|
Every human is subject to some magical thinking, you can't (and shouldn't) eliminate that mindset entirely because it completely denies the awakening of a mind's 'Christ Potential'. One important thing to know is that the true God doesn't tell anyone to go out looking for trouble, at this stage of civilization the best thing you can do is 'shelter in place'. If enough people seek charity and calm we might still see world peace inshallah.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The the Vogons blew up the Earth five minutes before it was going to poo poo out the question. I'm fairly sure it's "how many roads must a man walk down." I mean, it sounds plausible enough. McDowell posted:If enough people seek charity and calm we might still see world peace inshallah. I agree with this sentence, and will certify that this particular sentence doesn't indicate a pressing need to take one's meds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Every human is subject to some magical thinking, you can't (and shouldn't) eliminate that mindset entirely because it completely denies the awakening of a mind's 'Christ Potential'. One important thing to know is that the true God doesn't tell anyone to go out looking for trouble, at this stage of civilization the best thing you can do is 'shelter in place'. If enough people seek charity and calm we might still see world peace inshallah. wtf is a christ potential
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 10:50
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:wtf is a christ potential The ability to be absolutely selfless and dedicated to the service of others, rather than the propagation and satisfaction of the self. Of course everyone is pretty short of that and sinful, which is why we are still on planet Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
McDowell posted:The ability to be absolutely selfless and dedicated to the service of others, rather than the propagation and satisfaction of the self. Of course everyone is pretty short of that and sinful, which is why we are still on planet Earth. why is it a christ potential, not a gandhi potential or a norman borlaugh potential
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
blowfish posted:why is it a christ potential, not a gandhi potential or a norman borlaugh potential That is why I put it in parenthesis - it is an attempt to condense a complex idea into one or two words. I looked at 'Great Again', also known as 'Crippled America', and it seems like keeping vocabulary simple and using colorful pictures is needed to transmit a message to 'adult' humans. Buddha would be a better example than Gandhi, as the later still enabled sensual attachments. The great scientists and thinkers of the Anthropocene have all been made possible by divine intervention over the millennia, all the 'branches' of science and philosophy should look to the 'trunk' - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
How would you reconcile the great number of scientific discoveries that have been made as a result of conflict and especially in times of war with the belief of a "christ potential"?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
blowfish posted:why is it a christ potential, not a gandhi potential or a norman borlaugh potential It's used plenty in new age thought where Christ and Buddha are both seen as one of several "ascended masters". Extremely simplified: Christ consciousness is the self-less love towards all of creation. Buddha consciousness is the calm stillness of the lotus flower floating in the pond. They are equal but different. edit. To clarify my own position before the hurling of insults continue. I'm not "into new Age" myself. I just like to read about stuff. Quift fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Jul 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:How would you reconcile the great number of scientific discoveries that have been made as a result of conflict and especially in times of war with the belief of a "christ potential"? I absolutely loathe this argument. Never trust neither a politician nor a historian speaking of the "benefits if war". The very notion that "progress" can be bought with human sacrifice is horrible and should be viewed as an affront to your senses and the people promoting these views should be viewed with the same horror we reserve for ritualistic murderers. War mongers are always searching for arguments that promote violence, terror and death. They spread fear and bomb people to submission from afar. Often to increase the value of their own stock portfolio. We are under no obligation to help them spread their distorted world view in which the lives of men, women and children can be reduced to statistics. The idea that human life can and should be weighted on balance scales against economic performance indicators is revolting. I feel that we have a moral obligation to to voice our dissent whenever this rhetorical figure rears it ugly head. Not to mention that the argument is invalid. It falsely assumes that these feats wouldn't be accomplished in peace times without any reasonable explanation as to why this should be the case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:How would you reconcile the great number of scientific discoveries that have been made as a result of conflict and especially in times of war with the belief of a "christ potential"? Dude this argument makes less sense than all the numerology bullshit. Like you're saying we shouldn't have peace because technology might have been a bit slower, as if it was worth the millions of lives lost or something. Like if we never had World War II, we'd probably have had computers on only a slight amount of delay because the improvements in various business machines to true computers was already on the way. And a lot of Cold War progress stuff happened during periods of relative peace.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:09
|
|
fishmech posted:Dude this argument makes less sense than all the numerology bullshit. Like you're saying we shouldn't have peace because technology might have been a bit slower, as if it was worth the millions of lives lost or something. I'm not arguing that at all. I don't really believe that war is a positive or that it has caused benefits as a result, and that keeping a score card of benefits against human life is anything but morally abhorrent, I'm more curious to know how a belief system that is focused on all scientific discovery coming from the divine inspiration and a belief in working together would deal with scientific discoveries that came out of situations that didn't fit that narrative. Is it just a case that you argue that such things would happened anyway in different settings on a different timeline?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:How would you reconcile the great number of scientific discoveries that have been made as a result of conflict and especially in times of war with the belief of a "christ potential"? I'd reconcile it by pointing out that it's not actually true. Wartime R&D is mostly focused on incremental improvements to existing systems and finding ways to make greater amounts of stuff more reliably. In the context of existential warfare, you can't afford to divert too many resources away from stuff that's actually working in order to chase lofty ideas that might come to nothing. The technology available at the end of WWII was still, largely the same technology available at the beginning of it; just iterated on. Even things like nuclear weapons or jet aircraft were based on pre-war developments and science. The same basic designs of frontline aircraft in 1939 were still serving in frontline squadrons in 1945. By contrast, in the late 1940s and 1950s, new fighter jets were often obsolete by the time the production lines had begun as central resources swung away from maximal production to R&D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
There's a huge difference between the planes of 1939 and 1945. The paradigm shift of early jets masks it a bit but compare prewar airlines to things like the constellation. Airplane engines made huge progress. Thing is that it's limited to the places where the war's needs and peacetime needs overlap. For example, the US made basically no progress in large scale rocketry during the war, while Germany made tons. That's the difference between the stuff that gets trotted out and the stuff that atrophies. Plus any sufficiently large engineering project will do the same, and rather than blowing people and factories up will instead put dudes on the moon or electricity in houses or similar. Quift posted:To clarify my own position before the hurling of insults continue. I'm not "into new Age" myself. I just like to read about stuff. You should read about the philosophy of science and the scientific method. It's cool stuff, and really an interesting problem. Actually same goes for how safety culture is created and maintained, building a reliable machine out of imperfect parts is very interesting. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Jul 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Dude this argument makes less sense than all the numerology bullshit. Like you're saying we shouldn't have peace because technology might have been a bit slower, as if it was worth the millions of lives lost or something. Well you see, delaying technological advancement is bad because the singularity will prevent an infinite amount of suffering so delaying that is like causing an infinite amount of suffering and- 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I'd reconcile it by pointing out that it's not actually true. Yeah this is pretty much it. Very few fully new things turn up during wars, you simply don't have the time to get it done. You get a lot more new stuff turning up before and after them, because peacetime is much more conducive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:In the context of existential warfare, you can't afford to divert too many resources away from stuff that's actually working in order to chase lofty ideas that might come to nothing. Clearly you've not read My Tank is Fight! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah this is pretty much it. Very few fully new things turn up during wars, you simply don't have the time to get it done. You get a lot more new stuff turning up before and after them, because peacetime is much more conducive. For some mysterious reason, in war time most of the advances are related to killing other people, or the deployment of methods of killing other people. Also dealing with resource shortages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:How would you reconcile the great number of scientific discoveries that have been made as a result of conflict and especially in times of war with the belief of a "christ potential"? It is all God's plan - it couldn't happen any other way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
It's always a bit sad when these threads catch live ones. Somewhere a street corner is missing its preacher. Somewhere a philosophy class is missing a stoned student.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:33
|
|
Focacciasaurus_Rex posted:For some mysterious reason, in war time most of the advances are related to killing other people, or the deployment of methods of killing other people. Also dealing with resource shortages. Well that's not necessarily true either. One of the fields that I can think of that has made the most progress during war is medicine, where the abhhorrant conditions and extreme situations that doctors found themselves in dealing with a variety of wounds, disease on a level beyond what they had dealt with before, and radical types of surgery that was forced out of necessity caused all sorts of techniques to be developed that then had peacetime consequences. The existence of professional nurses for example came as a result of war, the use of orderlies likewise. Then the development of concepts like modern triage came out of the situations they found themselves in. Again this is not saying that war is a good thing or that there is a balance sheet that exists to say that war has benefits that outweigh the cost of human life because thats a preposterous way of thinking, but there were developments that happened as a result of the conflicts. At the same time there are discoveries that are accredited to war that would have been made independently of it. Penicillin is the big example, where its discovery gets associated with the second world war though it's development occurred independently of the war, it was just that the war caused its usage to become more widespread and the discovery was used as propaganda. The industrialization of its production did occur at a faster rate because of the needs of the war, but theres nothing to say it wouldn't have occurred over a longer time span anyway.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Who inspired the doctors to seek healing power? Hippocrates and Christ, more often than not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:Well that's not necessarily true either. One of the fields that I can think of that has made the most progress during war is medicine, where the abhhorrant conditions and extreme situations that doctors found themselves in dealing with a variety of wounds, disease on a level beyond what they had dealt with before, and radical types of surgery that was forced out of necessity caused all sorts of techniques to be developed that then had peacetime consequences. The existence of professional nurses for example came as a result of war, the use of orderlies likewise. Then the development of concepts like modern triage came out of the situations they found themselves in. But we also spent literally thousands of years of wars without meaningful benefits on the medicine front. Frankly, that stuff is way more of a product of everything else then of war specifically - it required all the peacetime advances to have viable things to do in war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
But even Hippocrates acknowledged that the worst of humanity in war had an influence on the development of medicine. He said himself "war is the only proper school for a surgeon"
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:But even Hippocrates acknowledged that the worst of humanity in war had an influence on the development of medicine. He said himself "war is the only proper school for a surgeon" And he was wrong when he said that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Fun fact: the Hippocratic oath forbids surgery. He was . . . not a fan of surgery to put it mildly, which makes sense in a pre antibiotics world. That's also why medical students now usually take a modified form of the oath when they start medical school and use a part of the Geneva Convention when they graduate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:59
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Fun fact: the Hippocratic oath forbids surgery. He was . . . not a fan of surgery to put it mildly, which makes sense in a pre antibiotics world. Well technically that's not entirely true either. That actual quote from the Hippocratic Oath is " I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein." Which actually says "only skilled surgeons should carry out surgery. Hippocrates was a surgeon himself and his criticisms of surgeons came more from those who were essentially nothing more than butcher men who had little skill in surgery themselves and didn't follow the practices that he reccomended. His work "On The Surgery" was ridiculously ahead of its time in the practices it laid out for surgery, from hygiene to the way that the body should be laid out and those who operated should work in tandem. A lot of his principles are still carried out today in modern surgical practice. Edit: Most of the reasons behind the changes to the Oath came over two key areas - the modified version first seeked to remove the religious connotations of the oath and make it more secular - removing the prayer: "I swear by Apollo The Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the Gods and Goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture" though in recent years some schools have adopted this as an opening to the Lasagana modern version. The more controversial issue was that the original oath required a pledge to "not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion" which has been edited in and out numerous times. Skinty McEdger fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jul 21, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:Well that's not necessarily true either. I said most, and I'd also say that that falls under the umbrella of "logistics", which is what I was getting at with the whole deployment thing. And eh.  I don't disagree.McDowell posted:Who inspired the doctors to seek healing power? Hippocrates and Christ, more often than not. Nah, most often it's the almighty dollar, or just wanting to help people.  Sometimes it's religiously motivated, but in the end it's a temporal profession created by temporal problems so it has mostly temporal motivations.Also, you should really seek some mental help. Being religious is fine, but you're not posting in touch with reality. You're kinda off in  territory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Focacciasaurus_Rex posted:Also, you should really seek some mental help. Being religious is fine, but you're not posting in touch with reality. You're kinda off in McDowell has been posting off meds for years now. CaptainViolence posted:Clearly you've not read My Tank is Fight! And have you heard of Vojtech the soldier bear???
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Focacciasaurus_Rex posted:Also, you should really seek some mental help. Being religious is fine, but you're not posting in touch with reality. You're kinda off in You may very well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Implying you're some sort of dystopian movie character who is totally not nuts: a good strategy to convince people you're not nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Implying you're some sort of dystopian movie character who is totally not nuts: a good strategy to convince people you're not nuts. Universal Love is very irrational if you only see the world through the RAND/John Nash/Game Theory lens. This is illustrated in 'The Dark Knight' when the Joker places people on two ferries in a kind of Prisoner's Dilemma. Are you familiar with RD Laing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Universal Love is very irrational if you only see the world through the RAND/John Nash/Game Theory lens. This is illustrated in 'The Dark Knight' when the Joker places people on two ferries in a kind of Prisoner's Dilemma. Are you familiar with RD Laing? I too base my beliefs about how the world and people work on fiction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I too base my beliefs about how the world and people work on fiction. Yup it's called the Noble Lie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
this thread got real weird, even by its own standards
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:
This thread.   
Quift fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jul 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
No see, you're employing the fallacious debating technique of Being Weird
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
“Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.” ― Oscar Wilde
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
This thread rapidly went from touching the poop to diving face-first in to raw sewage. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This thread rapidly went from touching the poop to diving face-first in to raw sewage. The poo poo grew legs and decided to come to us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
Focacciasaurus_Rex posted:The poo poo grew legs and decided to come to us. Thus revealing the Truth of spontaneous abiogenesis. Suck it up sciencailures 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 22:37
|
|