warri0r45

The Surge - Ion Dissonance

Oh man, I have to add the video clip to Meshuggah's 'New Millenium Cyanide Christ' (the title is god mode alone :XD: ). In this clip, they not only rock hard, they make a joke out of it by playing the song on 'air instruments' while on a bus. I absolutely adore the time signature change ups in the outro too. =P~

The climax of Opeth's 'Ghost of Perdition.' Woah. The double kick over that riff is punishing as hell. :D

I do. By that you close your mind to anything that doesn't fit into this scientific believe sytem. For all i know some key elements of science may just be wrong. Generally there is imo a difference between being open minded and presenting an opinion. Opinions usually exclude other opinions. Not everybody however will cling to his opinion no matter what. Changing an opinion takes some time though. To me open mindedness means to put yourself into the shoes of somebody presenting an opinion and accept it just as he does. Affirming that this opinion is right. Then the process of critical thinking starts and you compare this right opinion with other ideas and opinions you know (all of them valid and right). Contrary to scientific practice i try to varify every statement instead of trying to falsify it. This way i end up with a broader spectrum of possible truths. I guess true open mindedness means to accept every opinion, idea, theory and so as true. You need to close your mind to some degree to stay functional in day to day world. Perhaps I didn't elaborate on my mentality when it comes to science. If you can prove me wrong I invite it. In fact I emplore you to. Really, please, do. I can't stress enough at how much I don't give a damn about holding to a theory, no matter what it is. If you manage to overturn a past paradigm in scientific thought and present a new one with a greater breadth of explanatory power and evidential weight, I'd be willing to shake your hand, sir. And science is not a belief system, it's at current the most, or only, objective methodology to uncover knowlege of the universe in which we live. EDIT: Just to add, if talking about supernatural notions, I'm not the kind of person to believe they don't exist. Research weak atheism and agnosticism. Those are what I am. If there's something I don't know, I'm not going to accept it nor am I going to deny it. Also, science does not state anything on the existance, qualities, properties or otherwise of supernatural notions; as you're probably aware it's a naturally limited methodology and stakes no claim on the supernatural. In lacking belief via skepticism and stating in all honesty It's not the kind of thing I can have knowlege of, I still invite anyone to show me why thier supernatural notions are true of the reality in which we exist. (gah, hit quote when I should have hit edit, sorry) Science is based on the unproofable assumption that everything we can see and touch exists. It relies heavily on sensory input. Some eastern religions claim that perception is merely an illusion created by mind. If that is true, then scientific theories wouldn't explain reality, they would describe mind. Meh. Happens to the best =P So do you reject science on this basis or are you just suggesting I'm closed minded because I favour believing that everything we sense exists over the idea that perception is an illusion of the mind? Perhaps I freely acknowlege the assumption that our senses detect reality but accept the assumption because it's lead to a method with innumerable benefit far more than any worldview has, even if that perception is an illusion. Man, this is why I don't bother with philosophy. We can sit around questioning existance all day and not get anywhere or accept there is one objective reality and realise it's a logical and definable one. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the point of not accepting our senses as accurate percievers of what exists. Do you think such a denial of senses would allow something as intricate as the computer you're typing on to come about? Or is that just another illusion of this grand fake reality? :wall: It never ends.

Did you NOT read the murder example? Firstly, how is murder in any way logically comparable to homosexuality in terms of how they harm society? Murder takes life away. Homosexuality and being accepted as such allows those with such tendancies to live happier lives. Aside from that, what purpose are biological urges to kill if such an act is a sin? The whole concept of god inclining a human to sin through our inherent biological nature and then sending us to hell if we don't repent for the way he made us is at minimum illogical and at maximum sickening and sadistic to me. Aside from that, feel free to tell me what I'm missing or ignoring in the murder example. Edit: Just to make sure, the purpose of my debating in this topic recently is much more focused on showing that it's not a choice, as you already know. The fact that you believe that acting on homosexual urges is wrong is up to you to decide but I may question that at a later date to see how you justify such a belief.

There's a difference between having an unchosen, natural inclination towards something and actually acting on it. At this point in my life, I have a natural inclination towards fornication with members of the opposite sex. Does that make me a bad person, sinful? No. Not even from a Christian point of view. This is just like homosexuality; they have natural inclinations towards fornication with members of the same sex, which isn't wrong from a Christian perspective. Just like someone who has a ridiculously short temper and is aggressive by nature has a natural inclination towards murder and revenge. Having these feelings by themselves is okay, we can't choose or change that. Acting on them is what, from a Christian perspective, is seen as wrong. Me acting on my natural inclinations is wrong, just like the others in the above list is seen as wrong. We all struggle with things, so I don't see why a homosexual having feelings towards what Christianity calls "wrong" is any worse than me having feelings towards something wrong; the only difference is that when I get married, I can legally (from a Christian perspective) act on them with my wife. But at the moment, I am no different than a homosexual, from a Christian perspective. I have natural inclinations towards sin; I just choose not to act on them. If only others see what you do. Some don't. That's what I'm arguing against at the moment. If you are of the belief that acting on urges programmed into us and not chosen is a no-no either ever or until a specific point in time, then so be it. I'd see something such as that as horridly illogical and counter-intuitive but whatever floats your boat.

Ok well since your asking for my personal opinion then I'll give it to you. Science doesn't come into it here. I'll also come from the point of view thats "its a fact they are born gay" instead of making that "lifestyle choice" during puberty years as you requested. How can it be wrong in my eyes you may ask? Well from a Christians perspective we were told to go forth and multiply and as we know homosexuality can't do this, so its against that for starters. I also believe its an unnatural act, and there's many (notice I didn't say all) perverted people who do such acts. Simple. I'm not going to answer your last 2 questions when my argument stands that its a lifestyle choice, and therefore it can't be argued upon. I don't believe its created by God, and I believe that God didn't create them like that. So I'm not going to flatter you that much. By the way from what I saw of those sites and read (apologies if you can prove me wrong), they weren't credible and even could be seen as biased. You don't like it when on the religious threads Christians post their sources of Christians sites (despite having factual sources on them) but rather sites with a more scientific connotation on the evidence. SO in this case do you have any scientific sources whereby they can conclusively prove that its biological and that a lifestyle choice has nothing to do with their homosexuality? :| Eelspremiers, if you think science dosen't come into it why should I think you'll be any more receptive if I do provide sources to your liking? In what way are the sources I provided biased? Biased towards what? What reason do they have to be biased? Anyone not a Christian can see that your sources, which claim a multitude of falsities on an issue such as evolution alone, are biased to reject anything that dosen't accept thier infalliable word. Next up, as for it being wrong because it does not produce offspring, is being infertile wrong, too? But of course, that is not a choice and therefore not wrong and homosexuality is a choice and therefore wrong, right? You're whole argument hinges on homosexuality being a choice. Tomorrow, I'll do as you demand and investigate the biased nature and credentials of the sources I provided which all claim that homosexuality or indeed any sexual mindset is anything but a concious choice. Next on the agenda, your claim of it not being a natural act. Perhaps you skimmed over the many people in this thread alluding to the fact of homosexual behaviour being observed in other animal species. If thier word is not enough for you, I'll work on coming up with a source for you being sure to watch out for bias. If you still believe it's a lifestyle choice, perhaps we should go to the next logical step of the argument to finish off for now - 1) Why would someone who is biologically programmed to be attracted to women choose to be attracted to another man? 2) Why would someone make a concious descision to be gay if doing so would make them shunned by society, especially by those in religious circles? On that final interesting note, why would a man such as Ted Haggard (I suggest a google if you don't know him), who is fully aware of the consequences of homosexual behaviour in his faith, perform homosexual acts with a male prostitute? Why would a man of his stature go against that programmed sexual drive god so elegantly and purposefully placed in his brain? Or is it not at all possible that the poor bloke, now shunned by his own faith because of his actions, had biological homosexual tendancies?

So let me use this opportunity to make the next logical step in this argument. I'd like to see how many straight answers I can get here or indeed if I get any. If sexual orientation is so beyond our control, as it seems to be, how can it be wrong? How can you justify saying homosexuality is wrong when attempts to change this sexual orientation seem dismal and riddled with difficulty at best? How can a quality which is essentially part of my nature and hence created by god be wrong? Even if you still beg to differ and think sexuality is a choice, ignoring all I posted above, flatter me and assume, in the form of a hypothetical scenario, that it's not a choice.

I hate it when ignorant Catholics and Christians distort scriptures in the Bible, taking them totally out of context and then try and use it against fellow Christians who actually stick by their beliefs. Yes God loves everyone, but that's got nothing to do with the fact that he hates the actions of the homosexuals themselves. If he didn't love them he wouldn't of sent his son to die on the cross for them so that everyone may seek forgiveness of whatever sins they may have. We are as Christians and as fellow human-beings need to love each other no matter who they are (as the Bible instructs us to) but we shouldn't be loving an supporting their actions (if you are living by the Bible, and it being the whole truth - period. I see no truth in people watering down their beliefs and then scrutinizing others who actually choose to believe the whole Bible). And your "its who we are argument is total crap by the way." I could be a murderer or a rapist and say" its who I am," but we all have freedom of choice and free- will, its something you can choose to be or not to be. ((1)Currently waiting for a reply from someone stating homosexuals are born like that, rapists aren't - yeah right, I'm sure there's a ton of 3 year old gay toddlers running around wanting to get it on with others of the same sex). sarcasm. I've only picked on you here, since you've taken scriptures out of the Bible and used them with your watered-down views of Catholicism and Christianity to scrutinize other Christians out there who are against homosexuality, and choose to follow the whole Bible as the truth. I couldn't care what your beliefs are, but I do care about other people of the same faith taking scriptures, distorting them and then using them against other Christians in an incorrect manner. (1) If it's such a simple choice perhaps you could explain the quotes I presented in my first post on page 1. Homosexuality nor hetrosexuality is seen in early childhood; you're likely born with a sexual inclination but it's only born out in a sexual nature at puberty. Before that, many with homosexual tendancies can be seen to be more feminine in toy choice, to give you an example. As I stated for someone else, perhaps you could help me by answering these simple questions as well if you think it's a simple choice - 1) Why would I choose to be gay if I have a biological attraction towards women and no such attraction towards men? 2) Why would I choose to be gay when it's still looked down on in society, especially in religious circles? Here are some light reading sources to start you off. http://www.glow.cc/net/choice.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation#Malleability_of_sexual_orientation http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sexual-orientation http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/70/Sexual-orientation.html Some quotes from these sources: The next two quotes are from the wikipedia article. The numbers in them note the references from the reference section. To be fair, this next quote was from the same wikipedia article: I'll add more from a wider swag of sources at a later date if need be so I can actually get people to recognise that the idea that sexuality is some sort of 'off/on' switch is rediculous.

May I ask how you know that?

Sorry, but it is right. Here's a couple of scenarios for you: 1. The Sun somehow goes supernova right this instant. That would roughly equate to a massive explosion, and explosions carry a number of different things. The first is the light from the fire or whatever, since nothing can travel faster than light, it actually would take 8 minutes to reach us. Repeat, we would not feel the effects instantly. When you look up into the sky at night you are looking into the past, you are looking at the light from stars which left thousands, maybe millions of years ago. Those stars could have long gone supernova but we won't see that until the light from the supernova reaches us. 2. The Sun somehow vanishes, completely disappears. Now, since the Sun's gravity is the only thing keeping us in orbit we'd stray off our orbit straight away right? Wrong, gravity cannot propogate faster than light. The loss of the Sun's gravity would not be felt until the light (or absence of) reaches us. Thought so. General Relativity predicts it, right?

Place a videocam in your room and prove it happened, and post it here. There are multiple international prizes worth a few million dollars to a person who can prove supernatural events. After decades nobody has ever claimed these prizes (because 'supernatural' doesn't exist) Energy doesn't come out of nowhere, you were asleep, or you could just be seeing things. Thousands of people are hospitalized every year for being delusional, to the degree that it hurts their lives (seeing "angels" and "divine lights") There is plenty of available technology to prove flows of energy/heat/coldness are moving inside a given space. There have been numerous people claiming under supervised conditions "there it is, I'm seeing the ghost now" yet absolutely nothing is visible and no physical change has occurred in the room. Please, let's not go into the "duh, it's supernatural so the censors don't show it". We might just as well start arguing if Mercifull's teapot orbiting around the sun exists or not. I respect everything you said but, as I believe in ghosts I do have one arguement. Science can't explain everything. Until a year ago, they couldn't explain how its possible for a bumble bee to fly. It's important to know it's purpose isn't to explain everything, only natural phenomena. Therefore, if we can see ghosts, demons, etc, they could possibly be persued by scientific investigation. It' just a case of thinking about how we could do this. It may seem almost impossible to us now but the idea that matter was anything more than just atoms at one point was unheard of. We now know of many, many sub-atomic particles thanks to partice accelerators. We just need to think up the tools that could get us the results. If ghosts, demons, etc exist, it's not exactly necessary that they be supernatural. Quite the contary, if they interact with the natural world and we can see them and detect them via other measures, they are natural at least in part.

Can't argue with that. :thumbsup: The first one I had in mind would have to be in the section of Mushuggah's Catch 33 titled 'Disenchantment' (the whole CD is one song 47 minutes long divided into 13 sections) where the droning, dissonant guitars and grooving drums cut out and the singer almost whispers "The struggle to free myself of restraints, becomes my very shackles." Enter another droning and dissonant riff, resume headbanging to the grooving drums and a major one of these ---> =P~ Another would have to be the solo from the same CD but this time in the section called 'Entrapment.' It's so unorthodox and hard to describe but just fits the droning riff it's layers over so well. Wow. I could give you so many from that very CD. Meshuggah = God Mode.

Ah, ok, I did miss it. #-o :P Yeah, adding the law of segregation would have probably tipped me off the edge. Too much stuff to regurgitate whilst keeping my brain intact. :XD: And as for being in an odd order, not to worry, good thing I'm not planning on being a teacher. :P

I was talking more generally, but I understand. Perhaps you could PM me your justification if you'd like. I'm not the kind to flame you for believing in something at all but I'll probably ask 'why' a lot to challenge the core essence of why you think the way you do. And andufusthebronze, that's a very interesting phenomenon. Perhaps you could link me to where you heard it? I'll do a google in the meanwhile.

Funny story.

It's a matter of belief, not a matter of knowns. That's my opinion. I tend not to have opinions (more so on matters unknowable) but to challenge others to think. I prefer knowing things and accept when a matter is unknowable. But, I'm alway keen as to why people have the opinions they do. I don't care what side you take, I'm keen to hear your justification for having that opinion.

The thing is I know the latter but I don't know the former. The bold are the points I'd dispute, though. The former bold point because it's not true and the latter bold point because I don't know.

God mode moments. It can be a riff, a bar of music, a note, a chorus, a line of lyrics, a solo, or any part of a song. The premise of this topic is simple. From any song, what slab of music just made you go "Woah, these guys are un-freaking-touchable." I'll add some later after seeing if this goes anywhere.

She's upset because she is the one making those connotations, not her kid. Not only that, but she actually named her kid 'unique'? :lol: Well, each to thier own I suppose. You may of heard the phrase 'storm in a tea cup.'

I can help you there. Most "memory" is kept in the hippocampus (sp?). Memories are formed when synapses are formed, that happens when a thought is fired through the nerves many times, so it leaves a lasting footprint of sorts. Scientists have found memories are dissected and sorted for storage, then reassembled for recollection. They also converted 3 mouse memories into binary... --- (1) My question: if everything has a purpose, what is that of the cockroach? Ahh, thanks for that. (1) Easy. To exist and reproduce.

Scary video. I don't know whether it's real or a tape of fakes. If I do have such encounters myself, it would be at the highest degree of what's convincing. I do wonder, though, why I don't have such encounters myself, why the many monetary offers aren't taken up and why there are no credible sources attesting to the reality of said phenomena. Oh well. If they so choose to scare the living poop out of me in real life, I'll likely be less skeptical.

Then please do so I can apologise profusely. As for the person coming to my door in all honesty I'd likely ask them to show me something totally novel about thier religion which I've probably never heard before and after doing so, if it's nothing new, I'd likely say thanks but no thanks. If you'd like to sell me your religion I'd love to hear something that I've likely never heard before. I mean something interesting as hell (not literally; I'd imagine hell is a pretty monotonous place, lol :P ). Shoot me through a PM if you'd like. But again, if you could, which it seems you'd have no problem in doing, show me where I was as you accuse me and I'll apologise to you. Bah, you've grown up in the past few months. I do remember you being a little more...shall we say...blunt. But you've been a good little boy for the first 10 pages of your posts :P. Give me a few days to come up with a PM. I am really tuckered out from work, and tomorrow is going to be worse. The joys of being an RA. EDIT: Dangit! thanks for not being ignorant. :) I'm probably getting you confused with someone else, Warri0r. However, In the span of one year you have aged like 10 according to your posts :P. I like that. Thanks.

I do. By that you close your mind to anything that doesn't fit into this scientific believe sytem. For all i know some key elements of science may just be wrong. Generally there is imo a difference between being open minded and presenting an opinion. Opinions usually exclude other opinions. Not everybody however will cling to his opinion no matter what. Changing an opinion takes some time though. To me open mindedness means to put yourself into the shoes of somebody presenting an opinion and accept it just as he does. Affirming that this opinion is right. Then the process of critical thinking starts and you compare this right opinion with other ideas and opinions you know (all of them valid and right). Contrary to scientific practice i try to varify every statement instead of trying to falsify it. This way i end up with a broader spectrum of possible truths. I guess true open mindedness means to accept every opinion, idea, theory and so as true. You need to close your mind to some degree to stay functional in day to day world. Perhaps I didn't elaborate on my mentality when it comes to science. If you can prove me wrong I invite it. In fact I emplore you to. Really, please, do. I can't stress enough at how much I don't give a damn about holding to a theory, no matter what it is. If you manage to overturn a past paradigm in scientific thought and present a new one with a greater breadth of explanatory power and evidential weight, I'd be willing to shake your hand, sir. And science is not a belief system, it's at current the most, or only, objective methodology to uncover knowlege of the universe in which we live. EDIT: Just to add, if talking about supernatural notions, I'm not the kind of person to believe they don't exist. Research weak atheism and agnosticism. Those are what I am. If there's something I don't know, I'm not going to accept it nor am I going to deny it. Also, science does not state anything on the existance, qualities, properties or otherwise of supernatural notions; as you're probably aware it's a naturally limited methodology and stakes no claim on the supernatural. In lacking belief via skepticism and stating in all honesty It's not the kind of thing I can have knowlege of, I still invite anyone to show me why thier supernatural notions are true of the reality in which we exist. (gah, hit quote when I should have hit edit, sorry)

I do. By that you close your mind to anything that doesn't fit into this scientific believe sytem. For all i know some key elements of science may just be wrong. Generally there is imo a difference between being open minded and presenting an opinion. Opinions usually exclude other opinions. Not everybody however will cling to his opinion no matter what. Changing an opinion takes some time though. To me open mindedness means to put yourself into the shoes of somebody presenting an opinion and accept it just as he does. Affirming that this opinion is right. Then the process of critical thinking starts and you compare this right opinion with other ideas and opinions you know (all of them valid and right). Contrary to scientific practice i try to varify every statement instead of trying to falsify it. This way i end up with a broader spectrum of possible truths. I guess true open mindedness means to accept every opinion, idea, theory and so as true. You need to close your mind to some degree to stay functional in day to day world. Perhaps I didn't elaborate on my mentality when it comes to science. If you can prove me wrong I invite it. In fact I emplore you to. Really, please, do. I can't stress enough at how much I don't give a damn about holding to a theory, no matter what it is. If you manage to overturn a past paradigm in scientific thought and present a new one with a greater breadth of explanatory power and evidential weight, I'd be willing to shake your hand, sir. And science is not a belief system, it's at current the most, or only, objective methodology to uncover knowlege of the universe in which we live.