To me understanding is important. This has led me to religion, because religion helps to understand and cope with more things than science and philosophy combined ever could. Religion is not about faith for me, but about understanding, about knowing. Those who think religion is about faith and believing may well misunderstand me now. It's okay. Big things are not easy to understand. I don't understand religion completely either. For example I honestly don't understand the church-going part, the liturgy, congregational activity. But church-going seems to attract many, so it must be lack of understanding on my part.
Faith or Reason. Catholicism expressly states: "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."
But it not denies the fundamental role of Faith: "In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:
Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. the human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful."
And it concludes: "This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error"
At my knowledge, Catholicism is the only religion that, in respect for Man's Dignity and Freedom, for being made at the "image of God" , recognizes both Reason and Faith to be valid and complementary ways to Man understand God. Therefore, there's no surprise the historical leading role of Catholics on the developing of both Scientific and Humanist studies.
Quote from: ersi
Here's one insight into philosophy (religion is completely philosophical for me) for those who are interested. There's this word 'nothing'. But there's a serious difference between the physicist's nothing and the philosopher's nothing. The physicist's nothing means 'can't detect anything', but the philosopher's nothing is the true nothing, whose detection is a logical contradiction of terms by definition: 'Nothing' is that which doesn't ontologically exist. Then again, 'nothing' is conceptually there among the metaphysical categories - in the category of non-existence. Existence is another metaphysical category that includes everything that exists.
I haven't quoted the rest of your explanation that I consider very clear and rightful, for reasons of text shortness. Just wanted to say that one can and should consider a third metaphysical category that encompasses both existence and non-existence as well as much more beyond human capacity of reasoning, which is God.
Quote from: ersi
Reductionist materialism does not admit logical and conceptual analysis as a valid form of proof. This is the problem of atheism: Simply not interested in the entire realm of existence. "When it can't be detected, it doesn't exist."
However they seem to accept things as the demonstration of Pluto's existence, before it could be detected directly. Or, even more surprisingly, they seem to "believe" in mathematics...
The problem of modern atheism is being a sociological, cultural, psychological, usually urban and western, pop trend with no substance whatever. Nothing else.
Of course it isn't, this is an open book about the atheist mentality, which is a completely different thing. My role being solely to put them speaking. They do the rest with such a motivation that turns heart touching.
.......The first is interesting because it is not obvious that it is a valid question. The concept of things having a beginning and an end is essentially anthropermorphic...........
Quote from: An earlier post by Me
......Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.......
Firstly, how is that first item specifically describing a concept of a beginning coupled with an end, & secondly how in the world do you derive anthropomorphism from it?
It's obvious that in no way the problem you raised (how is it possible that Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves) has any connection with anthropomorphism or some sort of beginning/end vision.
The sort of atheism represented by the Forum atheists uses a simple strategy of discussion for answering your question (as any other you may raise).
1. One answers something totally unrelated with your arguments. 2. Another, will accuse you of circular logic. 3. Another one, will accuse you of intellectual fallacy. If inspired, he can mention something related to Cutchu Cutchu... 4. Another one will start babbling about the big bang. 5. The last one will accuse you of ignorance.
Since they posted five times while you posted once, they believe to have "demonstrated" that you are wrong.
If you, SmileyFaze, I would not spend too much time with it. A couple of well humored posts are enough too keep them busy and happy.
One idea, at least for the beginning, would be a Moderation Council. Three elected posters decides, no written rules. If it works fine, we keep it, if not - we think about it again.
Well I'm agnostic, which accepts that neither religion nor atheism can prove they are right.
That's not exactly Agnosticism...
Agnosticism it's different and consists in realizing that the ultimate truths, as the existence or not of God, are inaccessible to the human spirit. It realizes perfectly the paradox of God's definition (in the sense of a total and global human mental comprehension) and basically adopts a posture of "denial of knowledge" - A-Gnosis, therefore the word. An agnostic knows that he can't ever know.
It's the maximum expression of Man's finitude and insignificance and a refusal and disbelief about the possibility of Man's divine origin and soul.
A very different thing from what I see people normally using it, which is just a form of dismissal attitude - I don't know and I find it futile to know.
Only OakdaleFTL to attentively watch Hitchcock while small children... A precocious and promising boy... just to end posting at D&D. Hitchcock is not happy with that...
Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.
Your words made me imagine the thread to be like an atheist bowling. Non atheists acts like the pins at the end of the lane and atheists throws the ball...
It starts already in a bad way. Why would be religion to "have a problem"? I see no problem with religion but I can see a lot of them without religion...
And the one I refer to has a common name (as Belfrager's Smiley shows he understands...): machismo!
Yes, I had an idea about how the word was used. That's the last thing in the world I could care about... I'm aware that amongst the Anglo Saxons it is seen as the worst sin one can be accused of, to us it only makes us laugh.
In fact, my words were very flattering for women. At least, any intelligent woman.
Convincing them that you are not one of them is the hardest task.
There's no way one can convince a woman. If you think you can that's because she was already willing to "be convinced". Women can't be convinced, they can only be seduced. Simple as that.
We've already started doing a fair bit of that, haven't we?
I'll start a topic on the addressbar, although without Opera's staunch defenders there might just be a lot of agreement.
Maybe I wasn't clear, if you look at the statistics (a very good thing DnD has) you'll see that there's almost no thread from DnD Central at the most replied or viewed. Reason is simple, people are waiting... waiting for what? for Godot? he will never appear...
That's about that inertia that I'm speaking about.
I suppose that a transition period to be expected, while finally people comprehends that there's no point on keeping on posting in D&D and start posting here. At least those that thinks that a forum it's just constituted by posters and their posting activity and not something else.
However, that's a "dangerous" period that can kill efforts of survival. Threads are not already made, they must be created from scratch. If not, well... there's not too much things to discuss, isn't it? I never was, nor I intend to be, a "thread opener", but I certainly will make a special effort to contribute to discussion at this particular phase, by participating.
If this was a Portuguese forum, I would be certain that just at the very last day people would change and do something. Since it is not, I think that's time for considering testing time finished and start doing what is supposed to do - discuss.
I think that we should be more pro active about passing the message that D&D is history. If not, indecision will destroy the current efforts. Is there anything more to decide about DnD?
It's funny, isn't it. In school you're badly punished for plagiarism, but outside of academics most people have ghost writers.
Shame on them. Another "conquest" of moral relativism.
Translation it's very problematic, very specially when translating between complete distinct group of languages, where grammatical rules are so different. It's an activity that I admire those who does it, a dangerous thing that can short-circuit one's brains...
(I don't think you need a collaborator, another writer to share the work or credit; but a good editor [human reader whose job it is to make an author's work salable - palatable to a particular audience/market] could do you a world of good.)
I agree.
Hey, that's cheating... Never do it. Of course you must be prepared for having your talent recognized only after your death... that's the way of the Great Writers.
Quote from: Frenzie
Also, short stories and poetry are pretty much unmarketable (at least in Dutch). That means to write a novel, and probably one that goes along with some current trend or other. In English it almost certainly means a literary agent. Then again, what isn't hard.
Sign of the times. Here, what sells are those abominable Dan Brown's thingies... as well as "books" written by... TV celebrities... I suppose that the last ones don't even uses an Editor, they just hire some ghost writer to do the entire job...
However, I doubt very much that mothers will agree...
They will, when they have no other choice…
He he, well... I think that we have to wait for DnD's resident mothers to say what do they think...
You know perfectly that no matter what's the reality, to mothers their children are always the sweetest little creatures in the world... true angels... no way such adorable creatures can be the uneducated intolerable savages they obviously are... and this is worsening every day, fruit of modern educational standards.
