properly.

2. Acknowledge, respect, and understand the arguments given by your peers, even if they do not agree with you. Just because they do not agree does not mean they are against you. "Do not agree with you" means that they have their own reasons, perhaps good and perhaps bad, as to why they feel the way they do about the topic. "Against you" is another fight vs. argue misuse. There will always be instances of this, but Mevidh's Tower is not made for that.

3. Someone who is willing to listen to you is your BEST CHANCE to change how they think about the topic. Don't waste it by insulting them or their argument.

4. Understand what connotations are. There are positive, neutral, and negative connotations to every idea. I consider myself an idealist (neutral). Others claim I am hopeless dreamer (negative). Others say I work for a better future for the sake of everyone (positive).

Reading and Making Effective Arguments: Aristotle's Method

There are three types of appeals that a person can make in an argument, as defined by Aristotle: Pathos, Ethos, and Logos. Having all three is the best argument. Having two is a good argument. Having only one is considered a poor argument. Having none is the poorest argument.

Pathos is an appeal to one's emotions. Why does your argument matter to me? Why does this topic matter to you? Is it right? Is it wrong? How can I identify with your feelings?

Ethos is an appeal to one's credibility and trust. Where is your stance in the argument? What authority do you have on the topic? Can we trust the information that you are giving us?

Logos is an appeal to one's reasoning. How clear is your position on the subject? What deductions have made you come to your point? What conclusion has the presented information brought you to? What evidence can you show me to make me understand your position?


Reading and Making Effective Arguments: Toulmin's Method

Toulmin's Method puts every argument ever made into smaller, workable steps:

  1. What is the claim? What is the main point they are trying to get across?
  2. Under what grounds is the claim being made? What evidence has the author gathered to support their claim?
  3. What warrants does the claim rely on? What smaller ideas are used to strengthen the main idea?
  4. Why is the author backing their claim? What motives does the author have for arguing?
  5. What qualifiers does the author use in their statements?
  6. How does the author rebuttal arguments that do not agree?
Fallacies

A fallacy is what I like to think are the holes in an argument. Fallacies are not meant to be good things (see satire, where it can be a good thing). Usually done by accident, but can also be done on purpose. The opposition with one's best intentions will point out where your argument grows weak or falls apart. However, when fallacies are revealed, people that do not have your best intentions will use them to attack your credibility and reasoning.

I will list as many as I can. There are probably even more.

  • Ad Hominem - When personal attacks are used against the one making the argument.
  • Appeal to Authority - When a person is not a legitimate authority on the issue, but is used as evidence. Also when an authority states something is true, but could not be when no evidence is present to support their claim.
  • Appeal to Emotion - When an argument uses too much pathos to gain favor. Ex: Look at these poor kids. They have no mother, they're too poor to afford their own clothes, they eat out of dumpsters, people insult them because they're homeless, etc. etc.
  • Appeal to Fear/Force - When one uses fear or force to gain favor. Ex: You have a beautiful family. What a shame if anything were to happen to them...
  • Appeal to Ignorance - When not knowing is used as evidence for or against the claim. Ex: We don't know whether or not innocent people get put on death row.
  • Appeal to Popularity - Also known as the Bandwagon. The argument justifies itself by claiming that "everyone else is doing it".
  • Appeal to Tradition - When an argument is supported because it is always been believed or done.
  • Begging the Question - The claim is assumed to be true because the evidence is the claim said in different ways. Ex: God exists because the Bible was created by God.
  • Death by a Thousand Qualifications - When an argument's qualifications are the only strength an argument has.
  • Distorted Facts - The argument twists the context of facts to deceive or mislead.
  • False Analogy - Too many conflicting natures created by two objects used in a analogy.
  • False Cause - The argument makes a cause and effect relationship that does not exist.
  • False Dichotomy - The argument claims there are no more than two answers to an open ended problem. Ex: Either you go to your room or you get a spanking.
  • Genetic Fallacy - When one claims an argument cannot be used because its origin. Ex: The Declaration of Independence should be thrown out because Thomas Jefferson (the one who wrote it) owned slaves.
  • Hasty Generalization - The argument justifies a claim using an exception.
  • Many Questions - The argument asks questions that subtly attack the person making the argument.
  • Non Sequitor - Means "it does not follow" in Latin. The argument's claim does not match or is not consistent with its evidence or reasoning.
  • Oversimplification - The argument overlooks a problem that is complicated and requires further inspection. Ex: Poverty causes crime.
  • Poison The Well - When one attempts to shift attention of an argument's merits to the argument's origin. Ex: Equality between men and women came from Communism, so applying this to law will turn us into a Communist country.
  • Protecting the Hypothesis - When evidence is manipulated to make an argument stronger.
  • Red Herring - One attempts to distract another by using irrelevant claims or trying to abandon the original argument. Ex: You argue that salmon population is dwindling. I argue that salmon population wouldn't be a problem if bear poaching was legal.
  • Slipper Slope - The argument claims one consequence will eventually lead to another.
  • Special Pleading - Allowing exceptions due to personal reasons.
  • Straw Man - Changing a person's argument so one may refute the original argument. Ex: You argue that apples don't have seeds. I refute then that oranges don't have seeds, either.
  • Sweeping Generalization - The argument ignores exceptions.
  • Tu Quoque - Means "you, too" in Roman. One claims that another has no right to make the claim because they practice the opposite. Ex: Smokers shouldn't tell people to not smoke, because they're the offenders.

Sarcasm and Satire

Sarcasm and satire are brother and sister words, but one has meaning. The other does not. Sarcasm is solely used to exaggerate something for only the effect. Satire is used to exaggerate something with reasons behind it. Never use sarcasm in an argument; it is an insult. Be wary with satire; there are times when satire is more effective than a conventional argument, but since it is borderline to sarcasm, it easily can backfire with horrific results.

A note on satire for arguments: Fallacies are purposely employed to show how another person's argument is flawed. It's already been said; be wary with satire. This technique does not work all of the time, though. If there is nothing wrong with the argument where satire is being used, the one using satire is the fool.

Played For Laughs

Use this at discretion. People employ certain statements to make people laugh. However, everyone has a different sense of humor. What one person finds funny, another person may become upset or angry at. Some believe that humor in argument is used as a distraction. It can also be difficult to show your solid opinion and have others take it seriously when you are taking time to crack a joke or make fun of something.

How About Fallacies as a Literary Device for Fiction?

Use them. Be my guest. Fallacies add drama.

How About Fallacies for Real Life?

Remember that two people commencing in argument are actively listening to each other. Good luck doing that when both people are angry at each other for personal reasons.
 
Last edited:
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
Your argument of denying them knowledge isn't founded in logic,
Yes, it is.
Limiting the amount of knowledge a person has convenient access to, that's... a worse crime than theft.
Now supposing you'd said that it wasn't relevant, I'd totally agree with you. But that's not what you said. You asserted your opponent was rambling illogically. This brings me to question your reading comprehension.
You are over-complicating the issue, where you claimed I was simplifying it. Simply because piracy and internet rights are related doesn't mean they are one and the same.
I have spent time in the tulpa.info community.

Let me make this perfectly clear:

Topics are strictly and necessarily umbrellas.
What you're doing is derailing the thread for your own favour.
I'm not actually seeing how what he said was supposed to benefit him in any way. (' - ')
Your argument would be more convincing if you knew the difference between "your" and "you're".
Not really.
"the discussion about this kitten has NOTHING to do with this kitten".

Hard to argue with that logic.
"This kitten is dieing."
"What is causing it?"
"Blood loos."
"How do we fix it?"
"We can stem the bleeding."
"But what about the kitten?"
"The kitten is bleeding, we need to focus on the bleeding."

I'm really not seeing what's so difficult to argue here.
I really hate "quote-game" threads, but i see no other way to reply.
Everything I reply to is an opportunity to make a legitimate point I think ought to be made. :V
Being in favor of a side doesn't make your opinions biased. It means you have an opinion.
Yes, yes it kind of literally does do that. This is why scientists design experiments that way they do. They want to get rid of the inherent bias the scientists conducting the experiment have as a mere property of them having an opinion.
Let me make sure not to speak in absolutes because you'll make me have to reiterate what I'm saying to make the same point.
Highly appreciated.
It's not even a debate for me, just stating my opinions.
It shows.





:V
 
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
I find that everyone has the capacity to reason, so telling them how to do so accomplishes nothing. Showing them where they are mistaken, on the other hand...

How does fighting piracy go against freedom?
As a general rule, freedom is an ability, while liberty is a civility.
If you make an exception once you will have to keep making the exception in similar cases.
God forbid a judge has to think to do his job properly.
The law is founded in a bedrock of solid principles.
Where foundation ends, subversion begins.

Also, the US constitution is full of crap in my opinion.
I wouldn't expect special circumstances, or some unusual behaviour in the justice system. I would expect punishment for my family member.
Why not? People make deals for their friends and family all the time. Why would you expect fair and just treatment?
 
Level 17
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
1,100
Suppose that morality of civilization and survival of civilization came into conflict.

Which do you choose?
This is an impossibility as morals are based on position and ability. A pauper will always have less liberty with morals than a rich king.
While in both cases morals are simply just a human construct that change to fit the current situation. This concept is only ignored when the human loses the will to live.

Day of the tripids is a nice read and includes a lot of psychology (sociology) ;D
 

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 35
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
8,739
Suppose that morality of civilization and survival of civilization came into conflict.

Which do you choose?

First off, these kind of a hypothetical dead-end questions are rather dangerous & preclude the possibility left out by the poser of said question. Case in point:
Fladdermasken said:
A set of morals that doesn't conflict with the survival of civilization. :V

Nevertheless...

...Which do you choose?
Define "survival" and "morality". Are we talking the entirety of civilization, as a whole? Dead? And by 'morality', are we talking the overarching societal structure and code of "do good, punish evil", however 'evil' and 'good' are defined in said culture?

Because to be honest, regardless of the cost, there's something to be said for dying for your beliefs, holding fast & true to certain principles even unto death.
 
Last edited:
Level 27
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
A set of morals that doesn't conflict with the survival of civilization. :V
Right, the means discarding the old morals. You're choosing survival as more important.
This is an impossibility as morals are based on position and ability.
My posit remains: What if?
A pauper will always have less liberty with morals than a rich king.
You're confusing luxury and liberty.
Define "survival" and "morality". Are we talking the entirety of civilization, as a whole? Dead?
Yes, everyone. Or enough people to the point where the remaining people can't recreate civilization and eventually go extinct.
And by 'morality', are we talking the overarching societal structure and code of "do good, punish evil", however 'evil' and 'good' are defined in said culture?
Sure, if that's what morality means to you.
There's something to be said for dying for your beliefs, holding fast & true to certain principles even unto death.
That's generally when other humans are the ones oppressing you. What I posit is a case where there will be done left to carry on your legacy of principles. Does death remain valuable when it is civilization as a whole?
 
Top