The Golden Compass

[VaBusa]

it's just a movie... sheeesh

This is an intelligent and intellectual debate, encompassing everything from cosmological theory, philosophy, human psychology, to theological tradition. Everyone is civil, articulate, and able to express their particular viewpoint. Why must you demean it simply because it doesn't interest you?

The negative connotations that the word "drama" carries in this day and age are noted but not appreciated. Drama is simply a mode of representational performance. It is not "gossip" or "turmoil," neither is it a ranting diatribe full of rhetoric and insult. Drama seeks to create conflict in order to better examine either side of the argument. In the classical Greek sense, yes...we're being very dramatic. This is not a bad thing. In the "ohhhh...the drama!" sense, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Actually, we don't need to pick on the guy for his opinion, which by the way mirrors what many are thinking as they open this thread about a MOVIE...

I have enjoyed your discussion and POV CrashBomb; you are well versed in the subject at hand and believe me, you'll get a work out about 7 times a year on the oRg discussing these very subjects...

No need to turn ANYONE away from the thread for their own POV

We are all amongst friends and keep things civil around here

 

[NightCrawler]

We are all amongst friends and keep things civil around here  

Hey CrashBomb ... YO MAMA!!!

Seriously though, I think this is the best topic I have seen in a LONG time. I'm just sitting back and enjoying my  

. Well ... not really, but there isn't an icon for peanut butter & jelly sandwiches

.

 

[VaBusa]

We are all amongst friends and keep things civil around here

Hey CrashBomb ... YO MAMA!!!

Just trying to keep everyone happy around here...it's tougher in some threads than others

So, PB&J sandwiches would help?

 

[CrashBomb]

I love the Mormons though. Anything written on golden tablets only legible to one dude in the woods with a head full of mushrooms MUST be gospel...

It's even better if you realize that Joseph Smith's wife was planning on leaving him because of his repeated infidelities when he conveniently stumbled across his "golden tablets" that contained all the tenets of the Mormon faith.

"Good news, honey! Not only does God want me to sleep around behind your back, he practically REQUIRES it. Also, He insists that I marry these twelve other women. But it doesn't have to stop there, because I can still marry people after I'm dead! Isn't our god cool?"

The psilocybin mushroom hypothesis is also very astute. Psychedelic experience is astonishingly similar to many reported religious conversion experiences. Gordon Wasson postulated that the substance "Soma," so revered in the Hindu Rig Veda, was actually an Amanita mushroom. The Zoroastrian faith may have even carried these traditions all the way into the early Judeo-Islamic belief system, and Wasson went on to speculate in Soma: Divine Mushroom Of Immortality, that hallucinogenic fungus may have been the substance that Abraham's people called "manna" during their exile in the desert. A lot of pre-Christian traditions revered psychotropic ethnogens as either "gifts from god" or the physical manifestations of actual gods. Wasson's Flesh Of The Gods: The Ritual Use of Hallucinogens deals almost specifically with the various forms of this tradition across human history.

 

[CrashBomb]

Actually, we don't need to pick on the guy for his opinion, which by the way mirrors what many are thinking as they open this thread about a MOVIE...

No need to turn ANYONE away from the thread for their own POV

We are all amongst friends and keep things civil around here

That was not my intention in any way, and I apologize if that's how I came across.

I just grow exhausted with the people who say things like, "ohhh the internet is full of nothing but stupid teenagers and ****," who are often the same people who turn immediately around and deride the few civil and intellectual debates that occasionally pop up as this one has. I was also pointing out the differences between the classical sense of the word "drama" (of which this discussion is a fantastic example), and the modern definition of "draaaaaama" in the reality television/Paris Hiltonian sense (I totally just made up a new word and I'm calling Webster's right now), which this discussion is clearly not.

 

[VaBusa]

Actually, we don't need to pick on the guy for his opinion, which by the way mirrors what many are thinking as they open this thread about a MOVIE...

No need to turn ANYONE away from the thread for their own POV

We are all amongst friends and keep things civil around here

That was not my intention in any way, and I apologize if that's how I came across.

I just grow exhausted with the people who say things like, "ohhh the internet is full of nothing but stupid teenagers and ****," who are often the same people who turn immediately around and deride the few civil and intellectual debates that occasionally pop up as this one has. I was also pointing out the differences between the classical sense of the word "drama" (of which this discussion is a fantastic example), and the modern definition of "draaaaaama" in the reality television/Paris Hiltonian sense (I totally just made up a new word and I'm calling Webster's right now), which this discussion is clearly not.

No worries...we're all good. I enjoy these threads, I always learn a lot and I think everyone here can benefit from different POV...

It's tough when you feel that something you're discussing is being belittled in some way, but I assure you, with this gang, it's not...some just step in and say something quickly while others have more to add to the subject at hand...you are amongst friends, even if we all disagree at times...

Hiltonian

That's so Bronson

 

[WWJD]

Still waiting for you to point out those churches that practice all that murder and such

Wait no longer...

Church of God

Church of Christ

Catholic Church Million and millions[/quote]
so, specifically, you are saying that if I visited these 3 churches, and tell them I want to dedicate my life to their beliefs, they would ask me to go out and kill people, right?

 

[Pfal]

This story shows why the separation of church and state is a good idea.

read me

 

[VaBusa]

so, specifically, you are saying that if I visited these 3 churches, and tell them I want to dedicate my life to their beliefs, they would ask me to go out and kill people, right?

Only after you learn the "secret handshake"

 

[WWJD]

"We are all amongst friends and keep things civil around here

"

Absotively. We do this a lot, since many enjoy reading and writing in these threads. All ideas and opinions respected and encouraged

 

[WWJD]

"Christians reading too much into stuff..."

and L Ron Hubbard is JUST a Science Fiction author... right?

No, nearly everything has a "message" in it. EVERYTHING. Sometimes, it's really hidden and only speaks to the ID. I would be very suspect of the things subliminally endorsed in a movie like this, espeically if it is meant for children. To that, I WOULD take my kids to see Narnia KNOWING FULL WELL the hidden ideals behind that movie.

It's ALL black and white: Things either promote good or evil. No fence stradling possible. Two masters can NOT be served

 

[WWJD]

crashbomb, are you into "paradise engineering?" just curious

 

[CrashBomb]

so, specifically, you are saying that if I visited these 3 churches, and tell them I want to dedicate my life to their beliefs, they would ask me to go out and kill people, right?

No one is saying that.

Your point is an example of what is called "observational selection" as Francis Bacon described it, the enumeration of favorable circumstances; i.e. "counting the hits and forgetting the misses." Just because these churches wouldn't overtly admit to murder and persecution of contradictory view points as fundamental to their core beliefs does not mean they have not perpetrated some of the most heinous crimes against humanity in the name of what they believe is "the one true religion."

 

[CrashBomb]

crashbomb, are you into "paradise engineering?" just curious

That depends on your definition of the word "into."

If you're asking whether or not I know of the Abolitionist or Bioethical movement, then yes.

If you're asking whether I think the movement that grew out of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian ethic in 2002 is a valid and useful Humanist philosophy, then that's a trickier question that really can't be answered without a lot of very complicated explanation.

If you're simply asking whether or not I agree David Pearce's hypothesis that "eternal happiness" is possible, whether it's through chemical engineering or religious experience, then no. "Happiness" is another one of those tricky words to define, like "love" and "god" and "theory." It's almost impossible to define "happy" without also defining "sad," and vice versa. I don't think Utopian societies, at least for humans, are possible or sustainable.

Some of the early ideas presented by the "Paradise Engineering" camp were interesting from a psychological point of examination. But since Pearce's views seem to have largely pushed out the views of the other founding fathers it's looking more and more like it's heading towards being just another form of Dianetics.

 

[CrashBomb]

It's ALL black and white: Things either promote good or evil. No fence stradling possible. Two masters can NOT be served

More fallacious logic. This argument is called the excluded middle or false dichotomy, considering only the two extremes in a continuum of infinite intermediary possibilities. It's also directly related to the slippery slope arguments that are so often thrown around when discussing abortion or the death penalty.

 

[WWJD]

1. that church question was for Revlis who feels churchs are meat-grinding, killing machines

2. a YES or NO would work here. but I understand why that is not possible reading on....

3. Paradise Engineering for those that have never heard of it: a chemical answer for feeling bad things like guilt, remorse, regret... numb or short it out. Nevermind the positive impact of FACING and DEALING with certain feelings. Science helping dehumanize us yet again. Boy, they just don't let up do they?

4. the logic is perfect. if one is in between, one is neither good nor bad. just confused. that pulls out any finite "Wrong" or "Right" and ends up in the politcially correct world of "it depends". Between Yes, No, and Maybe, only Maybe accomplishes nothing. "are you on our football team?" "Maybe.." "I guess you are not". If MAN could define right and wrong, maybe we wouldn't need a Bible. So far, he's failed to come close, and usually makes strides in the wrong direction

 

[CrashBomb]

1. that church question was for Revlis who feels churchs are meat-grinding, killing machines

2. a YES or NO would work here. but I understand why that is not possible reading on....

3. Paradise Engineering for those that have never heard of it: a chemical answer for feeling bad things like guilt, remorse, regret... numb or short it out. Nevermind the positive impact of FACING and DEALING with certain feelings. Science helping dehumanize us yet again. Boy, they just don't let up do they?

4. the logic is perfect. if one is in between, one is neither good nor bad. just confused. that pulls out any finite "Wrong" or "Right" and ends up in the politcially correct world of "it depends". Between Yes, No, and Maybe, only Maybe accomplishes nothing. "are you on our football team?" "Maybe.." "I guess you are not". If MAN could define right and wrong, maybe we wouldn't need a Bible. So far, he's failed to come close, and usually makes strides in the wrong direction

1. I know...I answered it anyway. I also pointed out the logical flaw in your implied argument there as well.

2. Regardless of what you believe, a simple "yes or no" very rarely "works." I can appreciate that's not what you were talking about when you made this statement but it is a further example of how a rigid binary belief system is intellectually limited.

3. Paradise Engineering does not seek to short out, numb, or circumvent human emotion. It seeks to better understand the chemical and molecular underpinnings of human emotion so we may actively participate in them. Regardless of whether or not I feel that it's a valid theory, just simply saying "they're going to short out and numb all human emotion," shows a complete misunderstanding of the of the bioethical principle on which the movement was founded. Your ignorance is not your fault, there is very little intelligent and valid commentary on the movement. Although I don't myself subscribe to this particular school of thought, I have done a lot of research and found that the majority of modern commentary on "Paradise Engineering" stems from the fact that most people simply fail to understand the theory itself. It is ABSOLUTELY not "dehumanizing science," it is an almost totally Humanist point of view and remains one of the very few schools of thought that can lay claim to that title.

4. No...I'm sorry. It's not. It's false logic, which is the opposite of "perfect logic." I've explained why it's not in the true Socratic logical sense but I fear that has gone over some heads. Your football team analogy, although with this you're arguing a completely different point than "right vs. wrong," you're arguing "are vs. are not," is also logically thin. You are equating "right" and "wrong" with "yes" and "no" respectively. The question, re: right v wrong, that you should be asking is "is it 'right' or 'wrong' to be a member of our football team?" To which I would reply, "Maybe. I'm unable to give a definitive answer without more information. How often does the team play? How much do I get paid? What will my duties be and to what extent will I be expected to fulfill them? And what is "right and wrong" anyway? Right and wrong for me? Right or wrong for the team? Right or wrong in the eyes of God? etc etc." Without this information I am unable to provide a logical response and you have just self refuted your own position that "there can only be two opposing positions and nothing in between." This is called informal fallacy based on misrepresentation. It's also become known in the 20th century as the "straw man." The name comes from using dummies in combat training, making them easy to attack in order to foster better combative skills in a fighting force. To set up a straw man is to set up a position that is easy to refute (i.e. you can't answer "maybe" to whether or not you ARE or ARE NOT on a football team) and then attribute that position to your opponent's argument. The technique is often used to deliberately overstate the opponent's position, characterizing it in a light that makes it seem ridiculous. A straw man can and has often been a useful rhetorical tool, in other words it may succeed in swaying opinion, but it remains a logical fallacy in a Socratic debate because your opponent's position has not been logically refuted.

 

[WWJD]

There was no argument. Rev tells me churchs kill people. I say they don't. PEOPLE kill people. Just like in the non-chuchies. PEOPLE are at the root of these evils, not churches or religious beliefs.

Yes or no, was all I needed. You gave me your answer by acknoledging knowledge of "PE"

Paradise Engineering, most of the parts I've read anyway, DOES seek to numb or short out our painful emotions. It probably does other stuff to that I won't have time in my life to bother reading about

There are better was to discuss things with people than telling them their points false. Usually, things are to general to drop into that catagory in one shot. The analogy is valid:

You are standing on the sidelines at a locals football game where anyone is invited to play. They are starting the game, and a player walks by you and asks are you playing or not? You either are or you aren't. It's really that simple because in a few more seconds the reality of either choice will be concreted: you will be playing or you will not be playing in the next part of the game. No time for some deep discussion or talk of wages or checking the weather, you are in or out. That simple. That said, ANYTHING can be torn down phrase by phrase, word by word, letter by letter, inference by inference and discected from here to until eternity.... accomplishing nothing.

If doesn't matter if your from the school of life, or a 90 year old book read super genious. If you are standing around scratching your head, you have chosen one side or the other.

Something is not a LITTLE bit evil or good, it is either evil or good. Done.

The watering down of the simpliest things is much of the problem in teh world today.

 

[CrashBomb]

Paradise Engineering, most of the parts I've read anyway, DOES seek to numb or short out our painful emotions. It probably does other stuff to that I won't have time in my life to bother reading about

This is exactly my point. Your misunderstanding of the basic theory is evidence of the lack of good representation of the subject on the internet. The parts you have read about and the commentary you've read on the subject are not representational of the theory itself. Regardless of what you have read or don't have time to bother reading, bioethicists DO NOT SEEK TO NUMB OR CIRCUMVENT PAINFUL EMOTIONS. Period. End of line.

 

[CrashBomb]

There are better was to discuss things with people than telling them their points false. Usually, things are to general to drop into that catagory in one shot.

You're confusing false logic with false argument. How can you participate in intellectual and logical discourse with invalid logic, regardless of the validity or invalidity of your statements? Your fallacious arguments and presuppositions short circuit the discussion before it even gets started. The discussion can stem from WHY your arguments are invalid, but your arguments on the original point remain impossible to discuss if they are proven invalid.