Brian37 vs Ciarin
Offline As I stated in the other thread, I do not, and hope that you dont either, take this brawl personally, if you chose to partisipate. It is not aimed at you the person, but merely the claims you put forth.
So, if you would start off by giving me a discription of what your position is, we can start from there.
Keep in mind it will get bloody(metephorically speeking). But please understand that after the match is over, we can still have a beer together(meaning we can agree on other issues and be friends outside this dissagreement).
IN THIS CORNER, IT'S THE SULTAIN OF SILLYNISS, THE EINSTIEN OF IDOCY, THE MASTER OF MORONICNESS.......BRIAN37!
IN THE OTHER CORNER, ITS THE DEFENDER OF DEITIES, THE CYBORG OF THEISM ........."CIARIN"
LETS GET READY TO MUMBLE!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Yes.
Indeed.
ciarin.com
Perfect.
Post the link to the white paper.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Done.
ciarin.com
Can you post the video link as well.
Can you post the names and credentials of the scientists, what labs were involved, what blind tests were conducted, by independent labs, and where the white paper was published after scientific peer review, as well as the names of some of the scientific publications that also ran the findings?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
If I were able to accept religion, you, Ciarin, and my friend in NC Tony, the way you guys state your beliefs, well, they are the most compelling, mostly by nature of not even trying to be compelling. That and the honesty of it all being based on personal experience. Anything else I think is a lie.
Can I ask what you think of the new Thor movie coming out? And if you don't mind me asking, will you tell me?
My buddie thinks of it as a new iteration of an old archetype, or Thor asserting himself in a different way, but he mainly just thinks it's a fun sci/fi fantasy movie.
Yes.
ciarin.com
I never read the Thor comics so I don't know what to expect with the movie. I'll probably see it if I have the spare money when it comes out, or I might torrent it. I generally like the comic book movies, and I don't have the hang-up of comic book junkies so I don't care if they're accurate to the comics.
I'll probably enjoy it more than the terrible beowulf movies.
ciarin.com
Yes, what you've shown as evidence in totally in line with your character.
IOW, intellectually bankrupt...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
No offense to you, red, but she is obviously tired of stating she has no hard evidence. She did so from the first post, or maybe second, and then again and again.
What you are showing is the nature of your character, the way you treat people. Fire with fire doesn't work, especially when it's not called for, when there is no fire to begin with.
Not that I am defending her, she doesn't need my help, I am explaining to you.
No.
She does claim to have a 'supernatural' evidence.
The carving that 'would not burn' in a fire.
Pffft...
If that's supposed to be a negative criticism, it's not working very well.
Actually, you have attempted to debase me, and defend her, and her infantile behaviour when asked for proof of her supernatural claims.
Which only characterizes you in a negative way.
She wants to assert there's actual physical evidence of a supernatural event.
When asked if it was investigated she claimed it was, and when asked to provide that evidence, she cannot, or will not.
That's infantile, and deserves to be mocked, for what it is.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I don't mind being characterized in a negative way, but I'm not defending her, cause I'm not trying to explain what she meant. Simply stating what it looked like to me. Same as my statement that the way you treat people characterizes your nature was not meant as a negative statement. I think it might be a tactic, but who knows? Not even important.
If I were interested in her personal experience proof, I would have asked in a much less derisive tone than you did, and I would have asked better questions. Such as, does this hammer still exist? Does she know the location of it? The things you asked could be taken as evidence that you think she is lying and you are trying to catch her in it.
But again, please. My intention was merely to let you know she stated several times she has no evidence and isn't trying to convince anyone. Based on her previous comments, it was likely she was using a sarcasm. And I only wanted to let you know that's what it looked like. I wasn't trying to paint you negative.
While I'm not as rude as redneF, he does have a point. This is an rational responder forum, if you are a theist, and want to be left alone in your delusions... perhaps posting here is not the best decision. If you're a theist that likes to debate their position, this is the right place.
So again, redneF is being his usual self, but I'll take a rational asshole over an irrational sensible person any day.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Sorry. I simply felt rednef was tilting at a windmill that wasn't there.
Exactly.
I'm not interested in knowing anything personal about her, to any degree. People who don an 'enigma', or who surround themselves in 'enigma' bullshit, are a dime a dozen. I don't find people like her, intriguing at all.
She's obviously contradicted herself, then.
Stating that there is 'no evidence', and then presenting 'evidence'. Like the lightning striking a pole when she was thinking about her beliefs, and a wooden carving that would not burn in a fire.
Those are both positive claims in favor of supernatural anomalies.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
After perusing the first page out of boredom I decided Ciarin does not know or wish to point out the difference in "like" and "belief".
"Neato cool yea, I like this one too!"
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
@red, Right, but her declarative when she opened up about these experiences were that they were personal evidence and would have no meaning to anyone other than her.
Remember, I'm on your side. I state unequivocally, I do not believe in fantasy as reality. I do not find her type of religion threatening however. I am envious of it. I wish I could lower my skepticism and cynicism to accept fantasy. It's a dreary depressing world, and magic must be nice. But anyway, all that, side tangent.
I want to see athiests do well. I simply saw what looked to me like a misfire. Maybe I should have pm'ed you instead of publically calling you on it? Didn't occur to me till just now, sorry. Didn't think it was going to be taken so negatively.
I think the hellfire and brimstone, and the nutjobs need to get the scorn and scoffing, and maybe as a tactic it will get through to them. I think there are some religious people simply looking for answers, and those need a lighter touch. I think they might even be coming here for help, and a heavy hand will drive them further into the pockets of the scam artist major religions. We should have Rapid Responders based on the type of theist! I dunno. Random thoughts at this point. I know most of you are smarter than me, especially in theology, I'm just a normal guy trying to think.
Except I know the difference in like and belief and I don't mind pointing it out. It would seem that because I like my beliefs that means the only reason I have them is because I like them, which isn't accurate.
I like a lot of things and they're aren't included in my belief system.
ciarin.com
Who am I to judge, but you came off as being fairly noncommital about the whole thing when asked about what gods you believed in. Granted I only read the first page but it seemed about as serious as a bowl of frosted flakes.
So do you play dungeons and dragons? Do your multitude of gods ever get pist and have cage matches and stuff? lol
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Nope. and not that I'm aware of.
So considering you believe in all these different gods ..can you say they are all happy with you?
I hate to be TL;DR, but I'm going to do it after the first page. I never do it, I swear.
Just to be intellectually honest here, she has somewhat of a point. Considering that we cannot objectively even prove that we all share the same reality, or that this isn't a dream, or that everyone else isn't an illusion, it seems odd that we're jumping on a person who for the most part shares an agreement with how the world works with us (no sign of her contradicting science or other empirical evidence), but states that her own personal experiences is as real as the reality we take for granted.
But, where I beg to differ is that if everyone did the same, the world would not be a very good place. If we did accept personal experiences that were not verifiable from everyone, many individuals could easily have personal experiences that contradict moral values. For example, I am sure more than one terrorist or suicide bomber has had a dream, or other miracle only they witnessed, that helped further cement their ideology. Things like that, I feel, don't make such positions tenable on the level of a society. Society is, after all, based on a shared and agreed upon experience.
I'm imagining just a couple of them being pist about something and dropping you in the river styx or something even though you might have made the other ones happy, how does this work?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
No I cannot. I would hope so, but more likely unless I do something to cause offense, they're probably indifferent.
ciarin.com
Poking with a stick, I'm not using a loaded gun here or anything particularly dangerous.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
In regards to roman gods, the proper thing to do would be a piaculum. I know of some roman pagans who do a piaculum after every ritual just in case. In the Cultus Deorum, everything has to be done perfectly, and if not you must do a piaculum. An Auger was used(and is sometimes used today) to determine if a god or gods are pleased or displeased.
I do not yet perform roman rituals, aside from a defixio, so I have no reason to perform a piaculum. I am studying to do lararium rites though.
ciarin.com
Yeah, that's true. We can be much worse. *does scary face*
Still, I think my point stands, although I'd love to see her response.
You make it sound as if most people don't already do that.
ciarin.com
Lol, you have read us wrong, I don't claim to be smarter or better than theists or you. I'm just a regular guy that happens to a skeptic. I also have better critical thinking skills than your average person, but as for intelligence... I personally believe that as individuals, we all are about as 'smart' as any other one as a whole. Very small degrees of variation that are all relative
Some of us know more than others, and some of us actively look for answers while others are content with being told what to believe.
I just wanted to get one thing straight, and that is that I don't consider myself better or worst than you.
I only call people on it publicly, I'm sure redneF can take it, and if he was being inconsistent you'd see a shit load of us jumping on him too. And of course Ciarin is not in the same category as your next door fundamentalist. I agree with you there... but people get a little bored here without a theist to chew on.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
I notice you list several "planetary" gods. I find this to be odd considering people seem to think you have some rationale. I mean..they are planets and we still call them by their "godly" names today.
Aspects of human nature given name and places in the sky, explain if you will how these are "gods" and how they effect your life.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
If I sounded like that, my tone was wrong; I gave an actual example for a reason. Yes, most people are religious, therefore most people do that. It is wrong, and many issues that our Western society is going through (Islamic terrorism, Christian fundamentalism) is because individuals do it. That's why I'd say it's immoral to do it; breaking the covenant with agreed reality can and will create issues if someone doesn't happen to have a very humanist set of personal experiences.
So, if you believe that your personal experiences are a valid proof for your beliefs, you'd have to admit that about others too. What if those individuals have personal experiences compelling them towards violence and hatred of others? There isn't a line you can draw; you'd have to accept personal experiences as a valid component of truth for everyone or not.
I think this would be quite interesting, I myself have a passion for ancient warfare roman and the like and in fact have weapons armor and some other artifacts (mostly replica's). The stories of the roman gods in general are fascinating however I don't believe they were or are real. The rituals would be interesting to study though I'll give you that much.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
What?
ciarin.com
But that is exactly how I see individuals, they hold their personal experiences as proof of their belief. And some are more inclined to be more hateful and violent towards others. The lines we draw are relative to our upbringing and whatever meme we happened to be affected by.
As you have stated earlier in your allusion to solipsism, of course it is logically consistent by itself. The only 'objective' fixed frame of reference I can think of is the default position of skepticism. It's not going to overcome every scenario, but it should satisfy better than sacrificing a squirrel to the fifth planet from the sky, and reading the bone arrangement (I'm completely ignorant of animal sacrifice rituals).
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Are the planets an aspect of your gods? (Not sure if that's what he's asking, but it is what I am asking.)
You put a 'but' in there, but I agree with everything you just said. How did you disagree with me? Am I just tired?
I do. I explained this earlier in the thread.
They can have whatever beliefs they want for any reason they want, but if they go against the social contract, they will be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Just like everyone else.
ciarin.com
In that case, you're making a huge social sacrifice just to assert the validity of personal experience in the realm of belief. Unless my minimalist presumption here is wrong, you're saying their punishment will be society's job, and that's where the concern should end. That doesn't seem to give much solace to the victim(s) of such acts. Lives, whether the murderer is punished or not, is still lost just due to the fact a group of individuals feel that personal experience should be an acceptable ground for belief. The pro:con ratio here is just too severe. The lives would not have been lost if individuals (and society) state that things that cannot be objectively proven should not be believed in.
And that's really the big reason most of us are here. We live in a world where subjective worldviews are denigrating human dignity. That's why the atheist answer is to get rid of subjective experiences and replace them with objective values.
Maybe the tone was a bit open to subjective interpretation, it being out of context. I thought you were exemplifying it to show it untrue. My bad, I'm the one that's tiered.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Should I use simpler terminology? I know I use a lot of big words and ambiguously authoritative nondefinitive phrasing.
Why are planets gods and what do they do for you?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
No. As to why the planets have god names, it's because the planets(coming from the greek planetoi meaning "wandering star" ) that can be seen with the naked eye were considered divine and under the domain of a god. That is, the planet is sacred to a particular god, much like how a god has an affinity for a certain animal or symbol. This is from the babylonians, and the greeks followed suit. The romans did the same after they studied greek astronomy, and put roman names on them. Because of the influence of the roman empire the latin names stuck. As more planets were discovered the roman naming convention continued by astronomers, with the exception of Uranus which is greek.
They also believe the gods watched over the earth in shifts, the first hour by Helios(of the sun), the 25th hour by the Selene(moon), and so on outwards. The days were named for whomever was doing that shift, hence the days of the week are named for gods and in english, because the germanic interpretatio, they have germanic names with the exception of Saturday. Romance languages still use the latin names of course.
Short answer: no I do not believe the planets are gods. I know of some pagans who consider the earth to be a goddess, though.
ciarin.com
Meh too many wolves, I'll just mosey on.
No, you should be more coherent.
They are not gods and they do nothing aside from affect gravity. What makes you think the planets are gods?
ciarin.com
Maybe just try a comma next time.
What you said sounds intelligent, but if you can't get your message across...
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
LOL ok.
Possibly because I am a hick Texan that barely graduated from high school. Yoll will just have to deal with it I guess ><
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Hello.
Sorry Ciarin, but this creed of yours seems a bit feeble. I've read all the 6 pages, but we've got nothing to work on. Do you have absolute truths? What do you think about punishment? What has the gods done for you? eccetera eccetera
Also I've skimmed through the site An Heathen Reader, and I saw something about archeology and some foundings: so there is something that "manifests" of this religion?
Why are you apologizing?
To answer your questions: I doubt it, punishment is fine for those who deserve it, nothing provable to you, what do you mean by manifests.
ciarin.com
That wasn't apologizing, that was more of "I'm sorry for you". I still think, for now, that your belief is sort of superficial, but investigating I saw rituals and a connection with a trascendent reality, so everything seems in order: it's a religion.
You doubt you hold absolute truths? I mean, tell us something, like good and evil, I don't know. You said you are here to answer questions (and also i imagine because of brian37), but I don't know what to ask, because I don't know what you believe! I was merely trying to repair this.
Punishment: who deserves it (if I remember well you have discussed of this before), and how could punishment solve the problem (if it has to solve something)?
"nothing provable to you": what I really meant was if the gods turned your life better or something like that, not tangible proof.
manifests: as I said I've not read very well what this Pip was saying, but it seemed to me that he thinks that there is some sort of "physical manifestation" of his religion, and I found him by the links on your site. It will mean something, right?
---
Now, there are obviously some other topics I'd like to discuss:
- you said you believe in animal sacrifices, in the sense you make them to honour the gods. I'm led to believe you link this sacrifice to the fact that sort of every living being must kill other species to survive (by eating them). Well I say that really it's not like that: from what I know, to have soy beans you do not need to kill the plant, and with them you can do about everything, but even if it wan't like this, there is in commerce meat that is created in laboratories, and doesn't comes from animals. In substance, yes, what I'm saying is that killing an animal is immoral because they don't want to die.
- "we all are different": I hope you mean not "entirely different"... obviously everyone has something in common with anyone else. For example you "prefer" kirk over skywalker because he hadn't anything to do with incest. Hating incest means you belong to a culture and not to another one.
- really those gods don't ask nothing to you?
- "see nothing wrong with religous people ignoring the bad parts of their religion.": well, you are "religous", but at least you're not a fondamentalist
. But this freedom in judging your religion is... I mean, how do you reconcile it with... anything? You are choosing good and bad, so you are applying parameters external to your religion!
- you believe in the gods and follow the traditions: does this means they are not man made? also, germanic folklore (altough as I understood you are not limited to this) has been influenced and has influenced other folklores/religions. Simply by stating your list of gods you are declaring that you accept some influences but not others, right?
- what one should do to accomplish an oath? are there limits?
- wyrd and luck and reciprocity: so there is something that can guide our actions? there is something you can't rebel from?
- not wait a minute: you said there are people who honour the gods with poetry. Isn't it a effeminate thing for germanic tradition?
- could you be more univocal on this: do you "love" or "like" what you believe?
- i'm just asking: wtf means to believe in hundreds of gods???
- so, if there's not a single infinite god, do your gods have an image/aspect? are they people? what is a god for you?
- last: if you don't die in a combat or drowned, will you be in the ragnarok?
Please, put some effort in answering or I'll go valkyrie on your ass!