FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Humanity is god





shivaghimire
When we meet someone who follow the religion different from us, we usually show quite different behavior. Anyone in this planet is equal in the eyes of god, why don't we understand? There is only one god but he came in different faces. We human are proud to be talented but we are fool enough that we are not able to recognize him. We differentiated ourselves in different religion and started to live separately. We should not do so, should not be separated in the name of religion. We should be close by heart with only one name of god, The Humanity.
Ankhanu
I'm not sure I follow. You imply that god is a singular entity, then go on to claim that the collective of humanity is god...
I agree concerning harmonious living, but, I'm just not sure what you mean concerning the nature of god.
shivaghimire
I am not sure that I believe in god or not. I told Humanity is god because humanity brings harmony in society as you told me. I too wants harmonious society. I don't want to tell my god is great. I want to follow the good aspects of all religions.
Ankhanu
Well, that doesn't require a belief in gods at all. You might be interested in Secular Humanism, for example.
Bluedoll
Then the name of God is “The Creator”. Since one God created mankind in God’s image then humanity mirrors qualities of God. However, no man is equal to God but has limitations and deviations away from God. Example vanity.

The greatest of all the ‘qualities’ is love. Yes I agree religion has managed to bring people together and enable many charitable acts but has also indulged in falseness to the purpose of it.

I would say to follow only the good parts of humanity would be to consider how harmony can be achieved with all men. Never an easy road but a rewarding one.
Bikerman
What does that even mean?
"to follow only the good parts of humanity would be to consider how harmony can be achieved with all men."
I can't make any sense of that. Clearly 'harmony' is meant as some sort of metaphor, but what does it mean? No fighting? Well I would hardly call that 'harmony'. People living without anger at each other and/or other opinions? That would surely require mankind to start building Vulcan temples and practising mental conrols to bury emotion. Is that what you want? Or do you mean the whole monty - no differences of opinion? That sounds like mind control and a horrible notion. These glib little phrases about universal harmony may be superficially attractive, if you don't think too hard, but they are ultimately sterile, if not fascist.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
What does that even mean?
"to follow only the good parts of humanity would be to consider how harmony can be achieved with all men."
I can't make any sense of that. Clearly 'harmony' is meant as some sort of metaphor, but what does it mean? No fighting? Well I would hardly call that 'harmony'. People living without anger at each other and/or other opinions? That would surely require mankind to start building Vulcan temples and practising mental conrols to bury emotion. Is that what you want? Or do you mean the whole monty - no differences of opinion? That sounds like mind control and a horrible notion. These glib little phrases about universal harmony may be superficially attractive, if you don't think too hard, but they are ultimately sterile, if not fascist.
The op said, (Humanity is God) We should be close by heart with only one, “The Humanity”.

I said, “I would say to follow only the good parts of humanity would be to consider how harmony can be achieved with all men”

What does that mean? Ok, reasonable question. Probably did not express that very well, sorry about that.

I meant if we strive personally to look for the good things about humanity because humanity is certainly not perfect, as it does have good and bad things in it. However, I thought if people make an effort to look for the good things and make a concentrated effort to try to choose harmony instead of conflict with others, that is with the people we connect up with, which is what I think the point was in the op (close by heart). I was agreeing with the op in that I thought there is a way to achieve harmony if we can throw off the negativity that others might emulate and try communicate with them on a common thread. I think if we look hard enough we can all find at least one thing to agree with and communicate about with hostilities. I was thinking on a personal level and not a global one.
Bikerman
But don't you think that much of our progress, as a species, has been a result of NOT accepting the general wisdom and NOT being willing to go along with the consensus?
If everyone strives to agree with each other then nothing gets done because everyone stands around slapping each other on the back and congratulating themselves on what splendid chaps they are. Conflict is vital to progress. Thesis + Antithesis = synthesis. That does not mean such conflict need be personal or even angry. Conflicting ideas can be debated and new information will often emerge as a result. That is the lesson of the Greeks and that is what has driven our progress from an insignificant primate to a species that can contemplate and explain much of our universe, living in luxury unthinkable to our predecessors, with hugely expanded life expectancy, largely free from hunger and pain. Out of disagreement comes progress. Out of harmony comes stultification and stagnation.
shivaghimire
highly motivating, 'this god is mine; that god is yours' will bring clash in society. So, we should focus on a single God. I started this topic 'humanity is god' knowing the verbal war between Hindu and Muslim in some parts of India, between Muslim and Christians in Arabian countries and between Hindu and Christians in some developing countries. I am afraid, this might bring a bad condition in near future. I just requested to take good aspects of every religion without discriminating other religion. Being a human, we can divide good and bad aspects of everything. Humanity stops the clash.
Yes, clash has both traditional and modern concept. Traditional concept wants to stop clash because it brings destruction. But Modern concept tells it brings competition, helps in development and take the society to prosperity. Clash in business might be good but in religion it kicks us backward and destruction.
deanhills
You missed the point Bikerman. Yes, conflict is obviously necessary, but surely there has to be a balance as if everything is conflict only, how on earth can there be any progress? It most certainly does not have to be of the back slapping variety, but the slap down variety is as ineffective as back slapping any time of the day.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
You missed the point Bikerman. Yes, conflict is obviously necessary, but surely there has to be a balance as if everything is conflict only, how on earth can there be any progress? It most certainly does not have to be of the back slapping variety, but the slap down variety is as ineffective as back slapping any time of the day.
That was my point. Of course I wasn't advocating conflict for the sake of conflict - simply pointing out that any idea of harmony is not only overly idealistic but also actually undesirable.
Conflict arises where there are different views and it is precisely in those situations where progress is likely to be made. Agreement/conformity, by definition, doesn't bring progress because progress, by definition, is a change in the status-quo.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
Agreement/conformity, by definition, doesn't bring progress because progress, by definition, is a change in the status-quo.
I think that is a bunch of garbage. No, Deanhills, Bikerman did not “miss the point” it is right on track with this op and what he believes. This is not a non-belief, but a belief. He believes that “Conflict is vital to progress and harmony brings stultification and stagnation.” I do not think it is very possible to attach non-personal or even non-angry to conflict in these contexts unless you are some kind of robot!


Comparison

He uses the Greeks, status quo as an example, the op is using religion as an example and I was using what we feel personally as an example but in the end it is all the same thing, what we believe. I will use one more example this message board. We both know Bikerman is the top dog around frihost, making the most posts of all the moderators, making most of the decisions with stickiness and policy and therefore creating the general atmosphere on the board to dominate it like no other administration member. The general belief being expressed is “conflict is vital to progress” with the evidence being the majority of posts. Now this is way it is around here so do not think I am complaining but only making a comparison. The point being is conflict a better solution than harmony? Bikerman obviously thinks so. The op seems to think conflict in religion “kicks us ackward and destruction.” and is questioning the feasibility of a worldwide solution for harmony.

Religious Perspective

I understand what shivaghimire is saying for religion is a very powerful motivator. After a conflict called Armageddon peace will be established on earth by God. That is my belief. My personal feeling is harmony is possible. Everything we need, competition, positive change, progress, decent relationships with each other, respect for other people and harmony if we have a general love for each other. God can help us with these things – satan will not!


_________________________________________


Making note here ->
perhaps for another discussion in another thread – did not the Greek civilization fall not because of having harmony but because of failure to monitor there economics of the time? The famous Athens coin of high value was threatened because of mining practices using slaves and under paying them and there was unfair practices towards the ‘lesser’ Greek populations (non-Greeks) thereby bringing hostilities to Greece and its final demise.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Agreement/conformity, by definition, doesn't bring progress because progress, by definition, is a change in the status-quo.
I think that is a bunch of garbage. No, Deanhills, Bikerman did not “miss the point” it is right on track with this op and what he believes. This is not a non-belief, but a belief. He believes that “Conflict is vital to progress and harmony brings stultification and stagnation.” I do not think it is very possible to attach non-personal or even non-angry to conflict
That is a personal limitation on your part, not a general truth about people. Most people manage to disagree with people without getting angry - in fact for many people it is a necessary part of everyday life. I've just sat in a 2 hour meeting about induction for next year's students. I proposed 2 activities and opposed 1 from another member of department. He opposed my activities. I won one and lost one. I am now about to go for a coffee with the chap concerned. There is no rancour, and certainly no anger, yet we have just both done our best to rubbish the proposals of the other. That is how adults interact.
Progress is, by definition, a change from what is current to something else. If everyone thought that the current situation was great (ie they were in harmony) then it wouldn't change. That is not 'garbage', it is very elementary logic.
Quote:

He uses the Greeks, status quo as an example, the op is using religion as an example and I was using what we feel personally as an example but in the end it is all the same thing, what we believe.
Well, I never mentioned the Greeks Status Quo, the Danish Led Zeppelin or the French Jimi Hendrix. You are confused.
I mentioned the Greeks because tbat is where our civilisation can be said to originate, and certainly that is where our tradition of debate and thesis/antithesis comes from.
The status quo is a phrase meaning 'things as they are'.
Quote:
I will use one more example this message board. We both know Bikerman is the top dog around frihost, making the most posts of all the moderators, making most of the decisions with stickiness and policy and therefore creating the general atmosphere on the board to dominate it like no other administration member.
Flattery will get you nowhere. I probably post more than any other mod - always have done. I don't make policy decisions and I'm certainly not top-dog. The staff operate as a team and my vote is worth no more than any other staff member. Ultimately the 'top dog' is Bondings, not me.
Quote:
The general belief being expressed is “conflict is vital to progress” with the evidence being the majority of posts.
Not quite. The evidence is just logic, not posts. Progress is change. Change occurs because the status-quo is somehow unsatisfactory. Therefore progress results from disatisfaction, or conflict, with the current system.
Bluedoll
The garbage is in relation to the original statement that “Agreement/conformity, by definition, doesn't bring progress”. I believe both can bring about change otherwise there would be little use to have diplomats.

To clarify what I meant regarding using this site as an example is that it appears by the sheer number of everyday posts, the degree of sticky and the force of influence in many topics, one staff member here does have much more forum ‘atmosphere influence’ (regarding using conflict versus harmony) than any other staff member by default, – this was being used for comparison purposes only in relation to the op and the topic – and is really all I have to say on that.

It is mentioned in this thread that our tradition of debate and thesis/antithesis comes from
the Greeks but is it not possible that some personal particular style, modification or application of those things are not exactly alike? I think it can be.

Quote:
Progress is change. Change occurs because the status-quo is somehow unsatisfactory. Therefore progress results from dissatisfaction, or conflict, with the current system. - Bikerman
I agree, this can and does happen but in relation to the op – harmony can as well. It can also be a process, conflict resulting in harmony when changes actually occur, yes but when making a directive as the op is saying .... which is better?




Personal reflection
I will relax on my posting in this thread to give someone else a chance to comment on the topic!
Quote:
That is a personal limitation on your part, not a general truth about people... Most people manage to disagree with people without getting angry - in fact for many people it is a necessary part of everyday life.- Bikerman
This is also a personal reflection on your part about my character because I said, “I do not think it is very possible to attach non-personal or even non-angry to conflict.” I have told you quite often you would do better (less conflict more harmony) to keep your personal comments about what you think are my character qualities to your self and instead focus on the topic. As my ‘personal limitations’ followed by a sarcastic ‘most people’ retort is not needed in this thread, it is obviously insulting and intentional. Sad

You can comment about your own belief and personal experience all you want as you do sometimes in your posts and that is quite acceptable but the truth is most people are not robots and do get affected in various degrees by everything going on around them. No human being with any kind of measure of intelligence, conscience and emotion is exempt.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
The garbage is in relation to the original statement that “Agreement/conformity, by definition, doesn't bring progress”. I believe both can bring about change otherwise there would be little use to have diplomats.
A red herring fallacy. The role of the diplomat is to support the government line whilst maintaining cordial relations with the host country. The diplomat is not trying for 'harmony', but simply trying to avoid disagreement becoming war.
Quote:
To clarify what I meant regarding using this site as an example is that it appears by the sheer number of everyday posts, the degree of sticky and the force of influence in many topics, one staff member here does have much more forum ‘atmosphere influence’ (regarding using conflict versus harmony) than any other staff member by default, – this was being used for comparison purposes only in relation to the op and the topic – and is really all I have to say on that.
This is very confused and confusing. By default? What default? What IS the default with regard to 'using conflict vs harmony'? I can make no sense of any of this. I post more than other staff, to be sure, but I largely confine my postings to p&r and science, with the odd excursion into faith, and pretty rare postings in politics and chat. I am not the most prolific poster on the boards, btw, so perhaps your comments should be addressed to the person who is..?
Quote:
It is mentioned in this thread that our tradition of debate and thesis/antithesis comes from the Greeks but is it not possible that some personal particular style, modification or application of those things are not exactly alike? I think it can be.
I can make no sense of this either. No two things are ever identical, so this is simply a truism. By definition a personal modification results in something 'not exactly alike' - so again that is a truism. What, exactly, is the point?
Quote:

Quote:
Progress is change. Change occurs because the status-quo is somehow unsatisfactory. Therefore progress results from dissatisfaction, or conflict, with the current system. - Bikerman
I agree, this can and does happen but in relation to the op – harmony can as well. It can also be a process, conflict resulting in harmony when changes actually occur, yes but when making a directive as the op is saying .... which is better?
As I said, progress comes from conflict. Harmony is the stasis which follows. I am glad you have finally realised this, but surely it did not require so much verbiage to see why it is correct?
Quote:
This is also a personal reflection on your part about my character because I said, “I do not think it is very possible to attach non-personal or even non-angry to conflict.” I have told you quite often you would do better (less conflict more harmony) to keep your personal comments about what you think are my character qualities to your self and instead focus on the topic. As my ‘personal limitations’ followed by a sarcastic ‘most people’ retort is not needed in this thread, it is obviously insulting and intentional. Sad
If you make personal comments about yourself then you should expect comment on them - that is your choice. If you don't use yourself as an example, then I would have no reason to point out the flaws and fallacies. I am not interested in harmony, I prefer progress. You defined your own personal limitations so you can hardly blame me for that. I'll decide what I 'need' to post and you decide what YOU need to post. Had you asked me to explain it I would have done so. Instead you gave your opinion, which was wrong and needed correcting, otherwise a perefectly valid point was obscured by a fallacy.
Quote:
You can comment about your own belief and personal experience all you want as you do sometimes in your posts and that is quite acceptable but the truth is most people are not robots and do get affected in various degrees by everything going on around them. No human being with any kind of measure of intelligence, conscience and emotion is exempt.[/size]
Oh? Since when have YOU spoken for human beings? You make a (rather unproven) assumption that YOU are intelligent, conscientious and emotional, and then seek to define what others must do to be considered proper human beings.
I think you make too many assumptions and assertions, in your anxiety to attack my postings - particularly when you have already basically agreed.
Many people - in fact most professional people I can think of, routinely, as part of their job, take positions in opposition to others. This obviously applies to lawyers, solicitors and barristers, but also applies in less obvious ways to scientists, architects, doctors, teachers etc etc. As I said, synthesis results from thesis + antithesis. Scientists routinely pull each other apart in the journals, but (most of the time) they realise that this is their job and is not personal
D'Artagnan
well, depending on te definition...

if you're saying the vengeful, sadic and unforgiving god then sure
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
You missed the point Bikerman. Yes, conflict is obviously necessary, but surely there has to be a balance as if everything is conflict only, how on earth can there be any progress? It most certainly does not have to be of the back slapping variety, but the slap down variety is as ineffective as back slapping any time of the day.
That was my point. Of course I wasn't advocating conflict for the sake of conflict - simply pointing out that any idea of harmony is not only overly idealistic but also actually undesirable.
Conflict arises where there are different views and it is precisely in those situations where progress is likely to be made. Agreement/conformity, by definition, doesn't bring progress because progress, by definition, is a change in the status-quo.
OK, that does sound logical, however if you look at your comment on Bluedoll's post, you interpreted hers just the other extreme round. Deliberately emphasizing conflict.
Bikerman wrote:
That is a personal limitation on your part, not a general truth about people. Most people manage to disagree with people without getting angry - in fact for many people it is a necessary part of everyday life. I've just sat in a 2 hour meeting about induction for next year's students. I proposed 2 activities and opposed 1 from another member of department. He opposed my activities. I won one and lost one. I am now about to go for a coffee with the chap concerned. There is no rancour, and certainly no anger, yet we have just both done our best to rubbish the proposals of the other. That is how adults interact.
Progress is, by definition, a change from what is current to something else. If everyone thought that the current situation was great (ie they were in harmony) then it wouldn't change. That is not 'garbage', it is very elementary logic.
It would be wonderful to be treated by you in the same way you treat your colleagues. Sometimes you do manage to discuss things in a normal "adult" tone, but very often you do slap people's arguments down. Bluedoll's rants that have been branded as trolling in my opinion are a direct product of those slap downs. I really marvel that someone with your intelligence have not been able to figure it out yet. If you slap someone down, mock and belittle them, one of two things will be a logical consequence. The person will either disappear from the Forum and go post elsewhere, or they will grow defiant and turn into "trolls".

By the way speaking of trolls, especially in light of that recent sticky on trolling that you put up in the Phil&Rel forum. How is it possible for a creation troll to post 166 troll posts in as little as 11 days exclusively in two Forums, matched on an almost one by one comment post by you with not a single sanction? And who is this epi97 really? I thought the entertainment was good, epi97 was kind'a cute and I'm happy for the posts for Frihost, but if this is allowed, then that makes a complete mockery of the sticky. Maybe you should take the sticky down?
Ankhanu
The nature of conflict and dissatisfaction in engendering progress/change is somewhat impossible to meaningfully refute... but, I'm not sure that harmony need be represented as simply getting along, all smiles and status quo. That seems excessively simplistic. Harmony, as I've read it, goes beyond agreement and into the realm of minimizing the intensity of conflict, i.e. preventing violence or strong emotional trauma. This can still maintain conflict, while seeking to reduce the harm that it can produce for individuals. In this sense, the driving motive behind change can still thrive. Part of harmony is accepting that nothing is permanent.

You can look to the nature of Zen gardens and the like as an example; they are constantly changing, but offer a point of balance (emotional/aesthetic at least) and structured harmony within their ephemeral, mutable nature.

deanhills wrote:
By the way speaking of trolls, especially in light of that recent sticky on trolling that you put up in the Phil&Rel forum. How is it possible for a creation troll to post 166 troll posts in as little as 11 days exclusively in two Forums, matched on an almost one by one comment post by you with not a single sanction? And who is this epi97 really? I thought the entertainment was good, epi97 was kind'a cute and I'm happy for the posts for Frihost, but if this is allowed, then that makes a complete mockery of the sticky. Maybe you should take the sticky down?


I've been curious about the appearance and focus of Epi since their first post that I read (time stamps indicate it to be their second post)... Their presence and activity patterns were quite curious, to say the least.
But, to say that there was no sanction is incorrect; you simply missed the edits or deleted posts... I saw a few of them, and, in fact, had one or two of my posts removed in the process.
Implementation of the trolling rule could have been stronger, I absolutely agree... but to say that it wasn't used at all is simply incorrect. Personally, I would have liked to see moderation come in a little harder than it did, but that's another issue. I'm also as much to blame for the situation as anyone, as I didn't just walk away from the BS and fed the fire trying to correct the wrongs presented. Perhaps I need harsher moderation on my activities Razz
Bluedoll
Deanhills wrote:
It would be wonderful to be treated by you in the same way you treat your colleagues. Sometimes you do manage to discuss things in a normal "adult" tone, but very often you do slap people's arguments down. Bluedoll's rants that have been branded as trolling in my opinion are a direct product of those slap downs. I really marvel that someone with your intelligence have not been able to figure it out yet. If you slap someone down, mock and belittle them, one of two things will be a logical consequence. The person will either disappear from the Forum and go post elsewhere, or they will grow defiant and turn into "trolls".

By the way speaking of trolls, especially in light of that recent sticky on trolling that you put up in the Phil&Rel forum. How is it possible for a creation troll to post 166 troll posts in as little as 11 days exclusively in two Forums, matched on an almost one by one comment post by you with not a single sanction? And who is this epi97 really? I thought the entertainment was good, epi97 was kind'a cute and I'm happy for the posts for Frihost, but if this is allowed, then that makes a complete mockery of the sticky. Maybe you should take the sticky down?
I agree there is a deliberation emphasizing conflict. The idea of adult or non-adult is really immaterial to me as I increasingly watch the years ticking by. When I was younger this idea of adult seemed to be important to me but now it has subsided. Perhaps if directed to a younger group it might have more meaning.

Bikerman wrote:
A red herring fallacy. The role of the diplomat is to support the government line whilst maintaining cordial relations with the host country. The diplomat is not trying for 'harmony', but simply trying to avoid disagreement becoming war.
This is very confused and confusing. By default? What default? What IS the default with regard to 'using conflict vs harmony'? I can make no sense of any of this. I post more than other staff, to be sure, but I largely confine my postings to p&r and science, with the odd excursion into faith, and pretty rare postings in politics and chat. I am not the most prolific poster on the boards, btw, so perhaps your comments should be addressed to the person who is..?
I can make no sense of this either. No two things are ever identical, so this is simply a truism. By definition a personal modification results in something 'not exactly alike' - so again that is a truism. What, exactly, is the point?
As I said, progress comes from conflict. Harmony is the stasis which follows. I am glad you have finally realised this, but surely it did not require so much verbiage to see why it is correct
If you make personal comments about yourself then you should expect comment on them - that is your choice. If you don't use yourself as an example, then I would have no reason to point out the flaws and fallacies. I am not interested in harmony, I prefer progress. You defined your own personal limitations so you can hardly blame me for that. I'll decide what I 'need' to post and you decide what YOU need to post. Had you asked me to explain it I would have done so. Instead you gave your opinion, which was wrong and needed correcting, otherwise a perefectly valid point was obscured by a fallacy.
Oh? Since when have YOU spoken for human beings? You make a (rather unproven) assumption that YOU are intelligent, conscientious and emotional, and then seek to define what others must do to be considered proper human beings.
I think you make too many assumptions and assertions, in your anxiety to attack my postings - particularly when you have already basically agreed.
The tone of Your post is angry. I needed to post this.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
OK, that does sound logical, however ifyou look at your comment on Bluedoll's post, you interpreted hers just the other extreme round. Deliberately emphasizing conflict.
No, I simply pointed out the error. Read it again. Is there any personal comment? Bluedoll made a general assertion, based on her own feelings/reactions. I simply pointed out that she was not archetypical, and that what she says she cannot do, is in fact done routinely by many people. What YOU perceive as a 'slap down' I perceive as an accurate, non-personal and non-emotional response.
Quote:
It would be wonderful to be treated by you in the same way you treat your colleagues.
You are - the difference is in the reaction. My colleagues know that disagreement is part of the process. You see it as personal attack and something to be 'defended against', rather than weighing the merits of the actual point and agreeing/disagreeing based on that.
Quote:
Sometimes you do manage to discuss things in a normal "adult" tone, but very often you do slap people's arguments down. Bluedoll's rants that have been branded as trolling in my opinion are a direct product of those slap downs. I really marvel that someone with your intelligence have not been able to figure it out yet. If you slap someone down, mock and belittle them, one of two things will be a logical consequence. The person will either disappear from the Forum and go post elsewhere, or they will grow defiant and turn into "trolls".
You really think I am not aware of my words and their impact? How interesting.
I mock some, where mockery seems aposite - usually those that are unshakable in their ignorance, repetitious without thought, zealous without understanding. Mockery seems to me to be the best tool in many such cases, since they are impervious to reasoned debate. I frankly don't really care if they disappear or not and if they do turn into trolls then that can be dealt with. The p&r forum is not a soapbox for the ill-informed opinions and convictions of any poster (including me). Anyone can post their opinion BUT unless they are prepared to rationally discuss it, then it belongs elsewhere.
Quote:
By the way speaking of trolls, especially in light of that recent sticky on trolling that you put up in the Phil&Rel forum. How is it possible for a creation troll to post 166 troll posts in as little as 11 days exclusively in two Forums, matched on an almost one by one comment post by you with not a single sanction? And who is this epi97 really? I thought the entertainment was good, epi97 was kind'a cute and I'm happy for the posts for Frihost, but if this is allowed, then that makes a complete mockery of the sticky. Maybe you should take the sticky down?
Good question. The reason I let this one go on for so long is as an example of why we framed the policy. I want posters and readers to understand WHY there is such a policy and WHAT it is aimed at. Rather than try to describe this, I saw a chance to illustrate it with a real example. I therefore followed the thread through as it would be, before the new policy. If you found it entertaining then fine - it may well be that there is a place for such threads. It may even be that this forum is the place - that is a decision for the posters and the moderators who operate here (I do not moderate here unless it is a simple issue of spam or obscenity). I just do not happen to believe that the &r forum is the correct place, and now that I have illustrated why, the new policy will be in effect.
As to the rest - I have no clue who epi is. I did the normal due dilligence and checked for a duplicate user - no match. I therefore can only take the poster at face value, since I have no other information (apart from their geographic location which I will not reveal, since that is privileged information). I could probably find out, but why would I put myself to the effort?
Bikerman
Ankhanu wrote:
The nature of conflict and dissatisfaction in engendering progress/change is somewhat impossible to meaningfully refute... but, I'm not sure that harmony need be represented as simply getting along, all smiles and status quo. That seems excessively simplistic. Harmony, as I've read it, goes beyond agreement and into the realm of minimizing the intensity of conflict, i.e. preventing violence or strong emotional trauma. This can still maintain conflict, while seeking to reduce the harm that it can produce for individuals. In this sense, the driving motive behind change can still thrive. Part of harmony is accepting that nothing is permanent.
This may be so, and it is certainly worth more discussion I think. I was quite 'specific' in my interpretation of the word 'harmony' and my response to it - I took it to mean 'non disagreement' since that seemed to me to be the main thrust of the usage. I agree that if one widens the scope then it is indeed a different debate. I would then wish to introduce the idea of the dialectic and see where that took us.... Smile
Quote:
You can look to the nature of Zen gardens and the like as an example; they are constantly changing, but offer a point of balance (emotional/aesthetic at least) and structured harmony within their ephemeral, mutable nature.
Ahh..nice example. I'm not sure, however, that harmony is the word here...perhaps I am being overly prescriptive. I think in this context the word would be 'acceptance', followed by words such as 'peace', 'fulfillment' maybe even 'tranquility'....?
Quote:
.....Personally, I would have liked to see moderation come in a little harder than it did, but that's another issue.
Actually it is the most important issue for me and, in the words of Wilde, you will my dear, you will.*

* reportedly issued as a reply to a fawning critic, who had just said (referring to a Wilde 'put down') 'I wish I had said that'.
Ankhanu
Perhaps my use is coloured somewhat by exploration into some of the Eastern traditions, Buddhism, Tao, Zen, etc., and the Japanese concept of Wa, 和. It does have connotation towards a slower pace, but change is an element. You were clear in your use of the word, no worries there, I just felt another perspective on the word was worth recognizing; one that's not exactly at odds with the point you were making Wink
Bluedoll
Quote:
I think that is a bunch of garbage... I do not think it is very possible to attach non-personal or even non-angry to conflict in these contexts unless you are some kind of robot! - Bluedoll
I stated that it is not possible to attach non-personal or non-angry in conflict. You have stated that this is possible and gave reasons. Ok, I am now walking away from that conflict.

A non emotional, non angry rebuttal to false claims.

Now this is a different conflict. You have stated (see below) that I have limitations regarding arguments and that I actually presented this as a fact in this thread. Where? Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are stating this but it is a lie and fraudulent. I believe this is true because you make things up as you go along and have no means to prove what you say is true. You have no idea what I am capable of or not capable of so therefore you can not make any kind of determination for this, plus in this thread, I never wrote any such thing!

Quote:
“That is a personal limitation on your part... Most people manage to disagree with people without getting angry... That is how adults interact...

No, I simply pointed out the error. Read it again. Is there any personal comment? Bluedoll made a general assertion, based on her own feelings/reactions. I simply pointed out that she was not archetypical, and that what she says she cannot do, is in fact done routinely by many people. What YOU perceive as a 'slap down' I perceive as an accurate, non-personal and non-emotional response.


The person that “cannot do” you will find is Bikerman. I never said I cannot do. Bikerman you are misquoting. Is that how a person is to provide evidence? Lie? Where did you get this information? You are mismanaging my words and that is a distortion. Unless you can actually make a determination by providing some evidence then what you say does not amount to very much now does it? I never said I was incapable of approaching an argument in a non-personal or non-emotional way, in fact I never gave any kind of personal reflection specifically on this. Are you looking on some other page or do you just blow these things out of thin air. How is it you know these limitations? If you going to write these kinds of distorted comments then the burden is on you to point out where so we can all draw this conclusion, prove it or you can stop with the comments all together because they have little merit. The posts in this thread you have made has been an excellent report about how posts should be conducted in your forum. Yes, you did read that correctly. I said excellent report. However by stating such expections and then not following through with them yourself is only proving that you can not deal with the obligations, you, yourself make. You are making assumptions about me. Prove that I am not capable of a non-personal and non-emotional conflict, in this thread, or accept you now lose another arguement and try to cease writing these kinds of lies about other posters.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
I do not think it is very possible to attach non-personal or even non-angry to conflict in these contexts unless you are some kind of robot!


This is a personal limitation; you don't think it's possible... that does not mean that it is not possible, just that you are unable to recognize, or ignorant of the ways that it is possible.

I have to take an opposing stance to yours in this matter; it is possible to disagree and not make/take it personal(ly). It's a choice to take things personally, a choice that we make. Even when something is aimed to create a personal reaction, it is ultimately our choice how we handle it.
In essence, this is a very important aspect of harmonious living... and is part of what is taught in the Bible (the nice parts, at least).

Anonymous Frih member wrote:
This is insanity. Way off topic, and, I feel, distracting from the topic and good responses. My only regret is saying anything to you, because I can gather from other threads that you are an inconsiderate jerk, and you're full of yourself.

This, for example, was aimed directly at me, with very personal language... I opted to not take it personally, and within a week or two, the author calmed down and appears to no longer hold grudge.

From this I took the valid elements and dismissed the emotional baggage associated with it. I could have gotten upset, I could have taken offense, I could have reponded in a manner to prolong a conflict and perhaps "win," but I did not. Obviously I didn't agree with everything they said, but, it's water under the bridge, as they say.

We have those choices. They're not always easy, but they're ours to make.

* I find it interesting that this element of the discussion is actually on-topic this time... it's usually the sidetrack Razz
Bikerman
This is actually quite funny.
Let's examine the logic
we start with
Quote:
I stated that it is not possible to attach non-personal or non-angry in conflict

And we get the complaint that
Quote:
I never said I cannot do. Bikerman you are misquoting.


So you believe it is not possible, but you didn't include yourself in the people who it is not possible for?
Ergo you are omnipotent, or at least superhuman (limitations which you state apply to the rest of us poor human schmucks don't apply to you, apparently).....

Apart from the fact that you seem to be confused about what constitutes a 'quote' ('Bluedoll said x' is NOT a quote...the two sentences above ARE quotes) you now appear to be claiming divine powers....

Ankhanu has it spot on - this is the most 'on topic' post I have seen you make. Now, would you please cure my aching back when you get a moment in your schedule? (I'm sure the demands on a divinity can be pressing and the workload heavy)

PS clearly I didn't misquote, mismanage or otherwise misrepresent your words, so the rest of your rant is baseless. Observe that I don't get annoyed or counter with a rant of my own, or call you a liar. I just find it amusing Smile That is fairly harmonious, even if it is in somewhat of a strange minor key....
There is an old saying which I suggest you think about. In paraphrase: 'When have dug yourself into a hole, more digging is unlikely to help'.
Bluedoll
Quote:
This is insanity. Way off topic, and, I feel, distracting from the topic and good responses. My only regret is saying anything to you, because I can gather from other threads that you are an inconsiderate jerk, and you're full of yourself.
You are not understanding this thread, I think?
If we are commenting on my post can you make an attemp to read it or understand the argument being presented? I clearly said that I was presently walking away from the argument of conflict versus humanity to consider a different arguement created by a false claim from Bikerman. It is very annoying however that you continue on the same thread-mill refusing to acknowledge that threads can actually progress. This is your choice however and to use sarcasm at a time when you are obviously at a loss as you know you can not possibly win this debate is an utterly a pathetic attempt to save face. Perhaps it is an over inflated ego that prompts this decision? I do know however that statements written can be either debated to a satisfactory end or they can be dropped. Sometimes after some evidence is laid down a debater can change their viewpoint on any subject and walk away with a new understandings. In short, statements are not written in stone. For a further understanding of this process try looking this up http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

It might even give a solution as a method for solving reoccurring backaches, who knows. However, the bottom line here is that the real argument being presented in my post is not concerning a conflict with some anonymous poster but with Bikerman’s obvious false claim. By the way, false claims regarding characterizations of other members, I think is quiet fitting to call a lie since it is a personal comment. (That is a personal limitation on your part as Bikerman stated)

Can you prove it is a personal limitation of mine? According to the obligations Bikerman is requiring everyone to make in posts, you must either prove the statement as correct or you will not be taken serious ( to apply sarcasm and try to be funny is to distract from argument is certainly not relevant to the argument) or you withdraw your claim.

So lets look at the proof. You can prove this is my personal limitation because...

    Quote:
    This is a personal limitation; you don't think it's possible... that does not mean that it is not possible, just that you are unable to recognize, or ignorant of the ways that it is possible.” –Ankhanu


    This is garbage logic because I already said I was walking away from that argument if you had actually had read the post, you would be aware that this is no longer the argument. Walking away can apply for example that in the current definition being presented here in this thread for “conflict” provided by Bikerman, the statement that I indeed made, could be considered inaccurate from Bikerman's new evidence on this old arguement. There is no further need of debate on this then. Since this belief is no longer applies at least this stage of the thread then your assumption that I have a personal limitation regarding debate is sourly false. It does not prove a thing. I am able to recognize that debate can be robbed of emotion and can apply this method to my posts as well. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that you think you are the only person that can make this choice. This is not proof, that I actuallly do have this limitation.

    Sorry no cigar!


    Quote:
    So you believe it is not possible, but you didn't include yourself in the people who it is not possible for?


    the exact same point Ankhanu made
    no cigar either

    Quote:
    PS clearly I didn't misquote, mismanage or otherwise misrepresent your words...

    This might be amusing if it was not so pathetic. The only evidence supplied here for his proof is.. “I didn’t”.


Bikerman can make personal comments about other members but has no proof or way to confirm his claim as true. He can misrepresent what other members say but can not justify it other than to say, “I didn’t.”
Obviously, there is no possible way to deny making baseless, false personal claims about other members has very little justification other than an attempt to discredit them without proofs. Anyone can see the claim that have a limitation for debate is false and if one connects a personal element to it - a lie. Since no proofs can be had that I have these limitations in debate, perhaps it is time to move on in this thread and discuss what the op had in mind.


_____________________________________________________



This thread strikes up a chord with what the member that posted it was trying to convey however in this thread God does not appear to be humanity. Harmony must be accompanied by baseless conflict that discredits without logic, without proof and without much seriousness. If the rest of humanity followed this kind harmony, I doubt that it would be very ‘peaceful’.
The real answer to this dilemma (for humanity) is to approach God for humanity as a solution to humanities ills. In a way, looking at the title in a somewhat different perspective, Humanity is God could be considered a play on words but only if you included after the title that without the presence of God in everyday life, humanity on it’s own will provide nothing much except conflict some of which may be hostile.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
OK, that does sound logical, however ifyou look at your comment on Bluedoll's post, you interpreted hers just the other extreme round. Deliberately emphasizing conflict.
What YOU perceive as a 'slap down' I perceive as an accurate, non-personal and non-emotional response.
No dice Bikerman. This is Pavlov .... if you keep slapping someone down over a long period of time, as you have been doing with Bluedoll, you don't have to say much in order for it to have the effect of a slap down. She may react even before you have said something. She knows exactly what is going on in your head viz a viz debate with her. So do I.
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
It would be wonderful to be treated by you in the same way you treat your colleagues.
You are - the difference is in the reaction. My colleagues know that disagreement is part of the process. You see it as personal attack and something to be 'defended against', rather than weighing the merits of the actual point and agreeing/disagreeing based on that.
Not true Bikerman. I'm almost certain that you don't tell your colleagues they are liars. Or bigots. Or hypocrites.
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Sometimes you do manage to discuss things in a normal "adult" tone, but very often you do slap people's arguments down. Bluedoll's rants that have been branded as trolling in my opinion are a direct product of those slap downs. I really marvel that someone with your intelligence have not been able to figure it out yet. If you slap someone down, mock and belittle them, one of two things will be a logical consequence. The person will either disappear from the Forum and go post elsewhere, or they will grow defiant and turn into "trolls".
You really think I am not aware of my words and their impact? How interesting.
What you are aware off I obviously cannot know, I just see the consequences of your words and how people react to you.
Bikerman wrote:
Good question. The reason I let this one go on for so long is as an example of why we framed the policy. I want posters and readers to understand WHY there is such a policy and WHAT it is aimed at. Rather than try to describe this, I saw a chance to illustrate it with a real example. I therefore followed the thread through as it would be, before the new policy. If you found it entertaining then fine - it may well be that there is a place for such threads. It may even be that this forum is the place - that is a decision for the posters and the moderators who operate here (I do not moderate here unless it is a simple issue of spam or obscenity). I just do not happen to believe that the &r forum is the correct place, and now that I have illustrated why, the new policy will be in effect.
So does this mean that we can take the sticky down, as that is trolling and responding to trolling (feeding the trolls)?
Bikerman wrote:
As to the rest - I have no clue who epi is. I did the normal due dilligence and checked for a duplicate user - no match. I therefore can only take the poster at face value, since I have no other information (apart from their geographic location which I will not reveal, since that is privileged information). I could probably find out, but why would I put myself to the effort?
I'm sorry Bikerman, I don't buy this. But obviously have no evidence for it. And you know it.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
No dice Bikerman. This is Pavlov .... if you keep slapping someone down over a long period of time, as you have been doing with Bluedoll, you don't have to say much in order for it to have the effect of a slap down. She may react even before you have said something. She knows exactly what is going on in your head viz a viz debate with her. So do I.
No, you THINK you do. If she reacts before I have said something then.....follow your own logic
Quote:
Not true Bikerman. I'm almost certain that you don't tell your colleagues they are liars. Or bigots. Or hypocrites.
I most certainly would if they were being so. What is more, I would expect them to do the same for me. Lying, bigotry and/or hypocrisy have no place in formal/academic discussion - in a college or on a philosphy forum - and it is not only right to call people on it, I would consider it required.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
Good question. The reason I let this one go on for so long is as an example of why we framed the policy. I want posters and readers to understand WHY there is such a policy and WHAT it is aimed at. Rather than try to describe this, I saw a chance to illustrate it with a real example. I therefore followed the thread through as it would be, before the new policy. If you found it entertaining then fine - it may well be that there is a place for such threads. It may even be that this forum is the place - that is a decision for the posters and the moderators who operate here (I do not moderate here unless it is a simple issue of spam or obscenity). I just do not happen to believe that the &r forum is the correct place, and now that I have illustrated why, the new policy will be in effect.
So does this mean that we can take the sticky down, as that is trolling and responding to trolling (feeding the trolls)?
Nope, it stays.
Quote:
I'm sorry Bikerman, I don't buy this. But obviously have no evidence for it. And you know it.
Obviously I know you have no evidence for 'it' because the truth is the one I quoted, so any counter hypothesis is obviously wrong. Whether you 'buy' it or not is your problem, not mine. I don't have a history of creating false users - it is something I have never done. Nor do I invite others to post here without declaring (if that user DOES post) that I have done so - as with mkelsey in the science forums.
Bluedoll
I once read (not exact words you used but the same meaning I think) that if something you put out there had falsity in it, the forum was the place to put it, as it would be refuted and if you could see it would learn from the activity. You have learned nothing and only want to continue on the same trend.
Quote:
Not true Bikerman. I'm almost certain that you don't tell your colleagues they are liars. Or bigots. Or hypocrites. - Deanhills

What is more, I would expect them to do the same for me. – Bikerman
It is direct and true, as we do know your responses by now, only too well. Yet, you complained in this thread about being called out for your lie, negating everything you just said now.

You had an opportunity to learn something from this thread, that you are indeed human, can make mistakes, but continue to contradict yourself. You may choose to stand your ground which position has awarded you the privilege but by doing so you loose your creditability.




Back on the tread. . . humanity is not working here .... we do need something else!
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
No dice Bikerman. This is Pavlov .... if you keep slapping someone down over a long period of time, as you have been doing with Bluedoll, you don't have to say much in order for it to have the effect of a slap down. She may react even before you have said something. She knows exactly what is going on in your head viz a viz debate with her. So do I.
No, you THINK you do. If she reacts before I have said something then.....follow your own logic
That is actually exactly what I have done.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Not true Bikerman. I'm almost certain that you don't tell your colleagues they are liars. Or bigots. Or hypocrites.
I most certainly would if they were being so. What is more, I would expect them to do the same for me. Lying, bigotry and/or hypocrisy have no place in formal/academic discussion - in a college or on a philosphy forum - and it is not only right to call people on it, I would consider it required.
I can't believe that you would stay long in a place like that if you confronted people the same as you have done to some of us in this Forum. One often find academia who falsify information because there is pressure on them to publish papers or for promotion or various reasons, or by accident, it goes with the territory and no one is perfect. When that happens as far as I know they rarely get confronted directly. They get to be reported to a Committee and investigated "confidentially" and thoroughly.
Bikerman wrote:

Bikerman wrote:
Good question. The reason I let this one go on for so long is as an example of why we framed the policy. I want posters and readers to understand WHY there is such a policy and WHAT it is aimed at. Rather than try to describe this, I saw a chance to illustrate it with a real example. I therefore followed the thread through as it would be, before the new policy. If you found it entertaining then fine - it may well be that there is a place for such threads. It may even be that this forum is the place - that is a decision for the posters and the moderators who operate here (I do not moderate here unless it is a simple issue of spam or obscenity). I just do not happen to believe that the &r forum is the correct place, and now that I have illustrated why, the new policy will be in effect.
Quote:
So does this mean that we can take the sticky down, as that is trolling and responding to trolling (feeding the trolls)?
Nope, it stays.
Right, that obviously tells a story in its own right. Along George Orwell's Animal Farm lines.
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
I'm sorry Bikerman, I don't buy this. But obviously have no evidence for it. And you know it.
Obviously I know you have no evidence for 'it' because the truth is the one I quoted, so any counter hypothesis is obviously wrong. Whether you 'buy' it or not is your problem, not mine. I don't have a history of creating false users - it is something I have never done. Nor do I invite others to post here without declaring (if that user DOES post) that I have done so - as with mkelsey in the science forums.
I have not accused you of falsifying identities. That is your deduction Bikerman. My questions are logical questions and very reasonable. In addition, I find it very curious that this epi97 did a vanishing act almost immediately after I questioned the number of his posts in the Official God thread and put a report in about him. There was something familiar in his writing that I could not quite put a finger on. He deliberately downgraded his style of writing, and towards the end slipped a little when the sentences became better punctuated.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
No dice Bikerman. This is Pavlov .... if you keep slapping someone down over a long period of time, as you have been doing with Bluedoll, you don't have to say much in order for it to have the effect of a slap down. She may react even before you have said something. She knows exactly what is going on in your head viz a viz debate with her. So do I.
No, you THINK you do. If she reacts before I have said something then.....follow your own logic
That is actually exactly what I have done.
Good, so tell us your conclusion because the obvious one is that anyone reacting to comments before they are made is irrational.
Quote:
I can't believe that you would stay long in a place like that if you confronted people the same as you have done to some of us in this Forum. One often find academia who falsify information because there is pressure on them to publish papers or for promotion or various reasons, or by accident, it goes with the territory and no one is perfect. When that happens as far as I know they rarely get confronted directly. They get to be reported to a Committee and investigated "confidentially" and thoroughly.
Nonsense. Every so often you treat us to this sort of insider knowledge of how science works. It appears to be based on nothing more than your imagination.
'One often find academia who falsify information' - really? Assuming this means what I think it means then I'm sure you can provide a list of academics who have falsified information and show us just how 'often' it happens?
" When that happens as far as I know they rarely get confronted directly" - but the point is that you don't really have a clue what happens. Of course people are confonted directly. If someone tells lies in an academic setting then the whole point is that peer-review will find it out. You don't need a committee, simple peer-review does the job. When other scientists cannot reproduce the results they will most certainly challenge their colleague. If they suspect he is lying then you can bet that the academic in question will be bombarded with questions about the matter.
Quote:
Right, that obviously tells a story in its own right. Along George Orwell's Animal Farm lines.
Moderation decisions are not subject to debate in public forums.
Quote:
I have not accused you of falsifying identities.
It is well that you don't.
Quote:
My questions are logical questions and very reasonable.
Investigation and action relating to users and possible abuse is a matter for the staff, not you. If you think there is a problem with a user then use the report function, not the public forums.
Quote:
In addition, I find it very curious that this epi97 did a vanishing act almost immediately after I questioned the number of his posts in the Official God thread and put a report in about him.
Incorrect. Epi did a 'vanishing act' right after he was comprehensively demolished in a thread and shown to have a very poor knowledge of the scripture he was parrotting. You were the one who praised him for 'holding his own' in debate. The fact that you later found him to be an embarrassment, when he revealed his basic lack of knowledge, accounts for your subsequent report.
Related topics
Is there only ONE God?
God of War Review and Discussions
WHAT DO YOU THINK WHY GOD CREATE HUMAN AND NATURE?
I have seen the GOD!
Is god down with computers?
Christianity: Why does God ask for kindness to others?
God and animal rights
Avatars: God manifests in human form.
Randomness is an illusion. [philosophy/science]
God is not what you think It is.
If you were God of the universe...
[Official] God - NO LONGER A STICKY
Gaza Human Shield?
What will be the status of religion? if we find life formati
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.