View Full Version : I'm stupid trying to explain God rationally!!!
TruthSeeker
04-18-02, 01:25 AM
I discovered this two days ago. It's impossible to explain God rationally. Why? Because, theorically, God has no limits!!!! Since words limits ideas, God is unlimited and can't be explained with words, rationally.
I will explain it further by giving you the idea of God.
God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
Ok. Now, try to limit God.
You can't!!! He is actually everything!! If you think about,
Omnipotence+Omnipresence+Omniscience=EVERYTHING!!
So, how can we understand God?
It's not hard if you can envision a hypothetical relationship between a god-like person and God. Here is what you get:
The Ultimate Intimacy
Omnipotence
If God is omnipotence and you are too, the possibilities of interactions are limitless!!
Omnipresence
That's the strangest one for non-religious people. If both God and you are omnipresent, you are ONE! You both occupy the same space at the same "time". Here we have the hard issue of space-time relations again...
Omniscience
Hey! If both of you know what the other feel and think, you don't need to talk at all! You just know it! Again, problems with space-time relations and the "you are ONE with God" thing.
To solve the puzzle of space-time, we can consider that God is beyond space-time.
Work more with that later.
Love,
Nelson
So, how can we understand God?
Consume a fifth of Finlandia and munch a few peyote mushrooms....
Peace.
You're stoned, aren't you?
I was gonna say that god musta been stoned when the earth was created. Then I thought, Nah, he'd never have gotten all that done in a week :D
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I'm stupid trying to explain god rationally
Correct
;)
What's wrong with being stoned?
I'm stupid trying to explain God rationally!!!
Congratulations ! You've solved the "Catch 22" phenomena.
Aside from the fact that this is the only claim you've made which can be backed up with mountains of evidence, it is still nontheless a claim that defies logic.
I discovered this two days ago.
We discovered your stupidity some time ago. Welcome to the club.
It's impossible to explain God rationally.
What you should be stating is that it's impossible to explain gods rationally or irrationally.
Why? Because, theorically, God has no limits!!!!
Yes, the last course of action of a desperate theist. You're obviously running out of ways to express your ignorance and are resorting to the last bastion left open for a struggling soothsayer, "God has no limits."
Since words limits ideas, God is unlimited and can't be explained with words, rationally.
That's where your wrong. Any idea can be explained with words. However, if the proponent of said idea does not know how to use words in the first place, yourself for example, they are already at a disadvantage before they even get started.
God can easily be explained with any number of words. Horse hockey pucks comes to mind.
God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
Ok. Now, try to limit God.
You can't!!! He is actually everything!!
God is a muderer, a rapist, a terrorist, a child molestor, a suicide bomber?
Omnipotence+Omnipresence+Omniscience=EVERYTHING!! So, how can we understand God?
The same way we understand anything; with reasoning. So sorry you're not privy to that concept.
It's not hard if you can envision a hypothetical relationship between a god-like person and God. Here is what you get:
A god-like person? Are you now comparing one fairy tale to another?
Omnipotence
If God is omnipotence and you are too, the possibilities of interactions are limitless!!
Huh?
Omnipresence
That's the strangest one for non-religious people. If both God and you are omnipresent, you are ONE! You both occupy the same space at the same "time". Here we have the hard issue of space-time relations again...
I repeat: Huh? Are you sure the religious people are gonna get this?
Omniscience
Hey! If both of you know what the other feel and think, you don't need to talk at all! You just know it! Again, problems with space-time relations and the "you are ONE with God" thing.
Three-peat: Huh?
To solve the puzzle of space-time, we can consider that God is beyond space-time.
With one statement, you've managed to address every single irrational foible one could muster, and still say nothing of value in the process.
It must be time for your medication again.
TruthSeeker
04-18-02, 10:43 AM
(Q),
You are so ignorant and closed-minded that not even logic can get to you...
We discovered your stupidity some time ago. Welcome to the club.
I didn't discovered I'm stupid, I discovered that God can't be limited by words...
What you should be stating is that it's impossible to explain gods rationally or irrationally.
It's possible to experience God... but not explain Him rationally...
Yes, the last course of action of a desperate theist. You're obviously running out of ways to express your ignorance and are resorting to the last bastion left open for a struggling soothsayer, "God has no limits."
God is defined as having no limits in ALL Religions of the world. Coincidence? No...
The term God was created to explain the Universe.
You seem completly ignorant about religion... so why do you still discuss it...?
That's where your wrong. Any idea can be explained with words. However, if the proponent of said idea does not know how to use words in the first place, yourself for example, they are already at a disadvantage before they even get started.
No, it can't. Again, you know nothing about neither Religion nor philosophy... what the heck are you doing here...? :bugeye:
Can you please discuss things you understand...?
Don't you see that even Particle Phyisics had no words to describe itself!?!?!? We had to invent a whole new vocabulary to talk about Particle and Quantum Phyisics!!! There were no words to explain it until we made them up!! Of course it wasn't 100 words... but you know how difficult was for scientists to explain it long time ago, don't you...? I don't think so... :rolleyes:
God can easily be explained with any number of words. Horse hockey pucks comes to mind.
How wise you are... :rolleyes:
God is a muderer, a rapist, a terrorist, a child molestor, a suicide bomber?
Light is everywhere. Shadow is an illusion created by an object in front of the Light.
The same way we understand anything; with reasoning. So sorry you're not privy to that concept.
Are you dumb or what? Do you think you can put an elephant in a bottle of water!?!?!?!?! :bugeye:
A god-like person? Are you now comparing one fairy tale to another?
First: hypothetical
Second: Theological. In the Bible it's said that "He made us to be like Him."
I repeat: Huh? Are you sure the religious people are gonna get this?
Sure... but I doubt a guy with a 2 kilometer ego with all this pride will ever get it... :rolleyes:
With one statement, you've managed to address every single irrational foible one could muster, and still say nothing of value in the process.
It's incredible how well YOU do that in a bunch of dumb non-sense statements....
It must be time for your medication again.
Can you be more creative...? I'm almost sleeping here...
Huh?
Yeah, yeah... I know you can't understand anything...
Swallow your pride before your pride swallow you!!!!! :D:D:D
Love,
Nelson
goofyfish
04-18-02, 10:55 AM
Q: "God is a muderer, a rapist, a terrorist, a child molestor, a suicide bomber?"
TruthSeeker: "Light is everywhere. Shadow is an illusion created by an object in front of the Light."
Goofyfish: "Life is a twinkie."
TruthSeeker
04-18-02, 11:00 AM
goofyfish,
Goofyfish: "Life is a twinkie."
That's how you learn. With your difficulties and challenges. Without them, you would have never really learned something... ;)
Learn with life...
Love,
Nelson
truthseeker,
Yes you are correct; if God exists then he is incomprehensible. The Catholic Almanac has already stated this.
The agnostic position also claims that because God would be incomprehensible then there is nothing that can be meaningfully (rationally) said about him.
If you need a label for your new realization then agnostic theist is the correct definition.
Almost every theistic argument when taking to the limit comes to the point that it is not possible to comprehend why God would ever take a particular action.
Theism is in actuality dishonest agnosticism.
Welcome to the world of agnosticism.
Cris
TruthSeeker
04-18-02, 11:20 AM
Welcome to the world of agnosticism.
Thanks Cris! :)
We should then try a more philosophic approach to God, like Taoism... Taoism do it pretty well... :)
Love,
Nelson
Originally posted by goofyfish
Life is a twinkie.
A really big twinkie.
A really big twinkie.
Well now I do say!
Mind....meet gutter. Gutter, this is Xev's mind....
The agnostic position also claims that because God would be incomprehensible then there is nothing that can be meaningfully (rationally) said about him.
If you need a label for your new realization then agnostic theist is the correct definition.
Almost every theistic argument when taking to the limit comes to the point that it is not possible to comprehend why God would ever take a particular action.
Theism is in actuality dishonest agnosticism.
Welcome to the world of agnosticism.
Booh- yah! Cris is right, Nelson, you are agnostic.
Jan Ardena
04-18-02, 12:21 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TruthSeeker
You seem completly ignorant about religion... so why do you still discuss it...?
I don't think you will get a straight answer, i have been asking this same question for some time now. :p
Love.
Jan Ardena.
Take a nap, honey, and come back when you have things of substance to add.
A really big twinkie.
The agnostic position.
There's something wrong with this thread...
Adam:
No, just that our minds are in the gutter. :)
Jan Ardena
04-18-02, 12:57 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
Take a nap, honey, and come back when you have things of substance to add.
When you wake up from yours, you will realise what i say is very substantial.
Love.
Jan Ardena.
TruthSeeker
04-18-02, 03:01 PM
Posted by Jan Ardena:
When you wake up from yours, you will realise what i say is very substantial.
Yes... it's very substantial. :);)
Not so much different then the things I say...
Love,
Nelson
I've yet to see Jan contribute anything more than feeble attempts at insult.
Not even her insults are worth remembering. A bit of hysterical screaming here, a bit of nastiness there....*Yawn*
Funny, this reminds me of a friend's 'proof' of athiesm:
God is all-knowing, ja?
God is everything, ja?
God is everywhere, ja?
God is incomprehensible, ja?
What is the difference between an immaterial, incomprehensible being that is everything and everywhere and nothing?
God may or may not exist, but we can certainly say that God is meaningless.
"I didn't discovered I'm stupid, I discovered that God can't be limited by words..."
Most things can't be properly described with words. Language is just evolved grunting.
"It's possible to experience God... but not explain Him rationally..."
So you realize that you can not prove god exists. Good for you. Welcome to your first bite of reality.
"The term God was created to explain the Universe."
Let me tell you a little story Nelson. Once there was a brand new species to the planet. Now this brand new species was special, because it had special ways it could communicate. It was smarter and more logical and reasonable than other species. Now, this species was one that would spend it's existence attempting to explain everything around it. Right off the bat, the species is not able to explain anything, so it starts noticing small things. It notices that it can explain things one simple way 'Ooga'. The all mighty Ooga, you see, was figured to have started the world. The all mighty Ooga controls the water, the animal and birth. The all mighty Ooga is wherey ou go when you die. After all, it's kind of depressing to think you work your whole life and then just disappear, right? Of course! Also, the all mighty Ooga means life has meaning. Always a good thing!
Are you getting my drift? Do you understand how there is a very plausible way for religion to have started?
And I've yet to see Jan be insightful. Calling Hitler non-discriminatory? Not exactly smart.
Cactus Jack
04-18-02, 09:40 PM
I've said this before but, God is the creation of man to fill his need for immortality. I don't know if I believe that, I don't know what I believe. I do know that niether side of the argument for and against the idea of God can bring evidence - we simply don't know. And because we don't have proof.
We'll know when we're dead or we won't be in existance and its not like we'll be capable of caring. You can't explain God, you can't explain him not being there either. Science doesn't prove God doesn't exist it just shows hes "not necassary".
Jan Ardena
04-19-02, 05:56 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
What is the difference between an immaterial, incomprehensible being that is everything and everywhere and nothing?
Define nothing, then i will tell you.
God may or may not exist, but we can certainly say that God is meaningless.
To you!!
To me, your prattle shows just how merciful God is.
But its just a matter of perception, it will all come out in the wash, one day.
A bit of hysterical screaming here, a bit of nastiness there
Nastiness……when have I been nasty.
Hysterical screaming, I think your mixing me up with tiassa and KB.
Anywayz I thought you liked a bit of ruff debate.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyler
And I've yet to see Jan be insightful.
A blind man can't 'see'. :p
I thought that was rather insightful. :p
Calling Hitler non-discriminatory?
Not exactly smart.
Maybe not, but it is correct.
"The term God was created to explain the Universe."
Really!
Then what is all that other stuff. :confused:
Do you understand how there is a very plausible way for religion to have started?
And you actually believe that’s how it started, right? :p :D
Love.
Jan Ardena.
TruthSeeker
04-19-02, 11:33 AM
Tyler,
So you realize that you can not prove god exists. Good for you. Welcome to your first bite of reality.
I can prove to myself... I don't know if I can prove to others, though...
About your little story, I would like to remember another little one, about Greek Philosophy... :D:D
Plato used to think that there is a "World of Ideas" where everything come from. Isn't God from this "World of Ideas" where Creation is made?
These ideas are ancient and originated from many Philosophies and Religions that explain the Universe pretty well...
For example, Taoism. Taoism says that everything is created by the Tao which is composed by two opposites. Everything they did is to observe Nature. That's what I do, that's what is also written in your story. Yes, this means I agree in a certain degree with your story. But I would also say that a simple meaninful explanation of the Universe can easily be made through Philosophy and observation of Nature.
Love,
Nelson
truthseeker,
I can prove to myself... I don't know if I can prove to others, though... You can only prove something to yourself if you have an independent mechanism that allows you to determine the difference between truth and delusion. Without such a control you cannot know that what you perceive is true or not. If you have such an independent mechanism then because of its independence others would be free to also make use of it and verify your claims for themselves.
I doubt you have any such mechanism and all you have is indistinguishable from delusion. And since your claims are extraordinary and fantastic then delusion seems by far the most likely and probable conclusion.
Plato used to think that there is a "World of Ideas" where everything come from. Isn't God from this "World of Ideas" where Creation is made? Understandable when they had no knowledge of modern science and zero knowledge of neuroscience.
These ideas are ancient and originated from many Philosophies and Religions that explain the Universe pretty well...
For example, Taoism. Taoism says that everything is created by the Tao which is composed by two opposites. Everything they did is to observe Nature. That's what I do, that's what is also written in your story. Yes, this means I agree in a certain degree with your story. But I would also say that a simple meaninful explanation of the Universe can easily be made through Philosophy and observation of Nature. Ancient does not imply truth but more like out of date, and explanations also give no indication of truth or not.
For any explanation to have value it must first be credible and secondly provable. I could observe a bird flying and explain the event as the bird having knowledge of advanced anti-gravity technology. By your reasoning this is an explanation and must therefore be true since it fits observations. Similarly invalid explanations include conclusions that a god did it.
Without evidence all you have are fantasies.
Cris
Jan:
Define nothing, then i will tell you.
Nothing: The absence of any thing.
Webster's concurs:
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :
Nothing \Noth"ing\, n. [From no, a. + thing.]
1. Not anything; no thing (in the widest sense of the word
thing); -- opposed to anything and something.
To you!!
To me, your prattle shows just how merciful God is.
But its just a matter of perception, it will all come out in the wash, one day.
Yours rather disproves the existance of a merciful God, as does Country-Western.
Nastiness……when have I been nasty.
Well let's see.....have you read your posts?
Even NELSON called you on it!
Hysterical screaming, I think your mixing me up with tiassa and KB.
Ummm, no.
Anywayz I thought you liked a bit of ruff debate
Only when interesting and substantiative, such as when Tony and I 'fight'.
A blind man can't 'see'.
Insightfull? Tell me, do you ever have problems with your ego bumping against the stratosphere?
Nelson:
I can prove to myself... I don't know if I can prove to others, though...
Throughout recorded history, attempts have been made to prove the existance of God. None suceeded.
Can you prove his existance to yourself, or are you simply trying to believe?
Plato used to think that there is a "World of Ideas" where everything come from. Isn't God from this "World of Ideas" where Creation is made?
The idea of God comes from a form. But, so does the idea of Great Cthulhu.
In any case, Plato's prattle is hardly substantiated or proven.
TruthSeeker
04-19-02, 03:33 PM
Cris,
I doubt you have any such mechanism and all you have is indistinguishable from delusion. And since your claims are extraordinary and fantastic then delusion seems by far the most likely and probable conclusion.
Ok... then ask people that meditate... They will give you the same things... Coincidence? I doubt...
Ancient does not imply truth but more like out of date, and explanations also give no indication of truth or not.
You seem not to understand Philosophy at all...
Xev,
Throughout recorded history, attempts have been made to prove the existance of God. None suceeded.
Because most of people are more worried about their pride...
Can you prove his existance to yourself, or are you simply trying to believe?
I already did...
Even NELSON called you on it!
What...?
In any case, Plato's prattle is hardly substantiated or proven.
Yeah... now you and Cris are telling me that you are Greater then Plato... :rolleyes:
Love,
Nelson
truthseeker,
Ok... then ask people that meditate... They will give you the same things... Coincidence? I doubt...I’ve been a practitioner of TM since 1977 and I became a TM-Sidhi in 1987 (advanced techniques).
http://www.tm.org
http://www.tm.org/sidhi/index.html
So while I have had some superb experiences during meditation, none of those experiences lead me to conclude that something supernatural exists.
I don’t know what you call mediation but if it involves attempts to convince yourself that a god exists then that isn’t any way objective. However, please tell me how you define meditation.
Cris
truthseeker,
Yeah... now you and Cris are telling me that you are Greater then Plato... Depends what you mean by greater, but we have access to scientific knowledge that Plato never had. If Plato was alive now with such knowledge then his conclusions may well have been very different.
Cris
Nelson:
Throughout recorded history, attempts have been made to prove the existance of God. None suceeded.
Because most of people are more worried about their pride...
No, because they are based on bad logic, or fail on scientific grounds.
My philosophy teacher, himself a devout Catholic, disproved Descartes' proof.
Even NELSON called you on it!
What...?
Easy. You are one of our 'nicest' posters....I should consider you a bit of an expert on whether Jan is being nasty.
Yeah... now you and Cris are telling me that you are Greater then Plato...
Er, no. His science is outdated, which led him to some rather poor conclusions. His 'Republic' preceded the development of true, stable democracys and is thus practically useless.
He had many fascinating ideas....since when am I 'Greater' than him? Please quote back where I or Cris claimed that.
TruthSeeker
04-19-02, 06:46 PM
Cris,
I did have some meditation experiences...
What I find out each day more and more is that "coincidence" is just one of the words we use to explain what God does...
Meditations improved "coincidences" in my life...
However, please tell me how you define meditation.
A state of the mind where the ego is silenced and the Highter Self is easily perceived.
In other words...
A state of oneself where we are silenced and God is easily perceived.
Or...
A state of being where the conscient is subjected and the subconscient is highly perceived.
....
Depends what you mean by greater, but we have access to scientific knowledge that Plato never had. If Plato was alive now with such knowledge then his conclusions may well have been very different.
No, he would have observed Nature. Another example:
The "I don't know any true man" philosopher... I don't remember his name... :mad:
Unfortunatly, I don't remember who used to walk in the street and once was asked what was he looking for... the answer was: "a true man"... then... what does this mean?
Xev,
My philosophy teacher, himself a devout Catholic, disproved Descartes' proof.
Finally someone disagree with Descartes...
Er, no. His science is outdated, which led him to some rather poor conclusions. His 'Republic' preceded the development of true, stable democracys and is thus practically useless.
Have you ever really read what he wrote...?
The same as above...
He had many fascinating ideas....since when am I 'Greater' than him? Please quote back where I or Cris claimed that.
You never said that... but the way you two speak it seems that you are an authority on the subject...
Love,
Nelson
Nelson:
In other words...
A state of oneself where we are silenced and God is easily perceived.
Quite close to the origional purpose of reaching nothingness, or Nirvana.
I would define it as a unfamiliar mental state that leads to a sense of 'oneness' with the universe and oneself, but that's the materialism talking ;)
Have you ever really read what he wrote...?
The same as above...
Yes, the Republic and some of his other works. I'm more familiar with Aristotle though...more to my liking.
Hardly an authority, but I've read a fair bit of philosophy.
TruthSeeker
04-19-02, 07:11 PM
Xev,
Quite close to the origional purpose of reaching nothingness, or Nirvana.
It IS the way to reach the Nirvana... :D
Love is included, in a deeper way...
Love is more linked with Shiva, though...
Don't like Aristotle...
I prefer Plato and Socrates... :)
Love,
Nelson
Jan Ardena
04-20-02, 02:17 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
Nothing: The absence of any thing.
Absent from where or whom?
Yours rather disproves the existance of a merciful God,
And how exactly does it do that?
Ummm, no.
Ummm, yes. :mad:
Love.
Jan Ardena.
Jan you're an idiot. I gave much proof and historical fact that showed Hitler killed discrimanatorily. You said 'Hitler killed for power' than did nothign to back it up. That was just a personal belief you hold.
As a matter of fact, it is a very huge debate whether or not Hitler believed in the ideals he killed for. HOWEVER, the debate does not deny this Nazi Police test:
"Is he Jewish? If yes throw him in jail
Is he communist? If yes throw him in jail
Is he a gypsy? If yes throw him in jail"
If seperating people by race and political opinion is not discriminatory, what is?
"And you actually believe that’s how it started, right?"
Nope, I believe it's possible. I believe it's plausible. To me, it seems quite logical. However I have yet to prove it so I won't say I take it as fact. I don't claim something as fact based on circumstancial evidence and guesses. I leave that up to religious people.
"Yeah... now you and Cris are telling me that you are Greater then Plato..."
I am greater than Plato, in the sense you seemed to ask. I have had the privelage of reading every philosopher before and since him. I have at my access a huge amount of scientific knowledge compared to what he had. I have philosophical progression to look at. I know more about human patterns than he did because I have thousands more years and billions more people to look at. That's only natural. Are you saying you know less about science than plato?
If Plato was here today.......no comparison. I'd sooner worship Plato than a god. His thought process is light years ahead of mine.
"Have you ever really read what he wrote...?
The same as above..."
Plato's views on democracy were less intelligent than ours today because we have had thousands more years of experience. That does add to something.
"Don't like Aristotle...
I prefer Plato and Socrates..."
Why? Plato is a beautiful author, that's the only reason I can think of. Aristotle wrote like a computer.
"Absent from where or whom?"
Let me give you an example.
Pretend each M inside the square is a bit of matter.
---------------------------
|MMMMMMMMMMMM|
|MMMMMMMM MM|
|MMMMMMMM MM|
|MMMMMMMMMMMM|
---------------------------
See that little area without anything in it? There is nothign there.
Tyler, Nelson:
I prefer arid Ari. Yep, he wrote like a computer, but you can easily understand him. Plato...incomprehensible..:rolleyes:
Jan:
Absent from where or whom?
Here, us, the universe. Absent from existance.
And how exactly does it do that?
Well come on! It was your insult, I simply stated it better. :D
TruthSeeker
04-21-02, 12:18 AM
Plato...incomprehensible..
Plato is actually one of the most, if not THE MOST, respected Philosopher of all times.
His ideas are really wise and incomprehensible to most of people.
But Philosophers just love his ideas! :)
Beacuse they understand them. ;)
Love,
Nelson
Plato is actually one of the most, if not THE MOST, respected Philosopher of all times.
Appeal to popular belief. I don't care for his fascism. I don't care for his anti-intellectualism, I don't care for his sexism and worst of all - he makes my head hurt. ;)
His ideas are really wise and incomprehensible to most of people.
But Philosophers just love his ideas!
Beacuse they understand them
Well that's nice, but it's a fallacy.
Sushi!,
Xev
TruthSeeker
04-21-02, 12:42 AM
Xev,
Appeal to popular belief. I don't care for his fascism. I don't care for his anti-intellectualism, I don't care for his sexism and worst of all - he makes my head hurt.
I have never seen such things in his Philosophy... :bugeye::eek:
Well that's nice, but it's a fallacy.
Fallacy...?
Not for the books I've read... ;)
Love,
Nelson
Jan Ardena
04-21-02, 02:48 AM
Xev,
Here, us, the universe. Absent from existance.
Here, us, the universe, are these not ‘things.’
I asked you to describe ‘nothing’ not absense of something in relation to something else.
Tyler,
Jan you're an idiot.
Tyler your’re a thuper intelligent guy.
I gave much proof and historical fact that showed Hitler killed discrimanatorily.
If that is the case then every muderer kills disciminately.
When fools go into a school and blast whoever they can, probably they said beforehand, “lets go in that school over there and blast whoever we can,” yep, silly me you’re probably right.
Oh and try asking people who survived that mass murder ritual of a holocaust and see if they see things the way you do.
Love.
Jan Ardena.
Nelson, you wouldn't recognize a fallacy if it hit you on the head. No offense, but you ought to study them and avoid a bit harder.
Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Jan:
Here, us, the universe, are these not ‘things.’
I asked you to describe ‘nothing’ not absense of something in relation to something else.
'absense of something in relation to something else.' IS nothing!
Nothing is the absence of somthing - we find this absence in relation to the 'somthing' that we observe.
I wonder if 'nothing' can truly exist, but that's a different topic.
Fine, fine, you define nothing. Right now, I am thinking it is 'the contents of Jan's skull' but -
Tyler your’re a thuper intelligent guy.
He is a 'super' intelligent guy, you do have that right.
And I rather don't blame you for trying to sweet-talk him, but you're really not his type.
Jan Ardena
04-21-02, 11:39 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
I wonder if 'nothing' can truly exist, but that's a different topic.
Until you find out, the answer to your original question is;
What is the difference between an immaterial, incomprehensible being that is everything and everywhere and [inothing?
The difference is, nothing does not exist.
Right now, I am thinking it is 'the contents of Jan's skull' but -
nothing!!!!
contents!!!!
in my head!!!!
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Love
Jan Ardena.
Jan; describe discriminatorily.
Like I said;
Are you a Jew? If yes, die.
Are you a Commie? If yes, die.
Are you a Gypsy or Gay? If yes, die.
The opposite of discriminatory killings are random killings. So no, a killer who just runs around firing a gun is not killing discriminatorily, he is killing randomly. Hitler killed people based on their religion or political convictions. To me, that is discriminating against Jews, Commies, Gypsies and Gays.
If I killed only women, would that not be discriminating against women? If I killed only women and Jews, would that not be discriminating against women and Jews?
"When fools go into a school and blast whoever they can, probably they said beforehand, “lets go in that school over there and blast whoever we can,” yep, silly me you’re probably right."
So killing someone based on their religion or political views are is the exact same as randomly killing anyone? 'yep, silly me you're probably right.'
"Oh and try asking people who survived that mass murder ritual of a holocaust and see if they see things the way you do."
First of all, it's impossible to survive a murder. By definition. So they would have survived the Holocause camps. If they were killed in a mass murder, how could they survive it? Second of all, if you look around Jews feel exactly like that. They feel they were persecuted because they were Jewish (which is true). Being tortured, imprissoned, or killed based on your religion is discriminatory! Third of all, ask someone who survived a camp......what......you mean like my grandfather? I have, thank you.
And Xev, don't worry, you're the only gal for me!
Tyler:
Oh good. Jan didn't seem your type, but I wasn't really looking forward to fighting her for you. ;)
They feel they were persecuted because they were Jewish (which is true). Being tortured, imprissoned, or killed based on your religion is discriminatory!
Gee, you think so?! Whatever makes you say that?
Jan:
The difference is, nothing does not exist.
Very well then, I will not dispute this now.
So, what is the difference between an immaterial, incomprehensible being that is everything and everywhere and somthing that has no relevence?
This God is irrelevent.
That was my friend's explanation of athiesm. He was a very insightful man.
Jan Ardena
04-21-02, 04:38 PM
Tyler,
Now before we carry this on lets try and understand each other, I know where you are coming from, and from that perspective you are right, but try and understand where I am coming from.
Hitlers ignorance became apparent when he saw people as designations, instead of human beings. He therefore caused the slaughter, torture, suffering and murder of millions of 'human beings' based on what he thought they were, but in actuality they were just human beings non different to him or any other human being, who happened to be called, Jews etc…
So killing someone based on their religion or political views are is the exact same as randomly killing anyone? 'yep, silly me you're probably right.'
As I said before, the fools go in the school, they say “lets go in that school over there and blast ”whoever we can,” so they go in and blast whoever they can, wouldn’t you say that discriminatory.
First of all, it's impossible to survive a murder. By definition. So they would have survived the Holocause camps. If they were killed in a mass murder, how could they survive it?
I said; "Oh and try asking people who survived that mass murder ritual of a holocaust and see if they see things the way you do."
If you temporarily take out the; ‘mass murder ritual of a,’ you are left with ‘holocaust’ which is what I meant.
And what’s this ‘you’re the only gal for me trip, stay away from these atheist gals, they’ll bring you nothing but trouble, you’ve been warned!!! :D:D
Xev,
So, what is the difference between an immaterial, incomprehensible being that is everything and everywhere and somthing that has no relevence?
Trick question right.
None.
Because the concept of relevance and irrelevance both have to be part of the being that is both everything and everywhere, so they are reletive.
This God is irrelevent.
To you!!
To me, your prattle shows just how merciful God is.
But its just a matter of perception, it will all come out in the wash, one day.
That was my friend's explanation of athiesm. He was a very insightful man.
To you but not to me!
Everything in this phenomenal world is relative.
Love.
Jan Ardena.
And what’s this ‘you’re the only gal for me trip, stay away from these atheist gals, they’ll bring you nothing but trouble, you’ve been warned!!!
Don't listen to her, Tyler. It is a well known and documented fact that athiests are better in bed. Jan is simply trying to provoke a catfight over you.
*Growls at Jan Ardena*
Say, Jan, didn't you once claim that most everybody was an athiest because they didn't abide by the true religion? That's rather going to limit his options.
Jan:
None.
Because the concept of relevance and irrelevance both have to be part of the being that is both everything and everywhere, so they are reletive.
Yes, they are relative. Everything is.
However, what is the benefit of believing in such a God? What distinguishes this God from irrelevence?
To you!!
To me, your prattle shows just how merciful God is.
But its just a matter of perception, it will all come out in the wash, one day.
*Xev is struck by a lightning bolt*
That stings. :p
To you but not to me!
Yes, but you don't understand athiesm and you're chasing Tyler....so your opinion is irrelevent. :)
"Don't listen to her, Tyler. It is a well known and documented fact that athiests are better in bed. Jan is simply trying to provoke a catfight over you."
I got $10 on Xev. Though religious people do tend to be pretty violent when they got somethin' to fight for. Haha, I'm all yours Xev, don't worry!
"Now before we carry this on lets try and understand each other, I know where you are coming from, and from that perspective you are right, but try and understand where I am coming from."
To do so, I would need your definition of a discriminatory killing.
"Hitlers ignorance became apparent when he saw people as designations, instead of human beings. He therefore caused the slaughter, torture, suffering and murder of millions of 'human beings' based on what he thought they were, but in actuality they were just human beings non different to him or any other human being, who happened to be called, Jews etc…"
Nay, Hitler still saw them as human beings. Perhaps what you mean is that Hitler saw some human beings as more valuable than other human beings. He always continued to view them as humans, just some were super-human!
Not different from any other human? First of all, this is irrelevant. We are debating whether or not Hitler killed discriminatorilly. Hitler did think races of people were different. Whether or not you think this is true does not matter, what matters is that Hitler did segregate people based on race and political views. Second of all, people do differ from race to race in my view. Besides the obvious physical differences, there are attitude differences. Many PCers will say that this is an incorrect view while completely ignoring the logic in it. Different cultures produce different social values and attitudes. It's quite simple. Personally, I'm beginning to hate 'multiculturalism' in the U.S. This whole 'no one is different' bullshit is an attempt to assimilate everyone into one 'human culture'.
"If you temporarily take out the; ‘mass murder ritual of a,’ you are left with ‘holocaust’ which is what I meant."
Like I said, my grandfather.
I got $10 on Xev. Though religious people do tend to be pretty violent when they got somethin' to fight for.
Yeah, but we athiests have payback for 2000 years of burnings at the stake.
No contest.
Jan Ardena
04-21-02, 05:30 PM
Xev,
Don't listen to her, Tyler. It is a well known and documented fact that athiests are better in bed. Jan is simply trying to provoke a catfight over you.
Be careful Tyler she’ll promise you everything, and for a while you will feel you are in heaven, then as soon as new fresh blood comes along, she will dump you and leave you with a broken heart and you will end up a broken man.
Trust me I know what I am talking about.
*Growls at Jan Ardena*
*I extend to you my heart and arms in friendship.*:):):)
Say, Jan, didn't you once claim that most everybody was an athiest because they didn't abide by the true religion? That's rather going to limit his options.
Options for what?
However, what is the benefit of believing in such a God? What distinguishes this God from irrelevence?
He is also a person, therefore He is everything and separate from everything simultaneosly. For example your body has its own mechanism, you don’t have to remember to breath or eat or sleep, it does that for you. When you are asleep or unconscious, your body is still doing its thing, so in a sense you are your body but at the same time separate from your body.
This gigantic universe is a part of Gods body, it works automatically like any body, but God Himself is separate from this universe, He has his own abode called ‘Vaikuntha’ which means ‘no anxiety’ or more commonly known as the ‘Kingdom of God’ or the ‘Spiritual world.’
*Xev is struck by a lightning bolt*
That stings.
Just demonstrating, what goes around comes around.
Yes, but you don't understand athiesm....
There is nothing to understand, its like saying one doesn’t understand the dark, atheism is just the opposite of theism, both are only explanations of state of mind, therefore quite irrelevant in reality.
.and you're chasing Tyler....so your opinion is irrelevent.
Tyler!!!
Do not be taken in by this woman!!!
YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!!!!!! :p :p :p:bugeye:
Love.
Jan Ardena.
Be careful Tyler she’ll promise you everything, and for a while you will feel you are in heaven, then as soon as new fresh blood comes along, she will dump you and leave you with a broken heart and you will end up a broken man.
Trust me I know what I am talking about.
No no, I can't promise him everything. For instance, I can't make G.W Bush be smart....
This is beginning to sound like a Brazilian soap opera! Now all we need is for Nelson to turn out to be Jan's identical twin who underwent a sex change operation!
He is also a person, therefore He is everything and separate from everything simultaneosly. For example your body has its own mechanism, you don’t have to remember to breath or eat or sleep, it does that for you. When you are asleep or unconscious, your body is still doing its thing, so in a sense you are your body but at the same time separate from your body.
This gigantic universe is a part of Gods body, it works automatically like any body, but God Himself is separate from this universe, He has his own abode called ‘Vaikuntha’ which means ‘no anxiety’ or more commonly known as the ‘Kingdom of God’ or the ‘Spiritual world.’
Okey dokie artichokie, do you have evidence for any of this?
Just demonstrating, what goes around comes around.
Yeah, next I'll have Zeus hitting on me.
*Hits a few amourous swans, then gives up and feeds them to the Great Cthulhu*
There is nothing to understand, its like saying one doesn’t understand the dark, atheism is just the opposite of theism, both are only explanations of state of mind, therefore quite irrelevant in reality.
Not the opposite but the absence. Not bad at all.
Tyler!!!
Do not be taken in by this woman!!!
YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!!!!!!
Allright, that does it....
CATFIGHT!
*Xev bopples away to change into leather miniskirt*
Ah but Jan, any replies to Hitler debate?
"Yeah, next I'll have Zeus hitting on me."
If he does, I'll take him in a fight......
Ah but Jan, any replies to Hitler debate?
Ah ha ha ha!
Masochist.
Jan Ardena
04-22-02, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Tyler
"Now before we carry this on lets try and understand each other, I know where you are coming from, and from that perspective you are right, but try and understand where I am coming from."
To do so, I would need your definition of a discriminatory killing.
As I have stated, both our definitions concur, that is why I understand where you are coming from. But our difference of opinion comes to light when we look at the bigger picture. I believe that as a ‘human being,’ you have human rights, and therefore a right not to be assaulted on the grounds of your outward bodily dress, where you were born or how you think.
Obviously there are occasions when certain types of people have to somehow be put out of action for the safety of the populace, and even then violence, not to mention the extreme violence which was dished out to men, women and children, should only be considered when every other option has been looked into.
But I fail to see how the European Jews, at that time, deserved that kind of treatment, maybe you can shed light on that.
Nay, Hitler still saw them as human beings.
What kind of a human being slaughters women and innocent children?
Could and would you slaughter children?
Why would he slaughter children as if they were cattle and still regard them as human beings? That highlights the ignorance not only of the man, but of the whole regime.
Perhaps what you mean is that Hitler saw some human beings as more valuable than other human beings.
An expensive coat and a cheap coat differs in value according to the desire of everyday people, but in real terms they are both coats and have a specific use, therefore a real value, and that use actually has nothing to do with the afforementioned value. This again shows his true ignorance.
He always continued to view them as humans, just some were super-human!
But they weren’t super-humans, we can see now in hindsight, that he was miserably wrong.
Not different from any other human? First of all, this is irrelevant.
How so?
It shows how deluded he was, the man lived in a fantasy world.
We are debating whether or not Hitler killed discriminatorilly. Hitler did think races of people were different.
Yes he discriminated on those grounds, the same as most other murderers, but only due to his ignorance. In truth he killed millions of ‘innocent people’ and therefore in truth he killed indiscriminantly, because they never commited the crimes that they were murdered for, there was not even a trial.
Whether or not you think this is true does not matter, what matters is that Hitler did segregate people based on race and political views.
Yes, I think that is true.
But did all of them commit any crime which was worthy of such a sentence?
Second of all, people do differ from race to race in my view. Besides the obvious physical differences, there are attitude differences.
But that does not mean they deserve to be slaughtered?
They are all human beings and have as much right to live as you.
This whole 'no one is different' bullshit is an attempt to assimilate everyone into one.
Though we may differ, we are all ‘human beings.’
Like I said, my grandfather. [/B]
Is he a human being?
Did he commit any crime worthy of being slaughtered?
Love.
Jan Ardena.
"I believe that as a ‘human being,’ you have human rights, and therefore a right not to be assaulted on the grounds of your outward bodily dress, where you were born or how you think."
Yes, you believe that. As do most people in modern culture. However, you seem to think this matters in whether or not Hitler was discriminatory.
To discriminate is to segregate people based on creed, political opinion or race. Hitler, as you admitted, segregated humans. I dare you to go up to a Jew and say Hitler was not prejudice and discriminatory against Jews.
Now, here's where you start altering the English language (though nowhere near to the extent that our friend nelson does).
"An expensive coat and a cheap coat differs in value according to the desire of everyday people, but in real terms they are both coats and have a specific use, therefore a real value, and that use actually has nothing to do with the afforementioned value."
This metaphor says to me that you feel no human is born greater than any other human. That our religion or political choice does not make us any less of a human. To discriminate is, in essense, to segregate people because you view them as lesser humans. So, you have eliminated the idea of discrimination.
Now, this is where it gets hard to explain this to you. So excuse me if it seems like I'm grabbing at an explination.
You view all humans as born equal. To me, this is the correct view. To others, this is the correct view. Ultimatly, this view means that you can not discriminate because there is nothing to discriminate against.
Hitler viewed some humans as better than other humans. Hitler believed in Darwinism in humans. Hitler believed Aryan race was stronger and therefore would be the next step in evolution. If you told Hitler that all humans were born equal he would stand up and give a 40 minute speech on why you are wrong and why the German race will be supreme. So to find out if Hitler was discriminatory or not, we must look at the reality as viewed by him. He discriminated against Jews. As a people.
And, I don't know if you know this, but most of the world agreed with Hitler. Italy was fascist. France was socialist, but it was like a 55/45 draw between quasi-commies and fascists. America was okey-dokey with Hitler because most Americans hated Jews too (Henry Ford wrote a book - The International Jew - which Hitler idolized). William Randolph Hearst was a huge Nazi supporter. Canada came close to being either commie or nazi because of economic gain each system promised (and at the time, delivered). The world was just fine with fascism. It was faaaar from out of the ordinary. Rascism and discrimination and prejudice and ignorance (as you name it) was flourishing.
"But they weren’t super-humans, we can see now in hindsight, that he was miserably wrong."
Like I said, whether or not he was right or wrong TO YOU, does not matter. To HIM, he was right. To much of the world, he was right. Hitler discriminated because he believed it was natural and in the best interest.
"But that does not mean they deserve to be slaughtered?
They are all human beings and have as much right to live as you."
Quote me saying Hitler did a good thing and I'll ignore this comment. I never once insinuated that they deserved to be slaughtered.
"What kind of a human being slaughters women and innocent children?"
Ah so women and innocent children are more deserving of life than men? Interesting prejudice...
"But I fail to see how the European Jews, at that time, deserved that kind of treatment, maybe you can shed light on that."
My pleasure. World War Two was a necessary act. You can in no way blame Germany for WWII. To understand this, you need to know WWI. After The Great War, when Germany had lost to the allied nations, there was a treaty signed. Basically, this was the idea; Hey, we've killed their men, destroyed their army, so what should we do next......how about we destroy their national honour, limit them to never being able to be more than a 3rd world nation and destroy their industry! The Treaty of Versailles basically stated that Germany had to take FULL responsibility as murderers in WWI, limited their army to a size too small to ever defend the country, give up extremely valuable land, let French military roam the streets (which, beyond making Germany little more than a state, embarasses the hell out of the nation and teaches the kids that their country is not something to have pride in). You probably looked at the first point about Germany taking full fault for WWI as true, but it really isn't. World War One has no clear good guy or bad guy. If you want to ask why this is so, go ahead and I will happily answer. Anyway, I have to ask you this; you fight a war and loose. After you loose, your opposer says you can never again be allowed to be greater than a third-world nation and your people must feel shame for 100 years (which is how long French troops were to spend in Germany). Is this fair? No, not in the least. It was a ridiculous mistake by the allies. And Germany had NO say in it.
In 1919 the Russian Bolsheviks had a revolution that put Communism in place in the country. Global Soviet Domination was beginning to look like a possibility. Much like 15 years ago when Soviet/Democracy fight was big, the race was between Commies and Fascists. Every nation had a big Commie party, and every nation had a big Nazi party. Germany was a country with a 1% Jewish population. However, the Jews held 15% of all Lawyer positions and 12% of all doctor positions. So a 1 in every 100 person holds 1 in every 25 (roughly) high paying position. Not exactly an even ratio, eh? So point 1 against the Jews - They Have Our Jobs! Hitler, along with many others, was also a firm believer in Darwinism (as I mentioned earlier). He believed that evolution was a part of nature. And that the strong survive. As he saw it, the Aryan race was far superior, stronger and smarter than other races. (The logic question involved now that a lot of people reach is; if the Jews have all the jobs, how did he see Aryans as superior?). Point 2 against the Jews - We Are Superior, We WIll Survive! Germany under democracy was an impossibiltiy. Like I said, they would be a third world nation forever. Germany under communism or fascism however, could quickly become a leading nation. So how do you choose? Well, the communists wanted a global village where only The Party is loved. The Nazi's suggested a love for Germany culture, history, mythology, music (Wagner - though don't you dare say it like that, it's pronounced Vagner!), philosophy (Neitzsche) and education. So as a German citizen, which one appeals more? Point 3 against the Jews - They Are Keeping Us Down! There was a large communist support in Germany though...and they were mostly Jewish. So the Jews, as Germans viewed, were trying to destroy German culture (which the Jewish communits were trying to do, though not because they hated German culture but just because they saw it as necessary in global communism). Point 4 against the Jews - They Want To Destroy Our Culture!
So World War II was necessary. And fascism was necessary. But was the killing of 6 million Jews necessary? No.
"Is he a human being?
Did he commit any crime worthy of being slaughtered?"
You have to understand, Hitler saw the destruction of Jews as a necessary act. It was just another step forward in evolution.
How you see it is of no relevance to understand Hitler's view.
Just wanna clear up a couple of things.
To discriminate is to segregate people based on creed, political opinion or race.
To discriminate is to choose by prefernce. I choose my shoes by disciminating. I choose what I want for dinner by disciminating. Not really a good idea to redefine a word in terms of its current political use when that is hardly the only use. Discrimination is a good thing. If we did not discriminate, nothing would ever get better. Now, discrimination against any particular group of people might be a bad thing, but that's a different story.
You view all humans as born equal. To me, this is the correct view. To others, this is the correct view.
Humans are not all born equal. Some have birth defects, some are smarter than others, some are faster runners or better gymnasts. People are all different, and this trend of political correctness to deny human individuality is ridiculous. The only thing equal about our births is our rights, and that is nothing objective and "real", just something we made up and use.
Every nation had a big Commie party, and every nation had a big Nazi party.
No. Only Germany had a NAZI party. The letters NAZI even specify it as a German political party.
In 1919 the Russian Bolsheviks had a revolution that put Communism in place in the country.
Well, people called it Communism, but it wasn't. It was a twisted Socialism. Note what the letters USSR stand for.
World War One has no clear good guy or bad guy.
The Black Hand, and Archduke Ferdinand.
Jan Ardena
04-22-02, 12:26 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyler
Yes, you believe that. As do most people in modern culture. However, you seem to think this matters in whether or not Hitler was discriminatory.
Of course it didn’t matter to Hitler, that is why he was ignorant.
To discriminate is to segregate people based on creed, political opinion or race. Hitler, as you admitted, segregated humans.
I would say to make distinction, but go on.
I dare you to go up to a Jew and say Hitler was not prejudice and discriminatory against Jews.
Dare you to go up to one and say Hitler is not a murderer.
What would be the point of that, we know he was.
I understand and agree with your point, I am requesting you to see the bigger picture.
Now, here's where you start altering the English language (though nowhere near to the extent that our friend nelson does).
Alter?
In what way?
This metaphor says to me that you feel no human is born greater than any other human.
I was talking about the value of human life, no one deserves to be murdered. One coat is more expensive than the other, so superficially it has more value, but in reality they are both coats and therefore serve a purpose, as does human beings.
Of course I don’t believe all humans are equal, and have never stated that, I think that is what you would like me to believe.
So, you have eliminated the idea of discrimination.
Ultimatly, this view means that you can not discriminate because there is nothing to discriminate against.
Discrimination means in essence to make distinction, for example I am a vegetarian, this means I discriminate against eating meat. So there is always discrimination, there simply has to be.
If you told Hitler that all humans were born equal he would stand up and give a 40 minute speech on why you are wrong and why the German race will be supreme.
Hitler was, IMO a foollish man with a great personality who was used by higher and different forces, to force certain agendas, to him he saw the Aryan race of people from a bodily concept, namely blond hair and blue eyes, which again showed his ignorance, especially when he had dark hair and eyes. So he was in a sense signing his own death warrant.
So to find out if Hitler was discriminatory or not, we must look at the reality as viewed by him. He discriminated against Jews. As a people.
Yes he did, but a Jew is definitely a human being first and foremost, and he therefore killed human beings, thinking that they were Jews because they were called Jews, can’t you see what I’m getting at.
And, I don't know if you know this, but most of the world agreed with Hitler.
Most of the world still does, in my opinion.
America was okey-dokey with Hitler because most Americans hated Jews too (Henry Ford wrote a book - The International Jew - which Hitler idolized).
Some would say the American Jews were behind the holocaust, but that’s a whole other debate.
The world was just fine with fascism. It was faaaar from out of the ordinary. Rascism and discrimination and prejudice and ignorance (as you name it) was flourishing.
And it still is.
Like I said, whether or not he was right or wrong TO YOU, does not matter. To HIM, he was right.
Do you think he was right?
To much of the world, he was right. Hitler discriminated because he believed it was natural and in the best interest.
But surely you can see he was wrong and not in the best interest?
Quote me saying Hitler did a good thing and I'll ignore this comment. I never once insinuated that they deserved to be slaughtered.
Then tell me your personal view on the subject. Because from where I’m standing that is exactly what you are saying.
Ah so women and innocent children are more deserving of life than men? Interesting prejudice...
No, but they are to be protected.
Is this fair? No, not in the least. It was a ridiculous mistake by the allies. And Germany had NO say in it.
But it still doesn’t justify the slaughter of millions of ordinary people.
Hitler, along with many others, was also a firm believer in Darwinism (as I mentioned earlier).
The irony is that not even Darwin was committed to his theory.
He believed that evolution was a part of nature.
Which strengthens my point, that he was ignorant.
And that the strong survive. As he saw it, the Aryan race was far superior, stronger and smarter than other races.
So smart that they slaughtered millions of people on the basis of bodily designation, that is not what the Aryan civilisation is about. T
(The logic question involved now that a lot of people reach is; if the Jews have all the jobs, how did he see Aryans as superior?). Point 2 against the Jews - We Are Superior, We WIll Survive! Germany under democracy was an impossibiltiy.
But who created the economic crash, who controlled the world banking organisations, and thes the world economy, it was so-called Jewish people, and they still do.
Like I said, they would be a third world nation forever.
Again I ask, how did this financial situation occur?
Germany under communism or fascism however, could quickly become a leading nation. So how do you choose?
Don’t mind being a part of a leading nation, but I wouldn’t want to be a part of any genocidal activities to achieve it.
So the Jews, as Germans viewed, were trying to destroy German culture (which the Jewish communits were trying to do, though not because they hated German culture but just because they saw it as necessary in global communism).
So why not try and oust the aggressors instead of murdering everyone whose face didn’t fit, that is my point. But don’t get me wrong I understand that this was a nesaccery act in the ultimate destruction of the world, which is to come.
So World War II was necessary. And fascism was necessary. But was the killing of 6 million Jews necessary? No.
I’m glad to hear you say that.
You have to understand, Hitler saw the destruction of Jews as a necessary act. It was just another step forward in evolution.
I totally agree with you on this point, but his act was done in ignorance. There are also other aspects to Hitler, the Nazi and the Jews (Zionists) which are not documented in history, in that, you will find much more evidence that supports what I am saying.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Jan,
The irony is that not even Darwin was committed to his theory.
Erm, what in the fuck has Darwin to do with social Darwinism?
Tyler:
My pleasure. World War Two was a necessary act. You can in no way blame Germany for WWII. To understand this, you need to know WWI. After The Great War, when Germany had lost to the allied nations, there was a treaty signed. Basically, this was the idea; Hey, we've killed their men, destroyed their army, so what should we do next......how about we destroy their national honour, limit them to never being able to be more than a 3rd world nation and destroy their industry! The Treaty of Versailles basically stated that Germany had to take FULL responsibility as murderers in WWI, limited their army to a size too small to ever defend the country, give up extremely valuable land, let French military roam the streets (which, beyond making Germany little more than a state, embarasses the hell out of the nation and teaches the kids that their country is not something to have pride in). You probably looked at the first point about Germany taking full fault for WWI as true, but it really isn't. World War One has no clear good guy or bad guy. If you want to ask why this is so, go ahead and I will happily answer. Anyway, I have to ask you this; you fight a war and loose. After you loose, your opposer says you can never again be allowed to be greater than a third-world nation and your people must feel shame for 100 years (which is how long French troops were to spend in Germany). Is this fair? No, not in the least. It was a ridiculous mistake by the allies. And Germany had NO say in it.
Not exactly. Versailles was a blunder, and Germany did not have a say in it, but the restrictions were much tougher on paper than they really were. The troops left Germany fairly quickly (the public wanted an end to the war and all), and only occupied the Rhineland (?) for a little while after that.
Germany suffered horrible inflation, but the inflation allowed her to pay off reparations quite easily and with little damage. The countries she devastated, Belgium especially, were not so lucky.
As for military restrictions, they were also quickly lifted when fears of the Soviets increased in Britain and America.
So World War II was necessary. And fascism was necessary. But was the killing of 6 million Jews necessary? No.
No. Not necessary. Germany was rebuilding under Hitler and could have continued to do so without the war.
And it was pointless - Hitler could have easily been stopped early on but Chamberlain and the French did not wish to. America did not wish to get involved, as usual.
Back to Jan:
I totally agree with you on this point, but his act was done in ignorance. There are also other aspects to Hitler, the Nazi and the Jews (Zionists) which are not documented in history, in that, you will find much more evidence that supports what I am saying.
You are right, Hitler was rather ignorent of the true nature of race, genetics and basic science. He was not a stupid man, but believed in many nonsensical mystical concepts. Ignorent, in my book.
However, he knew what he was doing by attacking the Jews.
Adam:
"No. Only Germany had a NAZI party. The letters NAZI even specify it as a German political party"
National Socialist Party. That's what Nazi was short for. Not German. There was a different Fascist party in each nation. Most were similar to Hitler's German Nazi's after 1933.
"Well, people called it Communism, but it wasn't. It was a twisted Socialism. Note what the letters USSR stand for."
United Soviet Socialist Republics. Hitler's Nazi's were also called Socialist. Socialism is a form of economics, mainly.
"Dare you to go up to one and say Hitler is not a murderer.
What would be the point of that, we know he was.
I understand and agree with your point, I am requesting you to see the bigger picture."
When did I say he wasn't?
"I would say to make distinction, but go on."
So to discriminate is to make distinctions between people based on creed, race or political belief. And hitler DIDNT do this?
"Hitler was, IMO a foollish man with a great personality who was used by higher and different forces, to force certain agendas, to him he saw the Aryan race of people from a bodily concept, namely blond hair and blue eyes, which again showed his ignorance, especially when he had dark hair and eyes. So he was in a sense signing his own death warrant."
Hitler wasn't used by any higher power. He was an individual that saw a problem, saw a solution and believed he could lead the nation to that solution. And yes, it is ironic that he himself was not blonde/blue eyes. But he was still Austrian and therefore German.
"Which strengthens my point, that he was ignorant."
What does that have to do with whether or not he discriminated against Jews?
"Do you think he was right?"
Where have I implied I do?
I'll reply more later, I'm in school right now....
NAZI = National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Nazi= Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)=National Socialist German Worker's Party = National Socialists.
Were the Nazis socialists? Yes and no. They encouraged a rather dualist system - capitolism subservient to the state.
Jan Ardena
04-22-02, 02:50 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
Erm, what in the fuck has Darwin to do with social Darwinism?
What’s with the foul language? :confused:
Just say what you have to say. :)
Love
Jan Ardena.
Erm, I'll say whatever the fuck I please, unless Pofiry has a problem with it. I talk the way I type.
Now, dear sweet delicate Jan Ardena, who may suffer the vapors or faint or whatever the (fuck?) ladies do in the presence of foul language,
What has Darwin to do with Social Darwinism?
Back home, time for the rest of my reply.
Xev;
"Not exactly. Versailles was a blunder, and Germany did not have a say in it, but the restrictions were much tougher on paper than they really were. The troops left Germany fairly quickly (the public wanted an end to the war and all), and only occupied the Rhineland (?) for a little while after that.
Germany suffered horrible inflation, but the inflation allowed her to pay off reparations quite easily and with little damage. The countries she devastated, Belgium especially, were not so lucky.
As for military restrictions, they were also quickly lifted when fears of the Soviets increased in Britain and America"
- The French troops did not leave Germany until the SS Police were in works.
- Germany was Die Vaderland, so calling it 'her' should be 'him'! I know this is stupid and pointless but, eh, whaddaya gonna do...
- Germany's economic and unemployment state was worse than America and Canada during the depression starting in the 30's, much worse. It didn't chnage until the Nazi's took over.
- Fear of the Soviets? That didn't start until Nazi's! And they weren't really lifted. They just didn't do anything when Hitler started building army/navy/air. This was part of appeasement.
"No. Not necessary. Germany was rebuilding under Hitler and could have continued to do so without the war.
And it was pointless - Hitler could have easily been stopped early on but Chamberlain and the French did not wish to. America did not wish to get involved, as usual."
Okay, the Holocaust was certainly not unavoidable. But in my opinion, War was going to happen no matter what. Consider the options....(1) Democracy continues, Germany never becomes more than a third world nation.....(2) Communism takes over, in which case the Global Communist war continues stronger.....(3) Nazi's take over. And had WWII not happen (and this is a BIG if), consider what Stalin's army would have looked like. Personally, I'm glad we had a Hitler to knock off as many Commie threats as he did. Had Stalin been allowed to build as MASSIVE an army as he could have without fighting Hiter......who knows what the Allied/Soviet war would have looked like.
Jan;
"Discrimination means in essence to make distinction, for example I am a vegetarian, this means I discriminate against eating meat. So there is always discrimination, there simply has to be."
And Hitler discriminated against Jews/Commies/Gypsies.....
How does this not make sense to you?
Hitler believed that Aryan's were of more valuable than Jews. So he discriminated against Jews.
Whether or not he was right makes no difference in whether or not he discriminated.
"namely blond hair and blue eyes, which again showed his ignorance, especially when he had dark hair and eyes."
Not exactly. Hitler and the Nazi's prefered the blonde hair blue eyes thing, they didn't demnad it. As long as you were Aryan, in his classification of Aryan, you were okay. As long as you weren't a commie that is.
"Most of the world still does, in my opinion"
This is not opinionated. The population of the world, if you asked every individual who knows about the Holocaust, would say Hitler was wrong. Whether or not someone holds racist feelings is a different story...
"Then tell me your personal view on the subject. Because from where I’m standing that is exactly what you are saying."
Hmmmm. I call Hitler discriminatory and you say I support him....
Veeeeeeery interesting...
"But surely you can see he was wrong and not in the best interest?"
Yes and No. Hitler did an incredibly horrible thing. But, in 1933 it was definetly the best option for Germans to choose Nazi Party. Like I said, which would you choose if your nation was in a state of embarassment for something you didn't do and was economically in depression which looked to be around for a looooooong time:
Party (1) says they will do nothing to improve conditions
Party (2) says they will improve conditions but destroy your culture
Party (3) says they will improve conditions and cherish your culture.
At the time, no Germans believed Hitler would do something like the Holocaust. If you try and deny this, look at it this way; If you were a Jew in Germany and you knew the Holocaust was coming, would you not have left?
"No, but they are to be protected"
Why value women and children over men? Why protect them over men?
"The irony is that not even Darwin was committed to his theory"
'I'm not a Marxist'
- Karl Marx
"But who created the economic crash, who controlled the world banking organisations, and thes the world economy, it was so-called Jewish people, and they still do."
Ummmm. The Jews didn't create the economic crash of the 1930's.
"Again I ask, how did this financial situation occur?"
A few reasons. For one, Versailles Treaty LARGELY hurt Germany's economy. For two, the stock market crash of 1929 caused basically global depression. And three, because of this crash, exportation stopped, creating problems for all countries that relied on exports for money. There's more to this but I don't think you really want me to go into it. The reason for the crash though? Well, during the twenties stocks were seen as a quick way to get money. The way to get the money to pay for the stocks was bank loans. Stock prices went up too fast. Too much money in circulation. Largely because of U.S.
NOT because of Jews.
I don't understand your points here Jan. Discrimination is to seperate people based on something like creed, race, political view. You hold the opinion that seperating people based on creed, race and political view is ignorant because humans are humans, regardless of these things. But that does not mean that discrimination of humans does not exist. In no way does that make Hitler's acts non-discriminatory. He discriminated against Jews. Segregated them. Saw them as less-than-Aryan. He segregated and discriminated!
Jan Ardena
04-23-02, 07:03 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
Erm, I'll say whatever the fuck I please, unless Pofiry has a problem with it. I talk the way I type.
Now, dear sweet delicate Jan Ardena, who may suffer the vapors or faint or whatever the (fuck?) ladies do in the presence of foul language,
Great!!!
Now we see the real Xev, this is exactly what you are about, arrogant, ignorant and un-couth. :p
This is revelation time. :D
Keep on keeping it real pookie. :D Eventually you will grow tired of you weak facade and come to you senses.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Truthseeker, you cannot see the forest for the trees.
Man created god, not the other way around. God is omni-everything b/c a man said he it was so.........(325ad, council of Nicea, where the leading religious scribes of the time, CREATED, the Christian religion, decided what books would be included in the bible, made Christ divine, Mary a virgin, and thus began 2000 years of monotheism).........
Don't waste your time trying to figure out god. There is only what we do.........."do the right thing"
peace, jandt
Jan: Nope, not even one out of three. And do not expect me to waste my brandy on reviving you should you faint.
Now dear, what does Darwin have to do with Social Darwinism?
JandT: Indeed:
"God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery.
The deep mystery is the nature of man. --Nanrei Kobori"
Tyler: Yes, looking at it that way, WW2 does seem unavoidable. However, Hitler could have been stopped early on....
It seems we agree.
TruthSeeker
04-23-02, 08:20 PM
jandt,
Can you quote me...?
I'm a little lost here...
Love,
Nelson
I was responding to your original post that began this thread........
Jan Ardena
04-24-02, 10:12 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
Now dear, what does Darwin have to do with Social Darwinism?
Will you promise to leave me alone if i tell you......
....well, OK then, but remember i heard you promise.
.......The feature of Darwinism most often cited by those who attempt to justify their moral and social views with "science" (evolution), is the concept of the "survival of the fittest." This application of Darwinian dogma to human society and behavior is known as Social Darwinism.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Jan:
I'll ignore you....So long as you keep your goddamn hands off my man. :p
However, Darwin did not fucking create Social Darwinism. And Darwinian theory (classic evolutionary theory) is not fucking 'dogma', because it is fucking science.
[This post brought to you by the SPVF, the Society for the Proliferation of the Verb 'Fuck'.] :p
"fucking science"?
Now there's something I'd like to research!
Adam:
And now you know what sort of grants the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation awards! :p*
*Note Xev's cunning use of emoticon.
That reminds me of a TV advertisement we have here. There is a pudding-like snack here called Yogo, comes in little plastic tubs. The advertisements all involve Yogorilla and his buddy Snake saving the world and such. One ad has the aliens attacking Earth and stealing all the Yogo. Then we see the USA president's office. The pres is a rhinocerous (horny, ya see), with an intern who has a Yogo stain on her dress...
Ha ha ha! I love it!
God, I miss sex scandels. And interns.
I never thought I'd say that. I miss sex scandels.
Voodoo Child
04-24-02, 04:34 PM
We get that add as well. It was a blue dress. The blue dress. And the pres has the Clintonian Arkansian drawl. That's just too subtle for the kids its aimed at.
TruthSeeker
04-25-02, 12:19 AM
jandt,
Man created god, not the other way around. God is omni-everything b/c a man said he it was so.........(325ad, council of Nicea, where the leading religious scribes of the time, CREATED, the Christian religion, decided what books would be included in the bible, made Christ divine, Mary a virgin, and thus began 2000 years of monotheism).........
God is "omni-everything" because God creates everything. He created the constants of our Universe. The Bible says: God never changes. This means that the Universe has constants that never change. God is the order of the Universe. It's pure teleological explanations... ;)
Love,
Nelson
"God is "omni-everything" because God creates everything. He created the constants of our Universe. The Bible says: God never changes. This means that the Universe has constants that never change."
I have two problems with this. The first is a problem with the logic and the second is, if you are right, a problem with the situation.
Let me try and tace your logic.
- God creates everything
- God doesn't change
- Therefore nothing changes
The way I see it, this doesn't make sense. The logic is flawed.
I can create something, keep it in an unchanging state for a certain length of time and during the length of time I can change. Why does it differ for God? I'm guessing your answer to this will be that God didn't just CREATE the Universe, he IS the Universe. Right?
Second problem...
Things do change. I change.
Wait, I have a third problem now.
I fail to see how the hell your response has ANYTHING to do with what the previous post was.
"Man created god, not the other way around. God is omni-everything b/c a man said he it was so.........(325ad, council of Nicea, where the leading religious scribes of the time, CREATED, the Christian religion, decided what books would be included in the bible, made Christ divine, Mary a virgin, and thus began 2000 years of monotheism)........."
The poster states a belief. An unprovable one though, until we have a time machine.
You countered it with another belief.
This is so mind blowingly stupid it, well, blows my mind.
You have faith in something as truth and your faith WILL NOT change. They have faith in something and the faith WILL NOT change. So what the fuck do you hope to accomplish by both basing your arguements on a faith the other does not believe?
TruthSeeker
04-25-02, 07:49 PM
Tyler,
... As I said, God is related to the constants. He creates (or IS... I don't know) the constants. But, of course, everything else changes. Is like the Philosophy of the I Ching. There's the Tao that is changeless, the Truth, and everything else is always changing. The core never changes but everything else does.
You have faith in something as truth and your faith WILL NOT change. They have faith in something and the faith WILL NOT change. So what the fuck do you hope to accomplish by both basing your arguements on a faith the other does not believe?
It's not just a belief...
Love,
Nelson
Nelson: Oh great, Islam too now?
It's not just a belief...
Saying so won't make it so. You have yet to show ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that it is more than just speculation.
TruthSeeker
04-25-02, 08:18 PM
The EVIDENCE is in my head, with the memories of my experiences...
Nelson dear, that's not evidence at all.
Suppose I told you that unicorns exist. When you asked me why I think that, I say
The EVIDENCE is in my head, with the memories of my experiences...
Do you believe me?
onetrikponee
04-25-02, 09:03 PM
OK
1. I dont want to be rude AND
2. This is my first post and it will probably start some flame war on me BUT-
Does truthseeker make these things up to stir you guys up or does he/she really believe the things he/she says?
Glad to be here guys!
Welcome to sciforums, onetrikponee.
I personally believe that Nelson is sincere.
Say, Nelson, do you mind that I call you Nelson? I prefer to use real names, rather than titles. Besides, I like your name.
BTW, Xev is actually my nickname in real life. Or one of them.
TruthSeeker
04-25-02, 11:57 PM
Welcome onetrikponee! :)
Thanks to bring up the question. :)
Yes, I'm sincere...
Xev,
Yes... you can use my real name... :)
Love,
Nelson
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.