Sasun Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Solaris, I hear you. For the record, I would give Sasun much more credit as a rational and critical mind, regradless of how much I tease him! Siamanto, thank you for your truthful words. They say that ... oops, I forget what they say, something like big minds recognise other big minds OK, we are not big minds, just trying to be sane. PS. Sasun, I don't remember you as someone religious. What happened? A miracle! style_images/master/snapback.png I declare that I am not religious but I do appreciate all religions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 I believe in miracles. Miracles are very good. Miracles make me happy. Therefore I don't believe I should stop taking miracle inducing substances. style_images/master/snapback.png You may have been under influences when posting this post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siamanto Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) Siamanto, thank you for your truthful words. They say that ... oops, I forget what they say, something like big minds recognise other big minds OK, we are not big minds, just trying to be sane. style_images/master/snapback.png Great minds think alike! I won't explain myself, but that is the Anglo-Saxon point of view! Personally, I think that - by definition - a Great Mind is original i.e. to a certain degree unitelligible/unaccessible! (I know that I did not express myself as accurately as I should or could have.) Sasun, I don't remember you as someone religious. What happened? A miracle! I declare that I am not religious but I do appreciate all religions style_images/master/snapback.png style_images/master/snapback.png I had to phrase it in a way that I could tease you! The "fact" remains that I don't remember you taking part in many - if any - discussions involving God and religion. Maybe my memory is failing me! I was really surprised to see you being so active in such conversations on HyeForum! Edited February 25, 2005 by Siamanto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Your call to maturity is cute. Consider changing your avatar. You just bit yourself in the rear with that one. The symbol is not immature and to think so is immature. Materialist science bases lot of stuff on paradoxes. Meaning they construct their theories on unexplainable stuff. They use a linguistic tool like the word "singularity" to explain something in materialist logical terms. This means they believe a paradox (unexplainable contradiction) can be a base of some sound logic. Escencially, this is the nature of a mirace. Unexplainalbe contradiction that brings to logical results. style_images/master/snapback.png On the contrary, you are now the one who is using language because you are taking the word paradox out of the concept of their intention and putting it in the context that suits you. Apparently you missed the fact that it is physically paradoxical singularity. That phrase basically means that two physical traits, normally mutually exclusive, coexist in a way that cannot be explained. They do not construct theories on uneplainable stuff; they construct theories to explain what is observed which may result in implications that are not understood. It is fun though to watch you post as though you know something Stephen Hawking does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 5. What a stupid question. Miracles? hahahaha... [ 1 ] I would like to catch the person who voted with this answer and slap macaroni and cheese to his face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 The "fact" remains that I don't remember you taking part in many - if any - discussions involving God and religion. Maybe my memory is failing me! I was really surprised to see you being so active in such conversations on HyeForum! style_images/master/snapback.png I have grown up dude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 You just bit yourself in the rear with that one. The symbol is not immature and to think so is immature. I think it was fundamentally immature of you to take my sarcasm directly. Your call for maturity was subjective enough not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, you are now the one who is using language because you are taking the word paradox out of the concept of their intention and putting it in the context that suits you. Apparently you missed the fact that it is physically paradoxical singularity. That phrase basically means that two physical traits, normally mutually exclusive, coexist in a way that cannot be explained. They do not construct theories on uneplainable stuff; they construct theories to explain what is observed which may result in implications that are not understood. It is fun though to watch you post as though you know something Stephen Hawking does not. style_images/master/snapback.png BBT is based on a paradox and, even more, nothing has been observed as far as that theory goes. Physical or non - physical does not matter. The word paradox is there to conceal something unexplainable and move forward without explaining it because it is comfortable and easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siamanto Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 I have grown up dude style_images/master/snapback.png I'm glad to hear that you took into consideration my words when I told you: "grow up dude!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) I'm glad to hear that you took into consideration my words when I told you: "grow up dude!" style_images/master/snapback.png I have to agree with you. In fact, it was wise of you to foresee that I would grow up in the future Edited February 25, 2005 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siamanto Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) I have to agree with you. In fact, it was wise of you to foresee that I would grow up in the future style_images/master/snapback.png I always believed in you! Deep inside, I knew that eventually you will grow up, because I knew that miracles happen! PS. I believed in the miracle before I witnessed it! Edited February 25, 2005 by Siamanto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 I always believed in you! Deep inside, I knew that eventually you will grow up, because I knew that miracles happen! Had I known it would make you so enthusiastic I would have grown up faster PS. I believed in the miracle before I witnessed it! style_images/master/snapback.png Perhaps it is time to organize a new religion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 I'm glad to hear that you took into consideration my words when I told you: "grow up dude!" style_images/master/snapback.png So you are the responsable of his delusional "Chinmoyian" thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) So you are the responsable of his delusional "Chinmoyian" thoughts. style_images/master/snapback.png I mentioned David Copperfield on purpose, in case modern-day "miraculous" gurus are brought into play. The audience for a top-notch magician's show know they are being served a trick, try hard to figure it out but few, if any, really make it. Houdini is still a legend. Now the same can be performed on stage by a "guru" not as a trick but a "miracle" before an exalted audience willing to buy just about anything. Sasun's stigmatists could have used some trickery or simple dexterity to cut themselves unnoticed, but that sort of petty pious fraud is harmless by and large (if you don't have a problem with exposing an aspect to Christian faith with a distinctly sadomasochistic flavour) . There seems to be a "demand" for miracles and so there is more than adequate "supply". But when belief in miracles is being exploited in a way that "miracle-making" trickery becomes a money-making "industry" and a brainwashing tool, then it certainly is a cause for concern… Edited February 25, 2005 by Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armjan Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) Had I known it would make you so enthusiastic I would have grown up faster Perhaps it is time to organize a new religion? style_images/master/snapback.png not a bad idea. may i suggest calling it Sasunism and you can be the leader. Edited February 25, 2005 by armjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Solaris, I hear you. style_images/master/snapback.png Ooh, and I want you hear me.... //The Beatles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) I mentioned David Copperfield on purpose, in case modern-day "miraculous" gurus are brought into play. The audience for a top-notch magician's show know they are being served a trick, try hard to figure it out but few, if any, really make it. Houdini is still a legend. Now the same can be performed on stage by a "guru" not as a trick but a "miracle" before an exalted audience willing to buy just about anything. Again you are going into the fallacy of skepticism according to which a doubtful line of thinking becomes the only explanation, while you have no evidence of anything. In other words the only reason you are "explaning" something is that you doubt. You don't really have material evidence, you are simply using the apparent similarity of two different things, but similar does not mean the same. Sasun's stigmatists could have used some trickery or simple dexterity to cut themselves unnoticed, but that sort of petty pious fraud is harmless by and large (if you don't have a problem with exposing an aspect to Christian faith with a distinctly sadomasochistic flavour) . There seems to be a "demand" for miracles and so there is more than adequate "supply". But when belief in miracles is being exploited in a way that "miracle-making" trickery becomes a money-making "industry" and a brainwashing tool, then it certainly is a cause for concern… style_images/master/snapback.png COULD BE and IS are different things. One has to investigate on a case by case bases before crying foul and making widespread accusations. Edited February 25, 2005 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) not a bad idea. may i suggest calling it Sasunism and you can be the leader. style_images/master/snapback.png Hmm... let me think... but no thanks, somehow starting a new religion is not in my career plans Edited February 25, 2005 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Again you are going into the fallacy of skepticism according to which a doubtful line of thinking becomes the only explanation, while you have no evidence of anything. In other words the only reason you are "explaning" something is that you doubt. You don't really have material evidence, you are simply using the apparent similarity of two different things, but similar does not mean the same. Sasun, I'm about to question your bona fide on this. You're fighting some imaginary heartless "skeptic" who does nothing but offer "hoax" as the only explanation without any proof. With respect, this is a lil' absurd. I only said that if one of possible explanations casts strong enough suspicion of hoax, fraud, or mistake, then the phenomenon should not be taken at its face value (as a "miracle") and should be investigated. COULD BE and IS are different things. One has to investigate on a case by case bases before crying foul and making widespread accusations. style_images/master/snapback.png Precisely. But it is common to miracle-makers to dodge any serious investigation, while some lousy doctor (I personally know some who will tell anything if the price is right), or an old priest surely are not enough to clear the suspicion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) Sasun, I'm about to question your bona fide on this. You're fighting some imaginary heartless "skeptic" who does nothing but offer "hoax" as the only explanation without any proof. With respect, this is a lil' absurd. I only said that if one of possible explanations casts strong enough suspicion of hoax, fraud, or mistake, then the phenomenon should not be taken at its face value (as a "miracle") and should be investigated. Excuse me, but I have the impression that you are considering a stigmata an impossibility. Therefore it implies that for you all reported cases of stigmata are a hoax or a delusion. So tell me, am I understanding you correctly? If yes, then my "fight" is correct. If not then I have no argument as long as you can be also doubtful of all claims of hoax or delusion Precisely. But it is common to miracle-makers to dodge any serious investigation, while some lousy doctor (I personally know some who will tell anything if the price is right), or an old priest surely are not enough to clear the suspicion. style_images/master/snapback.png OK, so do we agree that before making a claim a serious investigation is necessary? If yes then I have no argument. And I am also inclined to think that "it is common to miracle-makers to dodge any serious investigation" because I believe charlatanism is widespread. Again, just to be clear on the matter, I consider stigmata a possibility, as well as hoaxing stigmata a possibility and maybe even more common that real ones. Likewise, I believe true gurus exist, as well as fake gurus who may outnumber the real ones. True miracles exist, as well as false ones, etc. It is all a matter of case by case investigation. Comparing apparent similarities and claiming all to be the same is a wrong way. Do you agree? Edited February 25, 2005 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Solaris, more I read you and more I like you, of course I do not entirly agree with you, but your theses are better supported with arguments. I think you could be a good Fadixist. BTW, I have not forgotten to answer your PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 I think it was fundamentally immature of you to take my sarcasm directly. Your call for maturity was subjective enough not to be taken seriously. "Fundamentally immature" seem like it doesn't really mean anything. ...even more, nothing has been observed as far as that theory goes. That is not true. There were several things observed that led to the idea of the BBT and several things since that support it. The problem is that there are other models that can also explain the observations. Physical or non - physical does not matter. The word paradox is there to conceal something unexplainable and move forward without explaining it because it is comfortable and easy. style_images/master/snapback.png No, it is not. You are not understanding. And nobody has moved forward. If you think anyone has "moved forward" from the idea, you are a fool. It is labeled a "paradox" because it is a paradox. Things that normally should not co-exist are theorized to have co-existed. It is not considered a paradox just so they can move on and forget about it. That is stupid. On the contrary, the community would be quite motivated to investigate a such a nature. Like black holes for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) Sasun, if we all are such Einstein fans, let's say I may share to certain extent his awe and wonder of an "orderly universe". But in this case it would be logical to assume that I don't believe in the supernatural character of stigmata since I also share his disbelief in the cult of a personal God and the religious built-up around it. I also feel you're being somewhat inconsistent. You said you were not religious, but here you're keen on sustaining a belief in a "miracle" which links to the most rigid literal understanding of the New Testament. What do you think being religious is all about? Above all, I don't consider stigmatism as a very good example of a Christian miracle. If the stigmata are the only "tangible" miracles, then the Church is indeed desperate. It creates some image of a sadomasochistic God "rewarding" the pious with suffering the heck knows why, perhaps to prove his existence? Aren't there better ways? Theoretically in the case of certain extremely sensitive individuals the wounds may be psychosomatic, so some of them may not be cheats. But there is a lot of evidence suggesting that the overall phenomenon is anything but supernatural. It indeed appears to be imitative. There had been no occurrences of stigmatism before the images of crucified Christ with wounds become common, and before St. Francis of Assisi apparently established the pattern as the first "true" stigmatist in thirteenth century. The fact that the stigmata appear differently on their victims – different shapes, sizes and locations, is another strong evidence that the wounds are not genuinely miraculous. Say, how come the shape of your Terese woman's wounds changed over time, apparently as she learned that Roman nails were a square-shaped? In fact even if I also took the Scriptures literally and believed that such things are theoretically possible, I would have very serious doubts as to genuine miraculous nature of stigmata. One more thing: just like me, you have no first-hand knowledge of stigmatism. The Terese woman apparently died some twenty years prior to your birth, and you haven't seen her wounds nor any other stigmata. You have read certain accounts that were sympathetic, and chose to believe, without much consideration and questioning. Believing them is convenient to your position, 'cause by you doing so you seem to get a "tangible" proof of your religion. Anyway discussing "stigmata" here seems a pretty insane idea to me. You definitely seem enamoured with the idea and pressed the issue to this point, but just consider what a sick, sadomasochistic cult is that. Bloody disgusting indeedy. Edited February 25, 2005 by Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Solaris, more I read you and more I like you, of course I do not entirly agree with you, but your theses are better supported with arguments. I think you could be a good Fadixist. BTW, I have not forgotten to answer your PM. style_images/master/snapback.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) "Fundamentally immature" seem like it doesn't really mean anything. OK let me explain. When you use another symbol to make yours, you depend on some other simbol to create something yours. Like you depend on "cross" to create an "anti-cross". Dependence on someone to create something yours is the root of immaturity. That is not true. There were several things observed that led to the idea of the BBT and several things since that support it. The problem is that there are other models that can also explain the observations. Observation is a test of consequences anyway. OK they observed. That doesn't change anything. you are a fool Excuse me for taking this out of its context but ... do you realy want to find out when exactly I will take it to the next level and officially declare you "an idiot". No, it is not. You are not understanding. And nobody has moved forward. If you think anyone has "moved forward" from the idea. It is labeled a "paradox" because it is a paradox. Things that normally should not co-exist are theorized to have co-existed. It is not considered a paradox just so they can move on and forget about it. That is stupid. On the contrary, the community would be quite motivated to investigate a such a nature. Like black holes for example. style_images/master/snapback.png The fact that they (and you) want to exclude creationism from the schools says that they want to comfortably forget about it no matter how "interested" they may seem to be. Exclusion is a sign of "non-interest". Edited February 25, 2005 by Armen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Dependence on someone to create something yours is the root of immaturity. I am sorry, but that is the most thoughtless and ridiculous phrase I have read in a while. All creation is dependant on prior creation whether its is art or philosophy or technology, etc. And that has absolutely nothing to do with maturity! Also, "fundamentally immature" still seems to have no actual meaning. Observation is a test of consequences anyway. OK they observed. That doesn't change anything. ...um... yea. Excuse me for taking this out of its context but ... do you realy want to find out when exactly I will take it to the next level and officially declare you "an idiot". I will not excuse you for taking it out of context and I do not give a rat's colon what you do. The fact that they (and you) want to exclude creationism from the schools says that they want to comfortably forget about it no matter how "interested" they may seem to be. Exclusion is a sign of "non-interest". style_images/master/snapback.png Oh, you got me there! You are right! I have no interest in it and I think it is a part of humanity that needs to be forgotten! You got me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.