Originally posted by Nephthys
Damn, now I actually have to read it....Though personally I prefer anime to TV series'. Death Note, Gurren Lagann and Revolutionary Girl Utena are above even Dexter imo.
I only like a few animes.
Code Geass, Gundam Wing, FMA, Neon Genesis Evangelon and Death Note are about it.
Most animes are just too f*cking weird for me.
I only like a few animes.Code Geass, Gundam Wing, FMA, Neon Genesis Evangelon and Death Note are about it.
Most animes are just too f*cking weird for me.
You should watch the Hellsing Ultimate OVA's. They're really epic. Also Gurren Lagann is something I went into wanting to hate and adored. They're both wierd but only about as much as Evangelion. Also Princess Mononoke, Azumanga Daioh, Cowboy Bebop and Soul Eater are great.
Hmm, in Mass Effect, Element Zero has the Atomic Number 0.
This means it has no protons.
If it has no protons, it has no electrons, which means Element Zero is nothing more than free neutrons. Free neutrons have a half life of about fifteen minutes before they decay into antiparticles.
Element Zero is really a collection of free neutrons which are somehow subjected to a charge, which in turn somehow generates dark energy which in turn somehow creates a subjective frame of reference.
Originally posted by Autokrat
Hmm, in Mass Effect, Element Zero has the Atomic Number 0.This means it has no protons.
If it has no protons, it has no electrons, which means Element Zero is nothing more than free neutrons. Free neutrons have a half life of about fifteen minutes before they decay into antiparticles.
Element Zero is really a collection of free neutrons which are somehow subjected to a charge, which in turn somehow generates dark energy which in turn somehow creates a subjective frame of reference.
Mass Effect is pretty impressive in that (including being an awesome game and having an awesome storyline) it explains a lot of the technology and roughly/vaguely how it works.
Let me give you one last chance, DS. When I entered this very discussion, I attacked you for that comment here:
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Hitler wasn't religious either.
Now you can have it either of those two ways:
Option #1
You listen to your own sources and the quotes I've brought to the table and accept that Hitler did have a religious mindset and wanted to install a "religion of the blood" in Germany to replace Christianity. This means: You were wrong, I was right...
Option #2
You stick to the idea that Hitler was simply a "walking contradiction" and "full of shit", ignore all sources brought to the table so far (with the exception of providing amunition for that conclusion). In that case, we have to accept that neither of us can say that Hitler was or wasn't religious. This means: You were still wrong but I wasn't right either.
The second option - however - doesn't deal with the fact that the Nazi's ideology was clearly littered with religious beliefs that were transported into all organizations linked to the Nazi regime.
Talking about Antisemitism
I will attempt to make it clear one more time. In Germany, it's absolutely impossible to seperate Antisemitism from a religious perspective. That's because Antisemitism in Germany is linked to figures like Martin Luther and Richard Wagner. Both served as ideals for the Nazis, with Wagner even being an idol for Adolf Hitler. Both based their antisemitism on completely religious topics.
Is there antisemitism not based on religion. Yes. But not in Europe. If I was searching for some antisemitism that is devoid of religious motivation, I'd search on the Arab peninsula. They hate Israel and - consequently - it's inhabitants but without going through 1500 years of religiously based antisemitism. That is a difference.
Because of those facts, that Nazis had to heavily modify the basic theories of racism in order to make their ideology work. Otherwise chosing the Jews as main victims wouldn't have made any sense.
Talking about Religion
Let me make this clear: You follow a very straigth monotheistic view on the world. Anybody who is a "heathen" or follows paganism is an infidel. Apparently, you aren't familiar with the terms here.
Paganism is a category of theology that represents all kinds of polytheistic and natural religions. The main difference between them and montheistic religions is, that you have an order among the beings equiped with "devine" power. Now you probably think "Wait a second. I have just ONE God here, and they have multiple ones?"
Correct. Yet I'm fairly sure that Judaism also features the believe in angels, which are still beings with supernatural powers but under the command of god. But that kind of "order" also exists in polytheistic religions, where usually you have a "main god" present (Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, Sol Invictus, Ra). Yet you have more than one "devine" being. In natural religion, you still have devine powers representing certain aspects of nature (e.g. death).
Yet all of that religions have much in common: They all speak of an afterlife, they all created set of rules that should be followed (often in the form of dogmatic statements), they all have their very own tradition. They all believe in higher powers and in a "world outside our own". That is "religious".
And to answer your last post:
Btw, you keep claiming that paganism is a religion. If I were to follow that line of thought, what ISN'T a religion then? Secular Humanism believes that humans can live accordingly without the belief in a higher being. I won't go as far as to say that's worshipping humans, but if it was, wouldn't it be considered paganism? And if it was considered paganism, wouldn't it most nearly resemble secular humanism, rather than ethical monotheism?
View the defintion of paganism above. Agnosticism isn't paganism, neither is atheism. Secular humanism? Certainly not. And regarding secular humanism: It's not about worshipping humans. It's coined by the idea that you have to use your own abilities to archive stuff, rather than hope or pray that a supernatural being will get the job done (or has any influence in it). I'm rather certain that you also don't pray before every action you perform, right?
Religious thougts in politics
As I've mentioned already, there are strong similarities between certain religions and political ideologies. Let me take communism as example. In communism, religious dogma was replaced with "doctrines". Those were also beliefs that one wasn't allowed to question, with doing so resulted in punishment. What else does "Klassenfeind" (class enemy) mean? It's the communistic word for "heretic" or "infidel". In Nazi Germany, the vocable for that was "Volksverräter" ("betrayer of the people"😉. Anybody who opposed the ideologic dogma was punished, often killed - in Russia under Stalin and in Gemany under Hitler as well.
Yet dogmatism is clearly a religious mindset. It means that you believe in something without proof and without critically questioning your believe. Does that sound familiar? Nobody who would criticially question certain beliefs held by Communism and Nazism, could come to the conclusion that they are justified. I mean. You did it for Hitler on the last couple of pages and figured out he was "full of shit". I, personally, think that this also applies to many fundamental christians, muslims or jews
Morals without Religion
The most disturbing thing I've seen you saying is that the crimes of Communism and Nazism happened due to "lack of religion". Do you really believe that morals can't exists seperated from religion? Do you really think that it needs a devine figure dictating "Murder is wrong" from the sky, in order to develop the idea that running around killing for fun isn't the best thing to do?
With all of history, I can only doubt that religion has done much good for mankind - especially in comparison to what people have done "in the name of God" (from the Crusades, to Ireland in the 80s, Muslim terrorist attacks and the US president who thought God was talking to him). I think people are using (and haved almost always used) his name in an inflationary fashion. I don't think he actually likes that...
Don't get me wrong: I'm a deist myself and I don't have much problems with people who are religious. I think that faith can be very important and so I usually don't lecture people on "why their beliefs are total crap". I can also accept atheistic or agnostic views. I'm fine if everbody believes what he wants - as long as they don't develope an unhealthy eagerness in their missionary work.
Civil enough?
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsallfirst off this isn't accurate. Furthermore, McCoy doesn't have jurisdiction to wage his war on torture and finally, no judge is going to allow a trial in which foreign security policies are compromised. That's why I love law and order, its realistic.
He should've won though; it was heavily implied that the jury was going to rule against the Bush Administration.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
first off this isn't accurate. Furthermore, McCoy doesn't have jurisdiction to wage his war on torture and finally, no judge is going to allow a trial in which foreign security policies are compromised. That's why I love law and order, its realistic.
Morally though McCoy does have a reasonable justification to persecute the Bush Aministration, although it is possible to justifify either side in this case.
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Morally though McCoy does have a reasonable justification to persecute the Bush Aministration, although it is possible to justifify either side in this case.
Morality=/=Law. And I disagree with his morals that torture is wrong under any circumstance, as did the many politicians in the show.
RE: BlaxicanHow big is your penis now?
I'm not sure whether to be slightly disappointed, or amused, in a manner similar to that of a parent watching their child fail to catch the ball again, by the fact that you guys are still discussing basically the exact same shit you were talking about when I left a year ago. 😐
Also, hi.
Originally posted by Borbarad
Let me give you one last chance, DS. When I entered this very discussion, I attacked you for that comment here:Now you can have it either of those two ways:
Option #1
You listen to your own sources and the quotes I've brought to the table and accept that Hitler did have a religious mindset and wanted to install a "religion of the blood" in Germany to replace Christianity. This means: You were wrong, I was right...
Option #2
You stick to the idea that Hitler was simply a "walking contradiction" and "full of shit", ignore all sources brought to the table so far (with the exception of providing amunition for that conclusion). In that case, we have to accept that neither of us can say that Hitler was or wasn't religious. This means: You were still wrong but I wasn't right either.
The second option - however - doesn't deal with the fact that the Nazi's ideology was clearly littered with religious beliefs that were transported into all organizations linked to the Nazi regime.
Talking about AntisemitismI will attempt to make it clear one more time. In Germany, it's absolutely impossible to seperate Antisemitism from a religious perspective. That's because Antisemitism in Germany is linked to figures like Martin Luther and Richard Wagner. Both served as ideals for the Nazis, with Wagner even being an idol for Adolf Hitler. Both based their antisemitism on completely religious topics.
Is there antisemitism not based on religion. Yes. But not in Europe. If I was searching for some antisemitism that is devoid of religious motivation, I'd search on the Arab peninsula. They hate Israel and - consequently - it's inhabitants but without going through 1500 years of religiously based antisemitism. That is a difference.
Talking about ReligionLet me make this clear: You follow a very straigth monotheistic view on the world. Anybody who is a "heathen" or follows paganism is an infidel. Apparently, you aren't familiar with the terms here.
Paganism is a category of theology that represents all kinds of polytheistic and natural religions. The main difference between them and montheistic religions is, that you have an order among the beings equiped with "devine" power. Now you probably think "Wait a second. I have just ONE God here, and they have multiple ones?"
Yet all of that religions have much in common: They all speak of an afterlife, they all created set of rules that should be followed (often in the form of dogmatic statements), they all have their very own tradition. They all believe in higher powers and in a "world outside our own". That is "religious".
View the defintion of paganism above. Agnosticism isn't paganism, neither is atheism. Secular humanism? Certainly not. And regarding secular humanism: It's not about worshipping humans. It's coined by the idea that you have to use your own abilities to archive stuff, rather than hope or pray that a supernatural being will get the job done (or has any influence in it). I'm rather certain that you also don't pray before every action you perform, right?
Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship[1], usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Religious thougts in politicsAs I've mentioned already, there are strong similarities between certain religions and political ideologies. Let me take communism as example. In communism, religious dogma was replaced with "doctrines". Those were also beliefs that one wasn't allowed to question, with doing so resulted in punishment. What else does "Klassenfeind" (class enemy) mean? It's the communistic word for "heretic" or "infidel". In Nazi Germany, the vocable for that was "Volksverräter" ("betrayer of the people"😉. Anybody who opposed the ideologic dogma was punished, often killed - in Russia under Stalin and in Gemany under Hitler as well.
Yet dogmatism is clearly a religious mindset. It means that you believe in something without proof and without critically questioning your believe. Does that sound familiar? Nobody who would criticially question certain beliefs held by Communism and Nazism, could come to the conclusion that they are justified. I mean. You did it for Hitler on the last couple of pages and figured out he was "full of shit". I, personally, think that this also applies to many fundamental christians, muslims or jews
Morals without ReligionThe most disturbing thing I've seen you saying is that the crimes of Communism and Nazism happened due to "lack of religion". Do you really believe that morals can't exists seperated from religion? Do you really think that it needs a devine figure dictating "Murder is wrong" from the sky, in order to develop the idea that running around killing for fun isn't the best thing to do?
With all of history, I can only doubt that religion has done much good for mankind - especially in comparison to what people have done "in the name of God" (from the Crusades, to Ireland in the 80s, Muslim terrorist attacks and the US president who thought God was talking to him). I think people are using (and haved almost always used) his name in an inflationary fashion. I don't think he actually likes that...
Don't get me wrong: I'm a deist myself and I don't have much problems with people who are religious. I think that faith can be very important and so I usually don't lecture people on "why their beliefs are total crap". I can also accept atheistic or agnostic views. I'm fine if everbody believes what he wants - as long as they don't develope an unhealthy eagerness in their missionary work.
Civil enough? [/B]
Also, I'm extremely pissed off at your country for offering Greece a bailout.
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanJust a year?
I'm not sure whether to be slightly disappointed, or amused, in a manner similar to that of a parent watching their child fail to catch the ball again, by the fact that you guys are still discussing basically the exact same shit you were talking about when I left a year ago. 😐