Don't try and reason with AquaManfist. He cares nothing about rules, only his ego. Hence he prides in whole threads dedicated to breaking rules and site guidelines, only to squeal like Cartman when he can try and ban someone else who violates the rules. Respect his autoritay. (That's why he sees the world through his comic allegories, it's all about him and his ego)

Allegory of my life

Is imstellar an idiot? Let's figure it out democratically.

Upvote this comment if yes. Downvote if no.

Imstellar is a firm believer in 50% +1 rule, so I'm sure he will not contest our Democratic conclusions.

Breaking: As of 2:00AM, the voting is very close, but the "Yes on Prop imsteller is an idiot" camp has pulled off a very narrow 1 point victory, which is a tough break for the 'No, Imstellar is not an idiot' camp. The proponent of this initiative was wrong to trample on imstellars equal rights and to publicly question harmless personal aspects of his being, but the people have spoken, and their wishes need to be respected.

(note to the irony impaired: This is an allegory, with Iamstellar28 playing the part of a gay Californian, DFT as the Mormon Church and the rest of you playing the electorate. Nice work people. See you at the cast party.)

You know, even though it's not intended as such, this serves as a pretty decent *howto on how to make a kite.

And then fail, of course.

The non-existent Christian allegory, by the way, is great. (First kite destroyed on cross, reborn...)

I'm reading too much into this as usual.

The kite trying to destroy him in teh end, isn't that just a bit *dark?

He meant to do that.

Your answer seems to be based on the pretense that the Bible is a valid source of information. It's a collection of old fables, allegories and legends with a bit of often inaccurate history mixed in. It was written by a variety of men, collected, censored, and edited by clergy, and distributed under the false pretense that it was the inerrant word of god. There is no archaeological evidence that the jews were ever in captivity in Egypt, nor is the story of Noah even physically possible. If the authors of the Noah story meant it to be taken literally, they were so amazingly ignorant that they thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

I wonder if they will keep the Christian allegory from the original (Klaatu was a Christ figure).

I was hoping you'd raise some issue about which I could argue, but I agree with you completely. Damnit. ha!

So what is your opinion of Sweden versus America? I always see Sweden at the top of the list when it comes to social issues, and I'm jealous. Are the lists an accurate portrayal of Swedish society?

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Let's just agree that no argument, example or viewpoint should be completely set in stone. We all make up imperfect opinions based on imperfect information, and trying to hold the mindset that as many of ones opinions as possible are open for change is imperative for a meaningful discussion of just about any kind.

The problem as I see it with people being against abortion is that I feel they're (and they in this case is the people in general) trying to create a moral highground where none exist by not looking at the implications and consequences of denying a woman the right to an abortion in a clinic. To be honest, looking at it realistically, women will still do abortions regardless of whether or not there's a law saying they can't. In that regard the practical discussion is about whether we let professionals in the field of medicine deal with it, or the women themselves with a coathanger in the forest at night. The ethical discussion is something I've got some thoughts on aswell, but that's for a separate paragraph.

There was this girl who killed herself in Ireland by putting a dirty stick into her uterus, because she'd been raped and couldn't cope with giving birth to that baby even though her family had given her their support. This is the reality of women doing abortions, and the consequence of trying to ban the practice of medical abortion by creating an argument for "a womans right to choose" versus "a fetus' right to life". I think the reality is that neither of those are valid arguments in this issue, because just like that Irish girl felt she did not have a choice when it came to her pregnancy, and risked and subsequently took her own life to stop it. It's very hard for someone who hasn't experienced it to imagine that level of desperation.

It's very easy for someone completely detached from the people, families and society affected by the presumptive abortion to try and create a moral highground against it. In my mind it also seems shortsighted and disregards the motives for the abortion, the implications of raising an unwanted child and the repercussions in society. These women don't look for an abortion as an alternative to condoms, they don't go through with it on a whim and it's not a decision that in any stretch could be conceived as being taken lightly.
A woman not being able to support her child emotionally and/or financially aswell as provide security and education is among the worst kinds of mental torture you could inflict on a person. This kind of mentality leads to poverty, intolerance, social injustice and crime which in turn leads to a huge strain on society, affecting even more people and creating a plethora of additional problems. Now, obviously I'm not saying that anti-abortionists promote crime and injustice, but what I am saying is this: The sanctity of life simply does not end at conception.

Finally, my take on the religious argument about the moment of conception and the soul. I look at it like this:
I don't think Jesus actually existed but is the (oh lord I don't know the correct word for it, allegory?) unreachable goal which we should all strive for. I believe the religious thinkers who roughly 2000 years ago started talking about these paragons of virtue (of which they eventually picked Jesus) wanted to push as many good stories and attributes on the icon as possible, partly because people would get a moral compass to frame, direkt and solidify their mentality/behaviour and partly because they wanted people to keep striving to become better human beings (better at humanity?), never being able to reach it and would therefore come back for more.
Just like I don't think Jesus was actually walking around 2000 years ago and curing lepers and feeding the masses with a loaf of bread, I don't believe the soul is an actual, material entity. I don't think the soul (if you believe in that sort of thing) is something you receive upon conception at all but is the representation of ones life, dreams, memories, experiences, knowledge and feelings. As such, a fetus which has no organs, no immune system, no consciousness or subconsciousness in my mind has none of the things that would make up ones soul, since it hasn't actually lived yet. This alone would naturally not warrant the termination of a pregnancy, but I think it's important to realize a fetus at that point is medically and practically not yet a human being. Actually, in Sweden it's illegal to even try and save a fetus born too prematurely (I think it's any fetus born in the 25th week of pregnancy or earlier). Because quite frankly, if the fetus would survive the incubator with the looming 99.9% mortality rate, partly due to having no immune system whatsoever, it would be so incredibly handicaped and in such pain for the rest of its short life that it would be constituted as torture of the worst possible kind.

So yeah, I do think that abortion is the result of society not taking responsibility for it's members. It's the result of injustices, intolerance, hate and a terrible inability of some persons to put themselves in the situations of others.
I think that in a perfect world, no woman would be targeted for rape, would be discriminated and hamstrung to the point where she had to rely on the good graces of others to support her and even moreso any future offspring of hers, would be isolated and judged by an archaic system of hate and intolerance, and where people would take personal responsibility for everyone's prosperity.
Today however, for the most part, it feels like we're not so much a coherent society as we are a separate group of clans having to share livingspace (on s societal level of course, on a international level we're not even sharing).
Taking responsibility is key here, and that is not achieved by picketing a doctor's home or telling women they're murderers. Taking responsibility is helping them raise the child, which you probably won't see anyone do before hell freezes over.

I'm sorry for dragging this out a bit. It's such a loaded issue that it's extremely hard to show how you feel about it without either getting labeled effectively getting words put in your mouth that are not your own, or getting completely ignored for saying something and not elaborating on it enough.

*allegory

I see what you're saying, Doc_M, though I disagree with it fundamentally. If the theist and atheist were scientists, then they would apply the scientific method to all their hypotheses, which means (according to wiki) "gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." You hence make observations and test the hypothesis while collecting data. So, if the first experiment renders 1+2=3 then the empirical data would show 1+2=3. If they don't know the value of the numerical symbols in that equation, then by reason they'd understand those numerical symbols to be representative of the truth based on tested and proven fact. 1+2 will always render 3 as the outcome.

If the theist believes the numerical symbols are 1+1=2, for the sake of this argument, then it is up to them to apply scientific method to prove that hypothesis. If it cannot be proven, it cannot be a theory, right? It remains a hypothesis. Creationism remains a hypothesis because it has not been proven into a theory, whereas Evolution has been properly accepted as theory due to facts and adequate testing. So far, there are no facts that can prove or disprove the existence of a God or truth in the allegories of the New and Old Testaments (aside from historical accuracies of people's existence noted in the books). There are facts, however, that reasonably prove the history of life on Earth to begin 4 billion years ago.

That aside, the term knowledge is speciously ambiguous in this context, because colloquially we accept knowledge as being something familiar to learned fact or truth, but it is not necessarily a fact or truth. It can be quite the opposite. One of the definitions of knowledge is a familiarity with a specific subject. Therefore, if you're familiar with the text of the bible, I guess you would be knowledgeable and therefore you can freely note that as personal knowledge. It's also completely unproved knowledge, and therefore in the eyes of scientific method, wouldn't and shouldn't it be rebuked?

Faith is not fact. Faith is, so far, unproved. To me, this "faith knowledge" is a learning of the scriptures, therefore a learning of belief in a myth, which could be considered the same as someone knowledgeable of Gilgamesh (and I use that as an example of knowledge based on literary comprehension, NOT to compare your beliefs to a fictional story. That's important you understand that.). Therefore, the "logic knowledge" must be the learning of accepted theory, therefore the learning of fact (or reasonably proven and generally accepted fact).

If we cannot prove to theory the numerical values of 1+2=3, then we continue to observe and test and observe and test until we can. If it is proven that 1+1=2 like the bible says, then you will prove faith is fact. To prove the existence of God would be the biggest scientific achievement in the history of the planet. I maintain it cannot be done, though only time will tell. Godspeed, dear scientist.

Wait, a 9.99999 out of 10? Then how can you call it a God-awful piece of shit?

I personally enjoyed the CGI. To me, it was a guy's movie through and through. It had scantily clad women, it had gore and violence, it had well thought out action sequences (come on, that ending with the golden dragon was awesome.)! The CGI made it into a near photo realistic cartoon, and being a hardcore fan of comic books and anime from yesteryear, I was glad I didn't have to watch another "actor superimposed over CGI background" movie like, say, Phantom Menace.

And Malcovich's character was a Contagonist (embodies obstruction, envy), which is an important part of story structure, especially when dealing with archetypal characters which Beowulf most certainly does. Some believe the story of Beowulf to be a Christ allegory, which can also be said to be a monomythic Hero's Journey. Malkovich's character, Unferth, is jealous of Beowulf, because Unferth is unable to slay the Grendel. Hardly a puny role.

The "I am Beowulf" line is probably played out a bit because it sounds very reminiscent of the 300's "This is Sparta!" line which we've heard a zillion times now. I will concede this is unfortunate, and it also bothers me a bit, too. Still...

I AM BLANKFIST!

>> ^budzos:
there must be a beginning
No, that's just your human brain, wired for binary opposition, trying to find the "non-existence" to pair with "existence."
If the big bang theory is true, it's possible there is also a "big crunch", which allows for no true beginning or end to time and space, but creates definite points in time in the past and future beyond which we cannot observe, effectively serving as a beginning and end to the universe. Recent findings have shown the expansion of the universe to be accelerating, most likely due to dark matter, which sort of messes up this theory.
What really bugs me, SO MUCH, about this whole need for a beginning, is just what the show's host said... "where did God come from?" God is no explanation at all, a way to answer a question without thinking.


I wasn't stating that as an imperative belief, merely that it's a valid point to make. If you fixate on the idea that the Big Bang all there is to it you make the assumption that our current understanding of the universe is as good as its going to get and there's no sense in trying to look further. I think that line of reasoning is no different than the person who states God is the answer to everything, and there's no reason to look further.

When I think of things like this I'm always reminded of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. We should never become too fixated on what we know, because there could just as easily be something behind it. I think science has successfully turned around from looking at the shadows to take a look at the fire time and time again, that's how science progresses. So I think its important to ask the question how can there be existence without non-existence. I'm not saying its impossible (frankly I happen believe current theory regarding the origins /nature of the universe), but I don't think we should pigeonhole ourselves into thinking that way, hence why such thinking is always important.

Historical research proves that the bible is a compilation of many sources and not the true word of God, it was ratified and decided upon by various authors across many translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin and so forth.

I think it's rather silly to look upon the bible as anything other then an allegory for living life, but thats just me.

interesting observation in nashvillescene.com that the Iraq war is viewed by civilians, particularly civilian leaders, as Allegory rather than actual events where people suffer and die.

This crap is starting to make me sick.
I am an atheist. My wife is a Christian.
The reason we don't argue about this?
BECAUSE IF YOUR THEORY IS THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING, THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT NEW SCIENTIFIC THEORY COMES ALONG.

Evolution? GOD DID IT.
Dinosaurs? GOD DID IT.
Big bang? GUESS WHAT!!

I support anybody's rights of free speech in America but this argument is getting tired.

And for the literalists who think that the world is only around four thousand years old? Stop working on the sabbath(Exodus 35:2). Stop wearing clothes made of multiple fibers(Lev. 19:19). Cut all contact with any woman on her period(Lev. 15:19-24). And start stoning to death, anyone who doesn't comply(Lev. 24:10-16).

In short, whether you believe or not, some parts of the Bible are either allegory, or you're stupid.

And one more thing: How exactly does a country that is 70% Christian, persecute christians for their beliefs? Aren't we maybe throwing the word persecute around just a little to much?

I respect you but when you start throwing around words like persecution and intolerance. It sounds like your asking for a fight. And you still outnumber us almost ten to one. So suck it up a little will ya?!?!?!