Final Fantasy Hacktics

If htis is about Darth Paul, Holymen back then would have burned him repudently, for no real basis, because they thought he had mental problems.

When T.V. was invented, when lightbulbs came around, churches everywhere focused on calling these things a sin. If you enjoy these things(that includes internet) you would have been massacred. The technology movement didnt make the church happy, and is one of the reasons they moved agains the Knights Templar and other religious groups.

Life back then? Me and you DarthPaul, would have been murdered by the holy men.

EDIT: I posted before i read the last page, and saw the words should not have been directly thrown at darth Paul. however, the text still stands, as it is fact. One of the FEW facts history books still have in them.

P.S. Have you guys seen China's history books? O.O they have so much info that the U.S. books dont! Like how we filled ballons up and sent them across the ocean with a poison to blow up on a certain countries face O.O

*shrugs* I knew that. Thanks to the video for Metallica's 'All Nightmare Long'.

Quotescience is based on the evidence you are able to perceive with your senses

But the conclusions drawn from that data and their use to predict future actions to be equivalent is not.  It's a vile assumption.  If I throw a ball at a 44 degree upward arc with a force of 35 newtons, its trajectory and landing point can be expected to be the same if I do it again (sans wind).  

QuoteEchoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a consequence of the necessity of using inductive logic.

Which I admit is better than some religious beliefs that are neither unprovable nor falsifiable, but faith in science is still required -- at least faith that the past can be used to predict the future.

QuoteTrying to dismiss what is perceivable by our senses as "taken on faith just like religion" is a really shitty argument, because our senses ARE the only reality we can talk about.

Data gathering through senses is just one part of the scientific method.  Hypothesis and conclusion generation are vastly different.  Or do you think we are all made up of earth, fire, wind, and water?  After are, we are all solid, flammable, breathe, and sweat.

Quotereligion is not perceivable, measurable, or observable by the senses or any of the instruments which we can use to expand our senses, much unlike science

One man curing leprosy, blindness, and other ills with the touch of his hand IS an observable action.  Similarly, seeing him DIE after cruxification (which is a horrible, horrible way to go, btw) and then just happening to see him a few days later roaming about perfectly fine is also observable.  So is water walking (defies current knowledge about water surface tension and such, as all the miracles defy otherwise standard operating protocol), food multiplication, alcohol transmutation, etcetcetc.  These were all perfectly observable.  

And going back to the "good" of secular humanism, the core of Christianity is to simply love.  Love god, love fellow man, turn the other cheek, and all that jazz.  And that's been an abysmal failure on the large scale -- and not a fault of Christianity, either.

And going back to the "good" of secular humanism, the core of Christianity is to simply love. Love St. Ajora, love fellow man, turn the other cheek, and all that jazz. And that's been an abysmal failure on the large scale -- and not a fault of Christianity, either.

If it wasn't a bannable offense, I'd have this text pasted until it takes up a 2GB text document.

lol

like every other theist religion, Christianity's core is

MANIPULATION

the rest is just to cover this up.

*pets Zodiac*

pretty....

Quote from: "Zodiac"lol
like every other theist religion, Christianity's core is
MANIPULATION
the rest is just to cover this up.

I think we can see your bias here.  I can see the manipulation aspect if you look at how people have used Christianity to manipulate people.  But in truth, there shouldn't be a "head" of any church to manipulate anyone, which is how Christianity was for the first three centuries until it was instituted as the state religion. Which was a stupid move, Constantine; state religions are just oppressive states you punk, it doesn't create believers.

Quote from: "dp"Scientists are today what holymen where back then.

I want to disagree with this statement, too, because scientists are today what scientists were back then.  I want to agree to it, too, becuase most scientists back in the day were the holymen of the day.

Oh, and I disagree about science being a religion, as well.  While science does take belief, it is no more a religion than history is.  It does take some faith to believe history books as well, but that doesn't make it a religion.

I'm also agreeing with the science = religion thing being bogus.

Yeah, it takes "faith" to think that you're not hallucinating reading my post. You're seeing it with your eyes, but there's always the chance you're not really.
Religion is entirely different. You can't see it, taste it, feel it, hear it, or smell it. No matter how you define reality, this doesn't change. It takes a belief in something that inherently cannot be known or even reasonably assumed.

QuoteBut in truth, there shouldn't be a "head" of any church to manipulate anyone, which is how Christianity was for the first three centuries until it was instituted as the state religion.

So often it seems people blame religion for all the problems associated with it.

Religion doesn't manipulate. It becomes manipulated. The people at the head of religions are to blame for stupidity such as the crusades.

I guess it's just easier to attack an organization than the person causing the problems within it.

Quotethis is probably one of the stupidest statements I have ever read on FFH
 

You read to much into my post. I was not equating I was making a joke.

QuoteIf htis is about Darth Paul, Holymen back then would have burned him repudently, for no real basis, because they thought he had mental problems.

Actually they would have castrated, blinded, and crippled me. That is after tearing out my fingernails and toenails in an attempt to make me "repent".

Quote from: "Kaij"So often it seems people blame religion for all the problems associated with it.

Religion doesn't manipulate. It becomes manipulated. The people at the head of religions are to blame for stupidity such as the crusades.

I guess it's just easier to attack an organization than the person causing the problems within it.

Exactly, it'd be like saying having a police force is wrong because it produces corrupt police officers.  The problem isn't the police force; it's the individuals using thier power for thier own gain.  The same applies to government.  Is government inheritly bad?  If officials behave how thier supposed, then no.

Should we remove these institutions because of thier tendency to become corrupted?  No.

QuoteI'm also agreeing with the science = religion thing being bogus.

Yeah, it takes "faith" to think that you're not hallucinating reading my post. You're seeing it with your eyes, but there's always the chance you're not really.
Religion is entirely different. You can't see it, taste it, feel it, hear it, or smell it. No matter how you define reality, this doesn't change. It takes a belief in something that inherently cannot be known or even reasonably assumed.

Science is a lot more than simple observation.  Like I said, the miracles, assuming they occurred, were quite observable, quantifiable, and, yes, to a small extent repeatable.  

Faith that reality might not be real is nowhere near the point that I'm driving.  Reread my posts and try again.

Quote from: "darthpaul"

Quotethis is probably one of the stupidest statements I have ever read on FFH
 

You read to much into my post. I was not equating I was making a joke.

either:

1) that was not a joke and you are just saying it is now to backpedal seeing as how you were proven horribly wrong

or

2) you have a very shitty sense of humor and actually posted that as  a joke

I'm gonna go with #1, because no one else is really joking on this thread to begin with, and I have never seen you joke in topics take a turn for serious discussion (not even spam topics)

so just admit it, you made a very stupid statement on FFH

it's ok

QuoteShould we remove these institutions because of thier tendency to become corrupted? No.

to everyone else saying "Religion is OK, the problem is us humans for misusing it"

guess what:

religion has some good to it, yes. it also has some very, very bad things that come attached with it (which we have established)

the problem is that the good things about religion can be done via completely secular and rational means, so there is no reason to keep it around for the harm it causes (the evil acts that are SPECIFICALLY done in the name of religion)

like the challenge says:

Try to think of a good act performed by a person in the name of Go.d or religion that would not have been performed by a non-believer.

Now, try to think of an evil act carried out by a person (or group) solely in the name of Go.d or religion that would not have been carried out by a non-believer.

QuoteOne man curing leprosy, blindness, and other ills with the touch of his hand IS an observable action. Similarly, seeing him DIE after cruxification (which is a horrible, horrible way to go, btw) and then just happening to see him a few days later roaming about perfectly fine is also observable. So is water walking (defies current knowledge about water surface tension and such, as all the miracles defy otherwise standard operating protocol), food multiplication, alcohol transmutation, etcetcetc. These were all perfectly observable.

you're joking, right?

QuoteReligion is entirely different. You can't see it, taste it, feel it, hear it, or smell it. No matter how you define reality, this doesn't change. It takes a belief in something that inherently cannot be known or even reasonably assumed.

well said

Quotelike the challenge says:

Try to think of a good act performed by a person in the name of Go.d or religion that would not have been performed by a non-believer.

Mother Teresa's calcutta missionaries.

QuoteNow, try to think of an evil act carried out by a person (or group) solely in the name of Go.d or religion that would not have been carried out by a non-believer.

The holocaust!  oh wait.  Evil is STILL done without invoking the divine!  The same stuff will STILL go on, just under a different masked reason!

Quoteyou're joking, right?

Newp.  It's not some bizarre event like the christian creation where no one was around to observe anything and God clapping his hands to bring everything into existence.  

If someone starts doing some miracles in the middle of a crowd and you can expect some attention and observable results.

My point is that even if these events were indeed observed (meaning that they actually occurred), what conclusions can we draw from it?  Does this give credibility to his teachings, or is it just some lame appeal to authority logical jump?  Are the laws of physics wrong?  Give two people the same set of data and they can both fly off on completely different tangents with it -- and both can be quite correct, simply looking at the data.  Again, observation is only part of the scientific method, so saying something like "you can't smell religion" is really just attacking the strawman and missing the point entirely.  Whenever science becomes the top paradigm the same shit will still be happening, just under a different banner that'll somehow separate group A from B from C and make them all hate and kill one other.

Quote from: "philsov"

Quotelike the challenge says:

Try to think of a good act performed by a person in the name of Go.d or religion that would not have been performed by a non-believer.

Mother Teresa's calcutta missionaries.

QuoteNow, try to think of an evil act carried out by a person (or group) solely in the name of Go.d or religion that would not have been carried out by a non-believer.

The holocaust!  oh wait.  Evil is STILL done without invoking the divine!  The same stuff will STILL go on, just under a different masked reason!

maybe if I post it in different wording you'll get it

Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.
The second challenge. Can anyone think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?

the point is not for you to come up with answers, it's to show that the good religion gives can (and in reality does) come from 100% secular means

wanting to get rid of religion when the good it provides can come from not-so-strings-attached systems is pretty fair iMO

and by strings attached, I mean 9/11 and other exceedingly negative outcomes that were done and justified in the name of religion

QuoteNewp. It's not some bizarre event like the christian creation where no one was around to observe anything and St. Ajora clapping his hands to bring everything into existence.

If someone starts doing some miracles in the middle of a crowd and you can expect some attention and observable results.

you're actually trying to say that miracles, if they happened, would account for perceptible evidence in the name of religion

I was wondering if you were joking before, but now there is no doubt in my mind

QuoteMy point is that even if these events were indeed observed (meaning that they actually occurred), what conclusions can we draw from it? Does this give credibility to his teachings, or is it just some lame appeal to authority logical jump? Are the laws of physics wrong? Give two people the same set of data and they can both fly off on completely different tangents with it -- and both can be quite correct, simply looking at the data. Again, observation is only part of the scientific method, so saying something like "you can't smell religion" is really just attacking the strawman and missing the point entirely. Whenever science becomes the top paradigm the same shit will still be happening, just under a different banner that'll somehow separate group A from B from C and make them all hate and kill one other.

there is no straw man here

the things scientific faith is based on are observable by us humans, through our senses

the things religious faith is based on are not

this was all in response to this statement by you:

QuoteScience, as a construct, is based on the unprovable (taken purely on FAITH) assumption that any event that occurred in the past will exactly occur again in the future if given the exact same parameters.

you cannot equate scientific knowledge with religion and somehow say they are both based on faith as if this somehow made religion any more valid - this is classic theist backpedal tactics. You can't really defend religion, so you try to attack science (or something juicy, like our perceptible reality) in hopes of making religion seem OK

I've seen it plenty times before don't worry

you are welcome to call science faith if you want, it's still superior, more correct, more relevant, and more important than religious faith will ever be, the evidence for this can be seen all around you, namely that computer you're on

Science isn't being brought into question here, religion is

So unless you want to try and argue that the theory of gravity is wrong and that it means that somehow god exists, let's stick to religion and leave the equating to scientific knowledge out of the picture.

Quote from: "Voldemort"wanting to get rid of religion when the good it provides can come from not-so-strings-attached systems is pretty fair iMO

and by strings attached, I mean 9/11 and other exceedingly negative outcomes that were done and justified in the name of religion

The crux of your argument here seems to be that you think that more harm than good comes out of religion.

It's not that I find that hard to believe, I find it hard to prove. First, you'd have to quantify the "good" and the "bad", measure it throughout human history, and then weigh them against each other. Good luck.

Quote from: "Kaijyuu"

Quote from: "Voldemort"wanting to get rid of religion when the good it provides can come from not-so-strings-attached systems is pretty fair iMO

and by strings attached, I mean 9/11 and other exceedingly negative outcomes that were done and justified in the name of religion

The crux of your argument here seems to be that you think that more harm than good comes out of religion.

no

the crux of my argument here is that the good that comes specifically from religion can come without it

and that the bad that comes specifically from religion cannot

QuoteIt's not that I find that hard to believe, I find it hard to prove. First, you'd have to quantify the "good" and the "bad", measure it throughout human history, and then weigh them against each other. Good luck.

I think it's a safe bet that in our modern world, the same if not more good can come from systems such as secular humanism rather than ancient religions conflicting with modern society - WITHOUT 9/11's

if you need quantified "proof" of this in order to believe it, you are part of the problem -_-

Quoteno

the crux of my argument here is that the good that comes specifically from religion can come without it

and that the bad that comes specifically from religion cannot

Fair enough.

The "bad that comes from religion" can certainly come without it though. People have reasons other than their beliefs to be, say, racist or homophobic.

QuoteI think it's a safe bet that in our modern world, the same if not more good can come from systems such as secular humanism rather than ancient religions conflicting with modern society - WITHOUT 9/11's

if you need quantified "proof" of this in order to believe it, you are part of the problem -_-

I'll ignore that ridiculous statement at the bottom...


You're arguing in a circle here. Why do you think it's a safe bet? It cannot be argued that no good comes from religion, as that's been shown many times (Ghandi, Mother Teresa, ect). So, what tipped the scales for you?

Quote from: "Kaijyuu"

QuoteI think it's a safe bet that in our modern world, the same if not more good can come from systems such as secular humanism rather than ancient religions conflicting with modern society - WITHOUT 9/11's

if you need quantified "proof" of this in order to believe it, you are part of the problem -_-

I'll ignore that ridiculous statement at the bottom...


You're arguing in a circle here. Why do you think it's a safe bet? It cannot be argued that no good comes from religion, as that's been shown many times (Ghandi, Mother Teresa, ect). So, what tipped the scales for you?

seeing good coming without religion

and then seeing harm that comes specifically from religion

also, I don't think the statement at the bottom is that ridiculous - it's usually the people who are too hardheaded to accept that ancient religions are indeed a problem in the modern world that provide a cover for the ones that cause the problems to begin with

any reasonable person can see that a human being can function just fine without religion, if you don't, I would say that yes, you are part of the problem

people don't like being wrong, and they don't like to change, either - which is one of the reasons religion has been dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world (and it, as well as everyone else, even the non-religious have suffered a great deal because of it), the effects of that very visible today

Quote from: "Voldemort"seeing good coming without religion

and then seeing harm that comes specifically from religion

I see good come with religion.

And harm come without.

What's your point? What you and I see is hardly representative, anyway.

Quotealso, I don't think the statement at the bottom is that ridiculous - it's usually the people who are too hardheaded to accept that ancient religions are indeed a problem in the modern world that provide a cover for the ones that cause the problems to begin with

any reasonable person can see that a human being can function just fine without religion, if you don't, I would say that yes, you are part of the problem

I never said that human beings cannot function without religion. Where did you get that?


And I don't "provide covers." I do not defend what people sometimes do in the name of religion. I don't defend 9/11, or the crusades, or the salem witch trials, or whatever else you can think of.

But everything is shades of grey. You say the good that comes from religion can come without. I agree. But, will it all? Would there of been a Ghandi without religion? A Martin Luther King Jr? Maybe. But what they fought against certainly would've still existed.

I can't say whether or not we'd be better off if religion was simply abolished. All you've said and presented so far doesn't show that you can, either.

Let's play a mad lib here:

seeing good coming without _______

and then seeing harm that comes specifically from _______

Replace with these for example: religion, government, police, the internet, journalism, capitalism, socialism, industry.

Just because it can fit in the model, doesn't mean that it is wrong.