Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Jim Necroslaughter

1 [2] 3 ... 53
16
Interzone / Re: Atheism
« on: January 27, 2014, 02:03:12 AM »
Quote
The unknown is very much a part of reality and an aspect of reality - it is simply not known.


How can any part of reality be said to be "known" or "unknown" independent of anything that might "know" or "not know" it?

This is an unnecessarily complicated way to frame things.  We used to think the sun revolved around the earth, now we know it is the opposite, reality did not change, only knowledge changed.

Quote
The atheist mistakenly assumes that if something is not known or cannot be known theoretically, it is not worthy of belief.

Quote
This is not as accurate as it could be. Theory without observational evidence is not grounds for belief. If observational evidence is present, then it is safe to consider it valid.

That's fine with me, I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt.  Ontologically speaking (I believe Im using that word correctly?) it would be natural to assume that there are things that are true but not known and work that into the equation.

Quote
Once again, a belief in only what the individual or collection of individuals think, know, perceive, or feel.

Quote
Do you know of any religion which did not arise and be communicated through what individuals think, know, perceive, or feel?

Religion is based on belief and works the unknown into the equation.  It does not claim otherwise.  Atheism has nothing to say about the unknown.

17
Interzone / Re: Atheism
« on: January 20, 2014, 07:30:43 PM »
Atheism is rebellion against the unknown.  The atheist only believes in human perceptions, observations and knowledge.  However, reality exists beyond what the mind can perceive.  The unknown is very much a part of reality and an aspect of reality - it is simply not known.  Knowledge does not change reality, it only changes how man relates to reality. 

The atheist mistakenly assumes that if something is not known or cannot be known theoretically, it is not worthy of belief.  Once again, a belief in only what the individual or collection of individuals think, know, perceive, or feel.  The unknown is not the same as unreal.

If God and religion are based on belief and not knowledge, then this does not at all mean it is untrue or illogical.  Unknown is not the same as untrue, something can very well be true without being justified by knowledge, to be unjustified by knowledge is not at all to say that something is false.

The premise is simple:  the unknown is not a lesser aspect or lesser part of reality, if anything it is primary.  For every one thing that is known, there are ten things that are unknown.  What you don't know could fill a library.

18
Interzone / Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
« on: December 20, 2013, 10:15:08 PM »
I just wonder how exactly organs would secrete chemicals in the brain based on something like the information gathered from one's surroundings.  Your turn the corner and see danger, a chemical is sent to the brain that says *run away,* all fair enough, but that is not exactly like hitting the cue ball with the pool cue that in turn hits the 8 ball.  There is clearly something at play that is not material/physical.

19
The upside: praise from us is worth 100,000x more than from any other site, hence the weird ability DMU has to be a kingmaker.

Too true. Never lose this Brett or we will find you.
The more there is of something the less it is worth, the less there is of something the more it is worth.  Ironclad law of value.

20
If anybody wants to upload of any of their favorites, don't let me stop you - Satan, Von, Ildjarn, wink wink nudge nudge saynomore

21
Interzone / Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
« on: December 15, 2013, 04:30:28 PM »
The Packers are not a plurality sir.  A team is a single entity.

22
Interzone / Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
« on: December 15, 2013, 04:17:21 PM »
There is only one Green Bay Packers.  The Green Bay Packers is comprised of Running Backs, Quarterbacks, Lineman, Kickers, Coaches, Medical Staff and a General Manager.  Although they all comprise aspects of the Green Bay Packers, none of them are solely the Green Bay Packers in and of themselves.  If you remove any of these individuals the Green Bay Packers still exists.  There are 0 members from the 1969 Green Bay Packers still on the roster, yet the Green Bay Packers will play today.  So the notion of the Green Bay Packers is not at all produced by any single player, nor even any single team or coach, in any way whatsoever.  That being said, every player, every team, every win does in fact add to the aura and perpetuate the notion of the Green Bay Packers; all of the aspects are important, and all play their role but none of them are bigger than the Green Bay Packers itself.

23
Interzone / Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
« on: December 14, 2013, 04:32:58 PM »
Now you're just talking past me - and you still haven't responded to my point concerning verifiable evidence of chemicals causing changes in mental states/behavior.

Let me ask you:  how are chemicals summoned in the brain when not directly imbibing them?  Eating magic mushrooms and tripping balls is not an explanation for the normal processes of a brain that is not under the influence!

Anyway, if I were to explain the soul, I would go with Plato and say it is the charioteer that drives and controls the horses and the chariot.  It is the aspect of man that is not at the mercy of physical concerns or impulses, it is the very ability to make a decision one way as opposed to the other.

This idea has been out of style for some time. It similar enough to the "homunculus theory". Unfortunately it leads to an infinite regress; if a little man in my mind is deciding everything for me, then what is deciding everything for the little man? Another little man? Who decides for him?

Really?  I never would have thought of conceiving it like that.  The charioteer, horses, and chariot are in one sense separate, yet simultaneously in another sense, unified.  They are unified in that they are all working to win the race, that's the brilliance of the metaphor, so the buck stops with the charioteer.   

In fact you explain the exact problem with chemicals/impulses.  If chemicals are deciding everything for me...don't blame me, blame my chemicals.  My chemicals lord over me and I just follow orders.  I was the victim of my chemicals!

24
Metal / Re: Death Metal Underground Weekly Newsletter
« on: December 13, 2013, 10:15:20 PM »
This is a very good idea, just saw it on another msg board, good initiative.

25
Interzone / Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
« on: December 13, 2013, 09:48:13 PM »
Anyway, if I were to explain the soul, I would go with Plato and say it is the charioteer that drives and controls the horses and the chariot.  It is the aspect of man that is not at the mercy of physical concerns or impulses, it is the very ability to make a decision one way as opposed to the other.

26
Interzone / Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
« on: December 13, 2013, 02:04:19 PM »
Or the interaction of various impulses and chemicals in the brain/central nervous system.
I don't know that feelings are the best way to go about explaining the soul, but the problem I've always had with the *everything boils down to chemicals and impulses* is that chemicals and impulses are more an effect than an explanation.  It would simply be the physical/"measurable" component that coincides with the situation.  It almost makes it sound like chemicals and impulses are bumping around willy-nilly, randomly, arbitrarily, yet we know this is not the case.

Regarding effect vs. explanation: if chemicals were not capable of being an explanation, then consuming certain chemicals would not be able to repeatedly induce similar effects in a diverse number of people, of which these sensations can share much in common with religious experiences.

It is true that there is still much to learn about the interaction of chemical ratios and how this is interpreted by the brain, but that's not grounds for denying observable reality.

I'm not even talking about religious experiences.  I'm talking about just day to day stuff.  The chain of cause and effect is just not there.  When x happens, chemical y floods the brain, you react in a manner of A, you feel B.  Of course A and B, might actually come before y and regulate y, yet people would have you believe that A and B is at the mercy of y if everything boils down to chemicals and impulses.  Where do we place the will/self-control/will power?  When you were younger you probably reacted differently, now you have more self control, yes?  How do chemicals account for the mechanism of self control?  I have consumed certain chemicals and I actually believe it is a mistake to use that as an angle for talking about the soul or religion.  All that is self reported anyway, "religious experience" is just a manner of speaking, a real religious experience is not that intense, it is much more subtle.

27
Interzone / Re: Which is the Soul, Exists??
« on: December 12, 2013, 02:44:03 PM »
Or the interaction of various impulses and chemicals in the brain/central nervous system.
I don't know that feelings are the best way to go about explaining the soul, but the problem I've always had with the *everything boils down to chemicals and impulses* is that chemicals and impulses are more an effect than an explanation.  It would simply be the physical/"measurable" component that coincides with the situation.  It almost makes it sound like chemicals and impulses are bumping around willy-nilly, randomly, arbitrarily, yet we know this is not the case.

28
Thanks for the lists comrades, I'm behind on my metal.  What about the new Ildjarn, did it really miss the mark?  I haven't heard it ...

29
Metal / Re: What Band are you listening today?
« on: December 10, 2013, 03:06:44 PM »
Quote
[quote from: Jim Necroslaughter]
I listened to Dawn - Nær Solen Thingamajig for a re-appraisal.  I would say it's better than Dissection but not as good as Far Away from the Sun.

Excuse me to disagree, but it is just a matter of likes
I prefer, also now hearing:

Dawn - Slaughtersun (Crown of the Triarchy)

and actually if not better (also by preference) just maybe Dissection style.

as for example

Raise Hell - Holy Target or Mork Gryning...similar styles (I think)I hope you understand me.

I'm sorry comrade, I'm afraid I don't quite understand you.  My criticism of Dissection is that they are really not that subtle, in fact at times I would call them sappy.

Humanicide - I was just happy when I learned how to make the 'æ' character.

30
Metal / Re: What Band are you listening today?
« on: December 08, 2013, 04:38:21 AM »
Listening to Grand Belial's Key for the first time. "Goat of a Thousand Young" demo. It's a little hokey, especially with the weird keyboards. The version of "Shemhamforash" has an intro that sounds like it should be in a Rihanna song. Besides that, it's not the worst demo to come from a Gay Midget Fecal Pr0n (GMFP) band.

WOW!!

I didn't type N5BM. I typed American black metal band. I don't think this was a word filter. I have a feeling a wily mod may have changed it. Maybe because GBK isn't too appreciated around here? I don't know.

Just for fun, N5BM actually filters to Narrow Squirting Bowel Movement.

And, on topic, I listened to AC/DC's Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap today for the first time in years. Still as awesome as it was when I was thirteen.

U5BM is word filtered, no wiliness.

Gay Midget Fecal Pr0n (GMFP)
Narrow Squirting Bowel Movement
Pink Frothy AIDS
ARE YOU TALKIN TO ME?

Collect them all!

I listened to Dawn - Nær Solen Thingamajig for a re-appraisal.  I would say it's better than Dissection but not as good as Far Away from the Sun.

1 [2] 3 ... 53