Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Burning Zeppelin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Welcome / Birthday / Seeya! Forum / Hi
« on: November 13, 2010, 04:04:07 am »
What's up guys? I see you have new smileys!  


General Discussion / Zeitgeist: the Movie
« on: June 20, 2008, 03:19:44 am »
Has anyone seen it? What do you think of it? Do you think any of it is true? I couldn't find most of the facts about the Jesus myth, such as the birthday of Horus and all that stuff, so it's a bit dodgy.

General Discussion / Who's the hottest FF?
« on: May 03, 2008, 09:47:01 pm »
Not sure really.

Your topic title doesn't even make sense...and your initial post doesn't really shed any maybe you shouldn't have made it in the first place? Anyways, if the intent was to make a merged Male & Female Thread...I just did that...

General Discussion / Rickroll Radiohead.
« on: April 04, 2008, 03:33:04 am »
We're trying to get enough votes for Radiohead to notice this. Vote!

General Discussion / Oh no. Oh God no.
« on: April 02, 2008, 08:10:32 am »

If this has been posted before, sorry but...this shows so many things wrong with religion. Listen to the children, listen to their view on evolution...argh!

General Discussion / Take that V_Translanka!
« on: March 28, 2008, 06:02:25 am »
I'm not one to brag, but I wanted V to see this, since he said "Quitter! Am I to be cursed as the sole Lavos in the forums forever?  :lol:" Well, looks like I'm one too now :-P

General Discussion / On identity
« on: March 19, 2008, 07:51:13 am »
Ok guys, I'm really, really stressed out. I need to find 3 texts which relate to one of these 4 T. S. Eliot texts, and have something to do with personal identity. They don't all have to relate to the same texts though, so say the 3 texts are labelled (A, B, C), and the four Eliot ones are (1, 2, 3, 4). It can be A2, B4, and C2, or any pair of them. Sorry for complicating it, but I HAVE NO CHOICE. Text can be anything, as long as it is not an essay or non-fiction (although it can be an autobiography).

Anyway, here are the four texts we can choose from, and the common themes in each (read each one, and follow it with "and its effect on identity":

Preludes 1917 - Environment

Rhapsody on a Windy Night - Memory

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock - Love OR Social pressure

Journey of the Magi - Change OR Spirituality

Thanks again. Remember, the text has to in some way relate to the above poems and themes. AND again, text can mean film, music, literature...anything practically.

General Discussion / Arthur C, Clarke: Now an embryo in space
« on: March 18, 2008, 11:01:50 pm »
Arthur C. Clarke, famous science fiction writer, has died, aged 90

Arthur C. Clarke is undoubtedly one of my favourite science fiction writers. Along with Asimov and Heinlein, he was loved and cherished throughout the world, known for his gripping tales, and out-of-the world ideas. He is most famous for 2001: Space Odyssey, one of the greatest science fiction movies, and novel, of all time. However, he doesn't stop there, amassing an intimidating amount of written texts. He is also known for his laws of science:

  • When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  • The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
  • Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

R.I.P Arthur C. Clarke

General Discussion / God's amnesiac problem
« on: March 17, 2008, 07:18:41 am »
Quite possibly the first in a series of logical problems facing God
For this problem, I'm assuming this God is like the one that if literally taken, the Bible & the Qu'ran speak about. None of that metaphorical Hell or Heaven stuff, although this question could present a problem to that as well. Basically, I’ll describe Allah, since there aren’t many Muslims who think metaphorically in terms of Hell and Heaven

Imagine a warlord. Let’s call him...Richie Rich. He has exploited the religious masses, systematically killed every Muslim in his nation, and funds Zionist expansionism. He has murdered his parents, raped his sister, and coveted his neighbours wife, and draws cows and demons in his spare time. Not only that, he uses the lords name in vain, and is also, to top it all off, a hardened atheist.

Now, imagine Richie Rich unfortunately (if that word can be used for this person) hit his head on a stone wall, collapsed, and lost all his memories – every single one.

When he woke up, from a coma lasting a year or so, he was forgotten by the people who feared and - oddly enough – admired him. He was thought to of died in a bombing on his diamond palace (no, the bombing didn’t lead to his accident, a banana slip of all things did). He was secretly moved to a hospital in Switzerland, where all records of his former life were kept secret for him. Just for added security, the only people who knew about this transfer committed suicide. His name was changed to Johnny Quest. Johnny Quest got up out of bed, wondered what the hell he was doing there, and left. Whether or not he forgot basic things like language and movement is irrelevant – we’re assuming he has just forgotten everything about his former ‘life’. He decides it is for the best to help out everyone around him. He helps out with the local Mosque, aids the elderly and disabled, never has sex, doesn’t ever use the lords name in vain, and of course believes firmly in Allah, and that Muhammad is the last messenger of God.

He dies in a state of Islam.

Now here comes the tricky bit. Who will God punish/reward? First we should define ‘person’ and ‘soul’. A person is described as ‘a rational and conscious agent that is morally responsible for its actions’. Remember, a person is different from a human being, one being a collection of particles, the other being a collection of mental states and identities. Soul is a bit trickier. It can be seen as the substance of mind. Mind is the formation of soul. So basically, soul is to mind what clay is to the finished sculpture . Keep this in mind.
I have come up with hypothetical answers, and responses to them.

God will send him to Heaven, because God is all-Merciful/God will send him to Hell, because the sins this person committed severely outweigh his good deeds

You are forgetting something. God is meant to be Just. A major precept of Justice, in every code of conduct (although it is sometimes not seen in some, but that doesn’t take away from the general perception of it), is that a person cannot be punished for what another person did. If we look at the definition of person as noted above, RR cannot be rewarded for what JQ did, and JQ cannot be punished for what RR did. One would not know what the other did.

God will restore the memory of the soul, and rejoin the two ‘people’

This too would not work. I could justly claim that the newly conjoined person would literally explode with all this new information. And why not? All this memory...both sides would probably be extremely shocked at the memory revelations. Utter disbelief will not allow for this to be an appropriate strategy.

God will split the soul in two!

This is probably the best solution, but it still presents some problem. Remember, the person’s soul will go to the afterlife. If indeed a soul is just like a piece of clay used for sculpturing, then there can only be one soul per person. Therefore, a person’s soul must be singular. It may have been shaped differently after the accident, but RR and JQ share the same soul. It seems very, very odd that God would decide to create two different people, thus destroying the original soul (a division in philosophical identity destroys the original). This presents a huge number of problems to Islamic, and also Christian, theology.

There are a huge number of solutions to this, and I may have thought about them previously, but forgotten. This was written in fifteen or so minutes, so I probably forgot a few things. If you’d like to, present your own solutions, ask questions about the dilemma, or criticize my reasoning. I hope it made sense, and mostly, I hope it is reasonable.

General Discussion / The psychedelic experience of Moses
« on: March 14, 2008, 08:55:22 pm »

Wow, that was pretty unexpected.

There is obviously a lot of opposition, but I like this one the best from the forum I found the link in:

"I did a lot of drugs in my life but I never had any thunder, lightening and a blaring trumpet moments to be honest.
Must have been some good dope in those days or that guy is talking out of his ass."

General Discussion / Fidel Castro resigns!
« on: February 20, 2008, 06:03:41 am »
Although it was for reasons of illness, rather than for the good of the people, it is still a landmark moment in history. Although I'm not one of those "Cuba fucking sucks" American dudes, I still didn't really like the guy.

General Discussion / Supermajority verdicts
« on: February 16, 2008, 08:07:47 pm »
What does everyone think about majority verdicts? (11-1, 10-2) I think it is absolutely horrendous. They're putting time and money over justice, that's what it is.

General Discussion / Is a Utopia possible?
« on: February 11, 2008, 04:48:59 am »
We're doing Utopia (the book and the idea) in my English Extenison class, and I'm wondering what everyone thinks about the idea. If it wasn't for my stupid English teacher, and my general laziness when it comes to writing, I'd of written a Krispin length epic post, but instead I opted for a more discussion provoking thread, one with more questions than answers.

  • What is your Utopia like?
  • What would need to be altered to achieve it?
  • Is your Utopia good for everyone equally, or just you?
  • Is it possible to achieve in this world?

My major problem with a "utopia" is whether or not it is even possible. When I think of a utopia, I think of one which is good for everyone, and not just me. A utopia either has everything possible good present in it, or at least everything present in it is good. But sometimes this is impossible. Let's take individuality and equality as examples. (noting that since I have never experienced a world with a complete absence of individuality, I can not assume how life would be like if I was born and educated in a way that shows only a lack of individuality, and therefore am proposing a world where we all understand the concept of individuality). You can not have complete individuality, and total equality, in the same society. Even though they are not complete opposites, and it is really comparing apples and oranges, you could present it in this way. 100% equality = 0% individuality. 90% equality = 10% individuality. As said before, this isn't very accurate, and doesn't make much sense either, but I think you can see where I am going. The problem is, the lack of one of these concepts is seen as bad. So even if everyone is completely equal, the mere absence of individuality is seen as a burden on the person, and even society. Vice versa. Everyone being an individual is good and all, and individuality coexisting with equality is possible, but in a utopia evil is impossible, and the mere presence of individuality would lead to selfishnes and bigotry.

Something else you could argue over is having emotions vs. basing everything on rationality (since every 'evil' is directly linked to human emotions, and basing things on rationality would undoubtedly nullify even the concept of evil, as everything would be done for a reason).

What I wrote above isn't the main point of discussion here (though you can argue against it if you want, I know I've made some pretty grave mistakes), it's just some stuff I thought about on the bus on the way home. If it didn't make much sense, or if it was incoherent, sorry about that, I'm not very good at writing.

General Discussion / Anonymous, Feb 10th
« on: February 02, 2008, 10:33:05 pm »
Is anyone planning on joining the protests or "raids" against Scientology on February the 10th? I welcome discussion on whether or not it is right to proceed with this protest, and whether or not Scientology should enjoy the same benefits as other religions. However, some differences between Scientology and other religions are:

1. Scientology exists only to make money

2. Scientology is far more secretive than any other religion, meaning that their purpose is not to provide spiritual enlightenment.

3. The flaws of other religions can be attributed to the era in which they were formed. Scientology is a modern religion, and yet it disproves of modern medicinal techniques.

4. While you could say other religions are also evil, most major religions provided a needed sense of morality and justice at their time of conception. Ethically, religion has come to the end of its usefulness. Scientology is not needed. It provides no just laws, nothing to help humanity, and does not even provide on a spiritual basis. The origin of humanity according to scientology is also bullshit.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10