Back when D & D was evil...

Posts: 63 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:04 pm

Badmike wrote:

Actually, history is subjective. You think the history of World War II is taught the same in the US as in Japan, Russia, Germany, etc? Not at all.
.

While this is true. However the impact of the past can't be erased. The present was created from what actually occurred in the past. This is more complex than what I am stating here because how people perceive an event when it happen and through subsequent years is also part of the past along with what really happened.

Because the past has impact on today. Because not everything can be magically erased. The scientific method can used to reconstruct an event or series of event. Of course we may never known all the details because through the use of science we can say how confident we are in the details we do know.

The idea of history is bunk because we can't ever be sure about anything is bunk.

Posts: 63 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:09 pm

FormCritic wrote:

The task of the historian is very much like that of the Dungeon Master.

It is the challenge to see and think from different points of view

On the gaming front.

This is my secret sauce of all the stuff I written so far. By exploring many Point of Views when writing a setting or a module; I generate a lot more conflicts. More conflicts means more possibilities for adventure. Conflict doesn't mean just fighting either, but any unfilled goal that that party can choose to help with.

By far the best training for this stuff I found it is reading and writing good alternate history. Like you can find here http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/

Posts: 2631 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:56 pm

BadMike wrote:

And who knows who or where the next great idea will come from? Probably from someone everyone calls a nut, like Tesla, who the scientific community at the time mocked, derided and rejected. Yeh, those open minded scientists are ALWAYS for the advancement of knowledge

As a greater community, yes they are. You want to compare religion's track record on that? I'll take that bet any day.

Of course a new idea is met with skepticism, it should be! Overturning pre-established scientific facts shouldn't be a cakewalk. It takes time, it takes evidence, it takes effort. Science isn't just waking up one morning with a neat idea.

I'm sorry, but people that think science is a religion (or vice versa) really don't understand either one very well.

Badmike wrote:

It's crap like that that polarizes people. It serves no purpose but to mock long held beliefs that shaped our world and country, and to give the athiest/agnostic absolutist group another smug, smarmy, ass eating giggle as they "stick it to the Jesus lovers".

As if they weren't polarized already, Mike. Besides, it mocks all creationism-based "theories" equally well. And it does serve it's purpose well, it shows quite clearly the difference between a theory and a belief.

The point isn't about discouraging alternative viewpoints in school. It's about discouraging completely unfounded viewpoints that refuse to be scrutinized from being taught as alternative viewpoints in a place of learning. If you want to do the latter, do it in church.

Tell me if any of this wiki excerpt sounds familiar. It should, it's already been laid out in a steaming pile in this very thread:

Wikipedia, in the Creationism entry wrote:

Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public.

One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion. Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements. They argue that this effectively excludes any possible religious insight from contributing to a scientific understanding of the universe. Neo-Creationists also argue that science, as an "atheistic enterprise," is at the root of many of contemporary society's ills including social unrest and family breakdown.

The most recognized form of Neo-Creationism in the United States is the Intelligent Design movement...

...Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.". All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a think tank whose Wedge strategy aims to replace the scientific method with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations. It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".

ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to get round a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching of creationism in U.S. public schools, and the Discovery Institute has run a series of campaigns to change school curricula.[3] In Australia, where curricula are under the control of State governments rather than local school boards, there was a public outcry when the notion of ID being taught in science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson; the minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.

In the United States, teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools has been decisively ruled by a Federal District court to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the court found that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.", and hence cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a persuasive precedent, based on previous Supreme Court decisions in Edwards v. Aguillard and Epperson v. Arkansas, and by the application of the Lemon test, that creates a legal hurdle to teaching Intelligent Design in public school districts in other Federal court jurisdictions.

Posts: 1179 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:14 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68

Posts: 4450 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:56 pm

deimos3428 wrote:

As a greater community, yes they are. You want to compare religion's track record on that? I'll take that bet any day.

Of course a new idea is met with skepticism, it should be! Overturning pre-established scientific facts shouldn't be a cakewalk. It takes time, it takes evidence, it takes effort. Science isn't just waking up one morning with a neat idea.

I'm sorry, but people that think science is a religion (or vice versa) really don't understand either one very well.

Science isn't a religion per se...but it CAN become one. Science as a Religion is metaphoric...but it fits, frighteningly well. And it's a young religion, so it hasn't had the time to build up the body count or atrocities of God Religion...but give it time. The mindset of unswerving devotion, the fanatical prosteltizing of the converted, and the devoted disciples who are already burning heretics at the stake, it's more like a Religion than most religions. Can't wait for the day when cloning of body parts, genetic modifications, and in-womb baby decision making due to DNA alteration ("We'd like a girl with blonde hair, blue eyes, light complexion, and about 6 ft tall) become standard...then Science will truly become God In everything but name only. At that point in history we'll see if they can handle the responsibility any better than the Religious authorities did in say the middle ages...anyone want to bet on this???? Very Happy

Quote:

Badmike wrote:
It's crap like that that polarizes people. It serves no purpose but to mock long held beliefs that shaped our world and country, and to give the athiest/agnostic absolutist group another smug, smarmy, ass eating giggle as they "stick it to the Jesus lovers".

As if they weren't polarized already, Mike. Besides, it mocks all creationism-based "theories" equally well. And it does serve it's purpose well, it shows quite clearly the difference between a theory and a belief.

There are plenty of better ways to show the difference, and it's disengenuous to say the guy's entire purpose is to prove a point..it's not, it's to mock and ridicule and oh yeh make a few bucks. So much for the "moral" high ground Rolling Eyes

Honestly the guy sounds like a tool...and I do have a sense of humor but couldn't crack smile one at the guy's webpage, it was like he was trying WAY too hard. Anyway, I doubt he has many convictions past his wallet...the entire site smells of "capitalism" more than anything other "ism"....

But it doesn't change the fact that this guy is part of the problem, not the solution. And I still find it funny that while puportedly mocking ALL creation based theories, most anti-Christers still don't have the cajones to take on the Muslims. It's much easier to mock and ridicule a religion that is generally pacifistic in tone; only when faced with the possiblity of being beheaded or blown to pieces do these sorts suddenly find the commitment to their principles seriously lacking. So in the end they don't have the conviction of their so called absolute beliefs, and are frauds or cowards. Let me tell you, if FSM guy went to a mosque in London and handed out this shirts, I'd say he's got balls the size of church bells, and deserves a round of applause for standing up to the ignorant.

He won't. It's so much easier to pick some low hanging fruit and make fun of a school board in the midwest...

Quote:

The point isn't about discouraging alternative viewpoints in school. It's about discouraging completely unfounded viewpoints that refuse to be scrutinized from being taught as alternative viewpoints in a place of learning. If you want to do the latter, do it in church.

I'm actually quite irreligious. I don't think Creationism or faith based religion should be taught in a public school. Not even necessarily because they aren't good science, but simply because faith (along with ethics, morals and duty) should be taught at home or under the scrutiny of parents or guardians. If most public schools had their choice I really believe they'd be teaching Marxism anyway....would you let people like that school your kids in religious beliefs? This is where they lose me.....we don't like the schools teaching sex education but please, please give me your take on Creationism? I think not.

One of the best classes I ever had in college was a class called "History of the Bible". It was taught by a retired Methodist bishop and the subject was the actual history of the book, The Bible, how the first written copies came into being, who wrote them, how they were printed, how many were printed, the lives of the monks that copied and wrote them, how it was decided what books went into the bible, the differences in each religions holy words, the horrific political battles that took place behind the scenes about which "holy words" should go in and which should be apochryphal, etc. One of the best classes I've heard had, the guy played it straight down the line, honestly you'd never even know the guy was clergy because he kept his own faith entirely out of the class...it was a HISTORY class and he didn't let his own faith dictate the tone. I always think back to this dude, because in retrospect there are so very, very few teachers like him that can manage to keep their bias out of the material. For everyone else I've ever had before or since, it's almost impossible not to guess their bias and spin almost immediately

Which is why anyone who is sincerely religious shouldn't WANT the schools to teach religion....

Mike B.

Posts: 4450 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:01 pm

jasonw1239 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68

Now THAT was funny..... Very Happy

Mike B.

Posts: 1179 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:28 pm

There are some brave people out there taking on Islam.
Unfortunately, like Salman Rusdhie, they usually have to go into hiding.
Following is a link to one of the more recent ones who has opposed the religion that they were born into.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

There are many more than her, but if they are still living in a Muslim country very often speaking out will bring a swift death to them and their families.

That is why I find fundamentalists of any kind repugnant. They are the source of those slippery slopes that lead to totalitarianism.

Posts: 4450 · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:13 pm

jasonw1239 wrote:

There are some brave people out there taking on Islam.
Unfortunately, like Salman Rusdhie, they usually have to go into hiding.
Following is a link to one of the more recent ones who has opposed the religion that they were born into.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

There are many more than her, but if they are still living in a Muslim country very often speaking out will bring a swift death to them and their families.

That is why I find fundamentalists of any kind repugnant. They are the source of those slippery slopes that lead to totalitarianism.

I have read about Ali before but the entire story about her "deportation" is...uh...WOW. Hard to believe someone other than Bush can make a public relations disaster of that magnitude, but Rita Verdonk...uh..again...WOW. As awful as the politicians are in this country, this Dutch wacko sounds like the ultimate loose cannon.

Mike B.

Posts: 35 · Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:10 pm

Badmike wrote:

But then again Stalinism is ALSO responsible for millions of deaths....and in only 50 years of history. Let's don't even get into Mao's "purges". Religious fanaticism can't be blamed for all the world's massacres.

Mike B.

I would suggest that Communism, National Socialism (a.k.a. "Nazism"), Fascism, American Liberalism, et al are, in fact manifestations of "religious fanaticism." The only difference is that, instead of a supernatural deity promising various goodies, the various "-isms" have a legion of bureaucrats and dictators with bad comb overs who perform much the same function. Is the promise of "national healthcare" or "social security" or any these other products of the economic illiterati really any different from blandishments about getting a bunch of virgins if you martyr yourself, or suffering hell-fire if you don't Believe in the One True Way?

Indeed, can not the disdain and persecution one sees towards traditional religions by the "-isms" crowd be best interpreted as the typical reaction of a fanatic dealing with a rival religious cult (or even a similar one, but one that, oh, I don't know, shaves their head differently and mutters different incantations at a given holy rite - btw, there is historical precedence for this...)?

I submit that one does not need a supernatural deity in order to be a religious fanatic - a simple desire to belittle, harm or kill anyone that does not wholeheartedly and completely support your every little demented idea ought to suffice. Perhaps that's a bit too broadbrush but it sometimes seems that way, alas.

Certainly not all religions, even earnestly practiced ones, are intolerant. Heck, even Jesus himself would be a hit at an Ásatrú Blót if he could but master the trick of turning water, not into wine, but into beer and/or mead! After a round or two he'd be voted a capital fellow, I bet, and all the brewers at the event would be chatting him up for good ale and mead receipes!

Posts: 543 · Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:23 pm

Charles G. wrote:

I would suggest that Communism, National Socialism (a.k.a. "Nazism"), Fascism, American Liberalism, et al are, in fact manifestations of "religious fanaticism." The only difference is that, instead of a supernatural deity promising various goodies, the various "-isms" have a legion of bureaucrats and dictators with bad comb overs who perform much the same function. Is the promise of "national healthcare" or "social security" or any these other products of the economic illiterati really any different from blandishments about getting a bunch of virgins if you martyr yourself, or suffering hell-fire if you don't Believe in the One True Way?

I think Stalin believed more in himself and power than communism. He believed in communism early on and during his rise to power, but that faded with age. Hitler was...umm..on drugs...not that smart...and uh...Hitler. Still, I'm not sure, especially towards the second half of his reign how much he and his minions were really into Nazism instead of power and themselves.

One of the more interesting genocides in history is one most of you have never heard of, but it is described in detail in the book, "King Leopold's Ghost." Fascinating and terrible. Anyway, King Leopold of Belgium in the 1800's realized that the middle of Africa was unclaimed by any other country and he set out to "colonize" it. What he really wanted was to increase Belgium's status and financial status. He and his henchmen(he never traveled to Africa) created Congo and raped the land for all it was worth. First it was ivory but later on was rubber. Along the way it is estimated that his policies killed between 10-12 million people. King Leopold was roughly twice as bad as Hitler. And King Leopold and his PR machine was spouting the whole time that they were there to save the savages. Like hell. Again, power and greed were primary driving forces resulting in death and destruction.

I personally think corrupted religion has more to do with evil than religion. Religion can be blamed for a lot of bad, but a lot of good too. It's easy to find loads of examples of bad religion. And some are so ludicrous, they make you laugh or puke or hit something. I am against that hypocrisy, evil and pompousness. Don't need it, like it or want it.

However, do you judge a religion, or an -ism, or a movement by the best it has to offer or the only the worst? Just because something bad might happen, is the best approach to just believe neutrality or nothing? Question

Posts: 342 · Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:07 pm

benjoshua wrote:

I think Stalin believed more in himself and power than communism. He believed in communism early on and during his rise to power, but that faded with age. Hitler was...umm..on drugs...not that smart...and uh...Hitler. Still, I'm not sure, especially towards the second half of his reign how much he and his minions were really into Nazism instead of power and themselves.

One of the more interesting genocides in history is one most of you have never heard of, but it is described in detail in the book, "King Leopold's Ghost." Fascinating and terrible. Anyway, King Leopold of Belgium in the 1800's realized that the middle of Africa was unclaimed by any other country and he set out to "colonize" it. What he really wanted was to increase Belgium's status and financial status. He and his henchmen(he never traveled to Africa) created Congo and raped the land for all it was worth. First it was ivory but later on was rubber. Along the way it is estimated that his policies killed between 10-12 million people. King Leopold was roughly twice as bad as Hitler. And King Leopold and his PR machine was spouting the whole time that they were there to save the savages. Like hell. Again, power and greed were primary driving forces resulting in death and destruction.

I personally think corrupted religion has more to do with evil than religion. Religion can be blamed for a lot of bad, but a lot of good too. It's easy to find loads of examples of bad religion. And some are so ludicrous, they make you laugh or puke or hit something. I am against that hypocrisy, evil and pompousness. Don't need it, like it or want it.

However, do you judge a religion, or an -ism, or a movement by the best it has to offer or the only the worst? Just because something bad might happen, is the best approach to just believe neutrality or nothing? Question

Have you ever read the early letters of Stalin? For years before he consolidated his power he was continually in fear of the party leaders and constantly toadying to whichever faction looked the strongest. A far cry from the implacable totalitarian dictator of his later years.

One of the most significant genocides in history was the Turks genocide of the Armenians. Hitler often said that no one complained about the Turks why would anyone care about the Jews.

I'm not sure if I know of any organized religions that aren't corrupted. And there are just too many Isms in the world.

Posts: 543 · Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:24 pm

JZavoda wrote:

I'm not sure if I know of any organized religions that aren't corrupted. And there are just too many Isms in the world.

Change is inevitable. And I agree, all organized bodies, whether religious or not become corrupted. Many start out great, some really great, but one of the common downfalls in all of them is the increasing influence of money and the decreasing influence of morals, ethics and original principles.

But, do you judge a religion, or an -ism, or a movement by the best it has to offer or the only the worst?

Posts: 342 · Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:10 am

benjoshua wrote:

Change is inevitable. And I agree, all organized bodies, whether religious or not become corrupted. Many start out great, some really great, but one of the common downfalls in all of them is the increasing influence of money and the decreasing influence of morals, ethics and original principles.

But, do you judge a religion, or an -ism, or a movement by the best it has to offer or the only the worst?

Anytime people turn themselves into a generalization they are only as good as their worst aspects. I have no trouble generalizing about Isms, or movements, or religions, they've already generalized about themselves. I can honestly say I hate Illinois Nazi's and put my foot on the accelerator.

Posts: 2611 · Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:31 pm

"I don't believe in -isms ... I just believe in me."

Posts: 2631 · Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Charles G. wrote:

Is the promise of "national healthcare" or "social security" or any these other products of the economic illiterati really any different from blandishments about getting a bunch of virgins if you martyr yourself, or suffering hell-fire if you don't Believe in the One True Way?

We've already got healthcare and social security, and if global warming pans out, the hellfire isn't far off. We'd be much obliged if you send the virgins.

Posts: 4704 · Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:25 pm

What's this, you get virgins if you're a Muslim? Where the hell's my head towel and bomb vest..........

Posts: 1193 · Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:04 pm

If a guy's aim is sexual gratification, why would he want a virgin anyway? They complain and whine, and have no idea what they're doing because they have no experience and it hurts for them. Guys who want a virgin never had one in the first place so they don't know what they're really getting into. For a wife or girlfriend, I can understand wanting a virgin because he could teach her "good sex" over the long term, but for a quick tryst, a virgin is a terrible choice. Give me an experienced, expert, and disease-free whore any day.

Alright... that should take this thread in a different, and more interesting, direction... Wink

Posts: 543 · Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:09 pm

Deadlord39 wrote:

What's this, you get virgins if you're a Muslim? Where the hell's my head towel and bomb vest..........

You get 150 virgins if memory serves. I wonder what the virgins think about that deal? Shocked

Or, even if you are a guy, how would you like to spend eternity with 150 people who are all women? I mean, for one thing, how many bathrooms come with the deal? Shocked

I personally think any heaven you can imagine ends up being hell before too long.

Posts: 577 · Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:10 pm

mandalaymoon wrote:

If a guy's aim is sexual gratification, why would he want a virgin anyway? They complain and whine, and have no idea what they're doing because they have no experience and it hurts for them. Guys who want a virgin never had one in the first place so they don't know what they're really getting into. For a wife or girlfriend, I can understand wanting a virgin because he could teach her "good sex" over the long term, but for a quick tryst, a virgin is a terrible choice. Give me an experienced, expert, and disease-free whore any day.

Alright... that should take this thread in a different, and more interesting, direction... Wink

I totally agree. Plus, how was the exact story for martyrs? Something like 70 virgins every night? Well, how's that supposed to be heaven?

Posts: 107 · Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:19 pm

guerret wrote:

I totally agree. Plus, how was the exact story for martyrs? Something like 70 virgins every night? Well, how's that supposed to be heaven?

These martyrs are not too sure on the details either...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt_tv7t79WY&feature=related