Lonelygirl15

cymatic wrote: Listen, Riven, I'm sympathetic to your position but you're letting Johnny run rings around you. Let me tell you a little secret about science: it really doesn't care about God one way or the other. Johnny didn't make that up. Science doesn't deal with "everything that exists" it deals with everything that can be perceived, measured and evaluated using a particular set of tools (the scientific method). Scientists, in their role as scientists, tend not to even want to talk about the existence or not of God, because that's not a question that science asks. Plus, a lot of scientists believe in God(s), and they can still be perfectly good scientists. Now, Johnny's example is a little misleading because it presents a bit...

Cymatic - thanks for your interjection of some logic to the discussion, it is much appreciated. What you wrote was well put.

BlackRiven wrote: You're right, I really am at a disadvantage at this point.
Basically what happened here is this:
I wasn't expecting to get into a debate about definitions to begin with, so when Johnny started asking questions like 'what constitutes logic', I didn't give that much thought. Johnny does appear to know more about proper definitions than I do (and philosophy in general).

Actually, the debate wasn't about definitions to begin with, it was about the fact that different people have different beliefs about things based on their different, chosen philosophies on life. It became about definitions, I suppose, when it started to become evident that your definitions of "proof" and "evidence" were strictly naturalistic, and this prevented you from seeing outside that box of naturalism.

BlackRiven wrote: My main philosophical interest was always the art of debate (how to construct and analyze an argument, logical fallacies, etc), so when I enter an argument, I intend it to be analytical. Johnny put me in a position that in order to advance I had to manage definitions correctly, which was a task I was bound to lose since I came unprepared. Basically, I wanted to do math, he insisted on defining math first.

That's great that you have an interest in debate, I strongly encourage your endeavors in pursuing mastery in that area! However, you need to realize that this debate between us was indeed analytical, and the analyses uncovered your naturalist philosophy through the way you define the world around you. It's fine for you to choose that philosopy, but you're not going to get anywhere arguing it in a philosophical debate, and you're certainly going to come off as wanting to impose your philosophy when you call those who have different philosophies or their philosophies themselves "silly".

Your analogy about "wanting to do math" doesn't work here. It wasn't so much about definition as me proving your analyses wrong, and then your attempts to impose your own definitions upon generally accepted definitions for certain terms, which indicated that your starting premise was a narrow, myopic one.

As you learn more about debate and argument, and logic, you will learn that preparedness is essential, particularly concerning defintions. You'll also learn that if you use a different definition or connotation of a term from that which is the generally accepted one, you would need to identify it beforehand and gain agreement from your opponent. In fact, in formal debates, it's in very poor form to go back and redefine a word, and frequently that will constitute the sole cause for a debator to lose his debate.

BlackRiven wrote: My original intention was finding out Johnny's oppinions about FSM, I'm used to see Atheists analyzing religious arguments, but not vice versa, and I was curious as to what he might say.

I'd be happy to talk on that further. I do believe I made my thinking on FSM clear in my previous posts, but I would have been happy to expand upon it, had there been any questions.

BlackRiven wrote: However, regarding his attitude, I maintain that it was out of place. I don't believe my choise of words was any worse than that of some people he most likely met, nor was I preaching. Since he viewed this as inability to accept a different point of view, this shouldn't have caused such an angry reaction. I understand that he is used to see this in combination with an attack on religious beliefs, but I don't believe I gave him a reason to make the association, and even if the association was made I expect people to exercise restrain, as I did throughout the entire debate, and not turn it into a tool to vent emotions.

Fair enough. I will admit to having been offended and then speaking condescendingly in return. I'm a little bothered by your statement that you don't believe you said anything that wouldn't lend to my being offended or returning your condescension. You called religious people and/or their beliefs "silly". That's offensive to anyone who is not an atheist, anyone who believes that there is a supernatural at all, and particularly those who live their lives in accordance with a particular faith or religion. It really bothers me that either you can't see that or, if you can, then you are lying about not believing you said anything offensive.

As for the times when I was over the line and used ad hom attacks on you (such as calling you a moron), I do apologize for that sincerely. But the condescension on my end is not something I'm prepared to feel sorry for, seeing how you were condescending with your remarks about the "silliness" of religion/religious people and their arguments, whether or not you even realize how condescending you were .

BlackRiven wrote: Second, so that it would be clear to Johnny and everybody that were reading what my position was and where I was coming from, I will summarize it.
I guess that Johnny's definition of 'neturalist' point of view would indeed describe my position in the best way, but I resent it still because it has a limitation which doesn't suits my oppinion. Here's what I think:

1)Everything that exists does so regardless of any condition.
2)Anything that exists and can be sensed, or its interaction with our world can be sensed- can be proven to exist.
That includes the paranormal. If the paranormal exists, and interacts with our world- it can be proven that it exists. Perhaps that turns paranormal into 'normal', which makes my view neturalistic, but it doesn't matter to me because I don't make that kind of distinction, I only care if something can be precieved, or if it interacts with our world. If the paranormal can interact with our world, proving its existance through that shouldn't change its features- it'll remain the same paranormal.

A couple things about this part of your post:

First, I'm really curious as to why you simultaneously appear to accept my definition of your philosophy as "naturalist" while also resenting it. What about it do you resent? What part of the naturalist philosophy does not jibe with your actual beliefs?

Second, your explanation of your beliefs seems to be a bit convoluted, and to me it's a clear indication of the confusion you have in your own mind about your own beliefs. It seems that you want to allow room for the existence of paranormal and supernatural, yet you want to deny their existence based on the lack of physical proof or evidence for them. It sounds to me like you have to do more thinking about what you actually want to believe and make a choice, particularly before you decide to assert your own belief choice over those of others.

Lastly, regarding the above segment of your post, you do need to understand the definitions of things better in order to more effectively communicate your own belief choice. Your use of the word "paranormal" is the clearest indication of this. here is the definition of "paranormal":

par‧a‧nor‧mal  /ˌpærəˈnɔrməl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-nawr-muhl]

–adjective of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1915–20; para-1 + normal]

Basically, if you're going to acknowledge the existence of the paranormal, you are admitting that there is a realm outside of the natural by which things become paranormal. If, on the other hand, you truly believe that things don't exist if they can't be proven through our physical senses, then there is no such thing, to you, as "the paranormal", but rather there are myths and legends about paranormal activity.

BlackRiven wrote: If I'm mixing up the definition, Johnny, then it's because I don't define it in such a way to begin with, and I'm not arguing from that definition. I'm reaching this argument because it's what's following from my premises.
If what affects our world can be proven to exist, and paranormal affects our world, it should be possible to prove its existance.

In essence, what you are saying is that if paranormal activity can become "normal" and therefore proven in accordance with scientific/naturalist standards, then you will accept it, which is just a roundabout way of saying that you'll never accept the paranormal.

BlackRiven wrote: Lastly, I would like to use this reply as a call to you (Johnny) to end the aminosity between us. I believe that though you've obviously been offended, it should be clear by now that it wasn't my intention, and I see no reason for the hostility to continue. I'm willing to overlook the things you said, as I'm hoping you can accept that no offence was meant on my behalf. Whatever disagreements we have, philosophical or otherwise, don't have to be a source of ill feelings.

I agree, I would like end whatever animosity that there may exist between us, although I hope you don't overlook the things I said, but rather take them to heart. I harbor no ill feelings towards you. I do hope, however, that you learn something out of all this and refrain from being so condescending towards "religious people" in the future.

Bear in mind that many, if not the majority, of people are religious in one way or another, and when you call religious beliefs "silly" you are calling the people who hold religious beliefs "silly" as well.

I felt compelled to respond to this post as well, BlackRiven, so that you understand things more clearly and hopefully learn and progress from here.

BlackRiven wrote:

JerseyJohnny wrote: You are not saying that Creationists argue their belief in a bad way

Here's exactly what I said, pay attention: "...but once a debate such as the one in Kansas arises it does seem incredibly silly that some people are willing to accept the kind of arguments that Creationists use."

The way you word it here it is not clear whether or not you are talking about "the kind of arguments that Creationsts use" based on the logical assembly of said arguments or based on the premises of said arguments. Within context of your further posts and comments, however, it is clear that you are talking from your naturalist perspective in that you believe those who think that any arguments can be made from a religious or metaphysical perspective in regards to an issue are completely "illogical" and "silly".

BlackRiven wrote:

JerseyJohnny wrote: Wrong, this is about a clash of philosophies. You're just not educated enough or open-minded enough to understand it. This is where the entire argument comes from:

Atheist: You're silly to even try to argue that there is a God. It's clearly been proven that there is no God.
Religious person: Oh really? Where has this been proven?
Atheist: Through science.
Religious person: I thought science worked from the premise that only that which can be sensed through one of the physical senses is believed to "exist"?
Atheist: Yes, that's right.

That's not neceserrily true. We can't sense many things that were proven by science to exist. You can't feel the cell phone signals passing through your body, but we know they exist and we even make use of them, despite being unable to precieve them with any of our senses.

While you can't feel the cell phone signals, you can use other means to physically sense them. PHYSICALLY. Not spiritually, not metaphysically, not through telepathy, but PHYSICALLY. That's why this is accepted as scientific fact.

BlackRiven wrote: If God exists, and he interacts with our world, we should be able to prove his existance throug those interactions with our world without seeing him. It's like how do we know the force of gravity exists? Because we can see objects being pulled to the ground, that means there's a force that's pulling them down. We haven't actually seen gravity, but we saw its effect on our world. Science deals with everything that exists, in one way or another. If it has interactions with our world we can prove it exists, doesn't matter if we can see it or not.

If God exists and is a "supernatural" entity, then why would we be able to prove him through natural means? The meaning of "supernatural" is "above natural", outside of the containment of natural laws and principles. For example, in the world of baseball, you can prove that 3 strikes is an out, or that 3 outs end the side of an inning, or that a home run scores at least one run. But in the world of baseball, you can't prove that the Gilmore Girls is a television show or that the Corolla is a Toyota. Why? Because the world of baseball doesn't acknowledge those things outside of baseball. So it makes sense that a baseball box score never mentions the Gilmore Girls or Toyotas, because it's not concerned with them. But if a baseball fan says "Toyota? No such thing. I read up all the box scores and never once is a thing called a toyota mentioned, there is no evidence of any toyotas or of a Gilmore Girls so-called television show" then that baseball fan will be seen as narrow-minded (to say the least!) to choose only to accept the world of baseball.

Your gravity example is no different from your cell phone example. We can see the PHYSICAL effect of gravity. So, really, you don't believe in a force called "gravity" so much as you believe in the effects of that force. However, here's something to wrap your brain around - what is the cause of gravity? Why do things get pulled towards the earth? What makes you think it's not a magical leprechaun who lives in the center of the earth and has cast a "pulling spell" on the whole world? What has science proven to be the cause of gravity?

BlackRiven wrote: Like I said, I don't have to see God to be convinced he exists, I just need to see an event that can be explained by nothing else save for the existance of God. That hasn't happened yet.

Convoluted logic. Everything can be explained by an alternative supernatural explanation, so there is no effect that can be limited to only one possible cause.

BlackRiven wrote:

JerseyJohnny wrote: "Post hoc" logic is not a preclusion to truth. It simply doesn't serve as proof. I can draw post hoc conclusions to many truths, and although the logic is fallacious, the truth remains true...

You are correct, Post Hoc doesn't prove something wrong, it just says that 'this is not neceserrily the case, you need to probe deeper to prove that is the case'. It has been proven through medical research that aspirin helps with headache, it hasn't been proven that praying helps. Now you're going to say 'that doesn't mean praying doesn't help, it just hasn't been proven yet'. Correct, but this joins an endless list of Religious claims that weren't proven.

Again, you're talking about "religious claims that weren't proven" only because you don't accept as "proof" anything that doesn't fit the naturalist limitations on what constitutes "proof".

BlackRiven wrote:

JerseyJohnny wrote: You say we should see "his meddling with our world", and we do. Of course, you will choose to interpret it differently if you pre-suppose that he can't even exist.

It doesn't matter what anyone presupposes. Science transcends presuppositions, the history is full of cases when science proved a belief that was considered by everybody true (for example: that the earth is not the center of the universe).

Interestingly, you hit the nail on the head with the phrase that I've bolded in your statement above. What one presupposes matters for everything. Science does not transcend presuppositions, in fact it is built on many suppositions. Science only "proves" anything within the realm of science, not outside of it. Can science prove to me that there are no magic elves who appear inside a car and cast a spell on it to make it move? One might argue that science can prove it by demonstrating a car moving with no hood and the engine running. However, how can you prove that the engine isn't a magical elf who is disgusing himself as an engine to fool the entire external world? What goes on under the hoods of other cars that we don't see the engine running? How do we know that there are engines making cars run and not magical elves? The only way we can "know" such things is to presuppose that elves can't exist since we have never ever sensed them with our physical senses. Science can't even deal with it, it's way outside the realm of science.

BlackRiven wrote:

JerseyJohnny wrote: For example, you decide that Australia can't and doesn't exist; you figure you've never been there or seen it and you don't accept as convincing evidence photos and stories about it, you have yet to physically experience Australia for yourself, so you decide it's not real. No matter what evidence someone provides for you, you will reject it. "Here's a picture of Sydney, Australia." You could say, "Nope, sorry, that must be some other city that you're passing off as so-called Sydney, Australia, because I know Australia doesn't exist." Or someone could say to you "Well I was born and raised in Australia, I've lived there all my life until I came to this city last year." You could say, "Well, I'm sure you beleive what you've been told all your life by other people, and I'm sure in your mind you think there's this place called Australia, but you're wrong, I know there is no Australia because I have never physically experienced it myself."

I uderstand your analogy, but you are still holding the oppinion that this is about physical experience. It's not, and it gets really tiering to try to get this point across. You locked on the idea that this is about naturalist view vs supernatural view. Everything that exists does so regardless of our ability to precieve it. Everything that interacts with us or what we can precieve can be proven to exist, no matter if it's natural or 'supernatural'. However, the supernatural was never shown to be the only explenation in whatever idea or event that was argued.

What is your basis for saying that "everything that exists does so regardless of our ability to perceive it?" How can you prove to me that there is something that does exist which has not been perceived (physically sensed)? Can you name something for me to prove your point? Ironically, if you can, then you're actually confirming the existence of the supernatural.

BlackRiven wrote:

JerseyJohnny wrote: I suggest, BlackRiven, that you go and study philosophy for yourself. I'm done educating you, I don't get paid to do it and I have paid a lot in time and money to go to very good schools to study philosophy.

And I suggest that you quit being condescending, it doesn't make your oppinions any stronger and only implies that you are unable to maintain any debate that questions your beliefs without being verbally abusive.

As much as my statement there sounded condescending, it wasn't meant to be, I truly do believe that you should go and study philosophy for yourself if you sincerely care about communicating your beliefs and if you are open-minded enough to study those of others.

Wow, JerseyJohnny and BlackRiven have officially made this thread profoundly boring.

Sfonzarelli wrote:Wow, JerseyJohnny and BlackRiven have officially made this thread profoundly boring.

And yet there you are, reading it, like a complete dumbass.

JerseyJohnny wrote:

Sfonzarelli wrote:Wow, JerseyJohnny and BlackRiven have officially made this thread profoundly boring.

And yet there you are, reading it, like a complete dumbass.

Who said I read it? I skimmed through it at best.

But if it makes you feel any better, from what I gathered, you're the one I agree with.

JerseyJohnny wrote: I'm a little bothered by your statement that you don't believe you said anything that wouldn't lend to my being offended or returning your condescension. You called religious people and/or their beliefs "silly".

When I wrote that comment I thought that since it was indirect- explaining what some other people think- it wouldn't be viewed as an attack or an expression of personal oppinion. I guess that through it you took note of my own position (being an atheist), and attributed the saying to me anyway, but I believe that if you knew me better you'd know that I would never be so blatantly disrespectful of people's beliefs. You are not the first religious person I debated with since my dad is a part of a local Christian community and I attended some of the meetings, and the exchange was always friendly and respectful.
Eventually, I never intend to 'convert' anyone to my point of view, bucause often (like in the case of religion) that is impossible, but I believe the debates are worthwhile since there is something to gain from them, which is a better understanding of your own views.

What you expressed is basically the big picture- some people only accept what they can see, and some people accept that there're things that can't be proven, yet they still think they exist. Every person is entitled to believe in what he wants, but the debate between (any) opposing points of views can still be interesting.

JerseyJohnny wrote: I'm really curious as to why you simultaneously appear to accept my definition of your philosophy as "naturalist" while also resenting it. What about it do you resent? What part of the naturalist philosophy does not jibe with your actual beliefs?

The thing that always put me off in philosophy is that all the different approaches and theorems always had a weak spot somewhere where they would fail. Reading about different ideas that philosophers proposed through time is interesting and can make you think and introduce ideas you wouldn't have thought of before, but none are perfect, which is why I think it's better if every person argues his own theorem from the ground up. My resentment I think was eventually from ignorance, because the more I think and read about it the more I think that it does suits me.
However I prefer it when the umbrellas of different philosophical factions are not present; I can also see why they would be valuble in a discussion to better understand it and be prepared for the various issues that might arise, but I would much rather have a discussion where a theorem is very technically constructed from simple axioms and simple followup conclusions into a bigger picture. That of course takes time, and requires for things to be stated (which I tried to do when you began asking me what constitutes logic, evidence, etc.), but that's where my interest is, a debate not of philosophies but of theorems. Perhaps the more I'll learn about naturalism the more it'll suit me, but even if I'll find little to no faults in it (for me), I would still prefer to formulate it myself, because with language being what it is- sometimes different choise of words implies slightly different things.

You called all Thelemites?

I'm new to this, I stumbled upon a Bree video after a search for Thelema + something. there's so much going on in this thread and I dont' have the time to cut and paste from every little everybody like some of you seem to do, so this is what I want to say:

1) We DO TOO sacrifice little babies!! Somebody already let the pussy outta the bag, but I try to sacrifice babies every day if possible. Half babies. Half potential babies. And I try not to lose a single drop! mmmmm

2) Crowley did say a lot of stupid things. I take most things Crowley says with a grain of salt myself. It took me a while to recognize the difference between Class A documents and Crowley's own blah blah blah....my mom was mean to me...blah blah blah...here's a ten page commentary on the dream I had last night that i will soon turn into a godawful boring play...blah blah blah...victor looks so dreamy when I call him names and slap his ass....blah blah blah....blah blah blah. Skepticism goes a long way in a lot of places, Thelema more than most. Don't trust anything, least of all your mind, good lord!

3) I've seen a few people admonish Thelemites for not having a sense of humor. I think the sense of humor is a huge must, for everybody of any faith or doctrine or philosophy, but Thelemites in particualr need to embrace the divine power of laughter. Laughter or silence, or both if possible! The Book of the In-Laws is a good way to start for Thelemites that forgot how to laugh, especially at themselves.

4) Thelema is not pronoucned THe-LEEM-uh for the poor americanized folk who arent' aware of how greek is pronounced. I'm not just a Thelemite, but a greek who raised by parents from the old country. In greek it's pronoucned THE-lee-ma, with the accent on the first syllable (see the little tick above the epsilon in the greek?)

You may also like to know that the most common definition of Thelema is actually "wish" not so much "Will." Interesting distinction I find sometimes.

5) Thelema is definatley NOT normal.

6) As for Lonelygirl, I don't think it's so bad. I do agree that as thelemite, I would never have an altar to Crowley (bleeeh, just the thought). I dont' think it's so weird to see Thelemic parents that are strict with their children. Just like the common interpretation that "Do what thou wilt" allows people to run around being morons and doing whatever they feel like is a misconception, that actually Do what thou wilt is a pretty strict code to try and live by with very little room to stray from the "Will" we're supposed to be doing.

I have a three year old and my sister in Thelema has a 13 year old. We're pretty liberal in some areas (ie. they don't care if he paints his nails black or wears eye liner) but they sure are on him about getting his chores done and where are you going, who's going to be there, give me the number, no you can't stay out past curfew. They come down on him hardcore about keeping up his responsibilities in school. Just because we're thelemites doesn't mean we're not parents and we dont' care about our children. It's not like we invite them to the orgies, or take happy pictures of the kids smoking their first joint at eight and frame them for the mantle!

Thelemic parents, if they're not morons, (and there ARE moronic thelemites) have to be extra on their kids because of the lifestyle they've been exposed to. We do an awful lot of talking, explaining not only what we're doing, and often giving them a choice regarding what they want to participate in, but we also seem to be explaining a lot about what everyboyd ELSE is doing so they are prepared for the differences they will encounter when they go out into the Everyday Realm. My daughter knows that Santa is a Jupiterian archetype that promotes feelings of overabundance, large bellies, overflowing bags of pleasurable presents which feels really reealy good at the beginning of winter since back in the day winter meant very little food except for jerky, so you bombard yourself with ideas of plenty and hope that will keep you for the next three months. My daugter also knows that other kids buy into santa, that it's how they celebrate their particular favorite veil on the winter solstice, and not to ruin it for them, although she might roll her eyes occaisonally.

I think it's good that Lonelygirl is bringing so much attention to a philosophy that some people might NEVER have come across. I *do* understand the concern that some people may experience regarding their representation, but in some ways, I really don't care. We've been battling the satanic, goat kissing, baby killing, sexually deranged stereotype since the beginning. If people want to learn more on their own, to be able to pick to truth from the bs, good for them, since they're really going to need that skill when/if they explore Thelema for themselves . if they're sheeple enough to believe what some video blog is only "hinting at' we dont' really need them involved in Thelema anyway, and the best way to keep them away is scaring the f*** outta them, n'est-ce pas?

When the smoke clears, they won't matter anyway.

Sorry for the long rant, but I had 10 pages of posts to respond to!!! Let the flaming and judging commence!! I look forward to it

Thank you for confirming that Thelemians are Baby-Sacrificing Satanists who hate God. Some of your fellow Thelemians are not so fourth-comming.

can't stop..laughing...it hurts

So...even though this thread has gone completely crazy, it seems like the best place to post the theory I have. Sorry if this was already said, I didn't really read all the pages because of all the back and forth fighting and stuff.

I don't think Thelemites should be offended at all by the portrayal of Bree's religion, because I don't really think it is Thelema. I believe that SHE believes she is practicing Thelema, but really has no idea what Thelema is. Thather religion just some kind of cult which tells the people in it that it's Thelema so it sounds like a legitimate religion. And yes Bree does do a lot of reading and has the internet so she should be able to read up on it, but if all her life she has been told that what she is practicing is Thelema then maybe she just thinks it's a different sect or something that does some different types of rituals, just like within Christianity different sects do different rituals. I doubt that the Creators would have so many innacuracies if they really intend for the religion to be Thelema.