No, Shaolin was never banned. He simply disappeared after repeatedly being reamed raw for his awe-inspiring stupidity and intolerance.Colonel Olrik wrote:Oops, I forgot, the other one was banned, wasn't he? The Shaolin moron
A short personal introduction.
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
-
Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
-
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi
- What Kind of Username is That?
- Posts: 9254
- Joined: 2002-07-10 08:53pm
- Location: Back in PA
-
kheegster
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2397
- Joined: 2002-09-14 02:29am
- Location: An oasis in the wastelands of NJ
I think U-boats are cool...not modern subs though, too sanitized and comfortable.
Articles, opinions and rants from an astrophysicist: Cosmic Journeys
Meh, all hail the rail-gun battleship concept.
To the original poster:
Keep in mind that Science will only tell you structure and pattern, even in its penultimate form. It is a grand classification system, and as a result it cannot exactly state the why and how of nature and existence. Any inference of that form has a human component and loses the strict rationalism and exactness that scientific logic provides.
Therefore, literal science is not a path to self-enlightenment. Description of the universe will never answer the philosophical questions of life unless you add in non-scientific processes.
As far as the idea of intelligent faith.. it is possible and exhibited in our world, though sadly not that often. Faith itself presumes that there is more to existence than physical description can provide, and so it cannot be totally rational (in a strict sense), but it can be entirely rational in an integrated sense. Good historical examples would be Aquinas and Augustine, neither of whom you can describe as "idiots" or "fundie morons" as blatantly as some describe most [if not all] Christians.
Alas, good luck in the Navy! I honor your choice to serve your country and wish you well.
To the original poster:
Keep in mind that Science will only tell you structure and pattern, even in its penultimate form. It is a grand classification system, and as a result it cannot exactly state the why and how of nature and existence. Any inference of that form has a human component and loses the strict rationalism and exactness that scientific logic provides.
Therefore, literal science is not a path to self-enlightenment. Description of the universe will never answer the philosophical questions of life unless you add in non-scientific processes.
As far as the idea of intelligent faith.. it is possible and exhibited in our world, though sadly not that often. Faith itself presumes that there is more to existence than physical description can provide, and so it cannot be totally rational (in a strict sense), but it can be entirely rational in an integrated sense. Good historical examples would be Aquinas and Augustine, neither of whom you can describe as "idiots" or "fundie morons" as blatantly as some describe most [if not all] Christians.
Alas, good luck in the Navy! I honor your choice to serve your country and wish you well.
Fact 1: Ninjas are Mammals.
Fact 2: Ninjas Fight ALL the Time.
Fact 3: The Purpose of a Ninja is to Flip Out and Kill People.
Student of Mathematics and Physics at the University of Puget Sound.
Wielder and Author of the CRYPTICISM, the preferred tool of The Great Thinker.
Fact 2: Ninjas Fight ALL the Time.
Fact 3: The Purpose of a Ninja is to Flip Out and Kill People.
Student of Mathematics and Physics at the University of Puget Sound.
Wielder and Author of the CRYPTICISM, the preferred tool of The Great Thinker.
Yet another welcome Kaiser, although you're probably stuck in boot camp by now. . .
And if it turns out to be a misunderstanding, we aopologise (well, I try to, anyway).
On the 'intelligent faith' idea, I only have two criteria:
1. The believer never allows their beliefs to contradict reality (i.e. if the two come into conflict, then they modify their beliefs rather than denying reality)
2. They recognise that faith is always subjective and personal. They can describe what they believe, why they believe it and how it helps them deal with the world (and I'll usually be happy to listen). But I expect them to be just as accepting of my point of view as I am of theirs (that's the only atmosphere where you can have a discussion instead of an argument).
The only believers I will attack are those who appear to be breaking one of these rules. To those who break the first rule, I will point out that they're being dumb. To those who break the second, I'll tell them to stop bugging me. Violence of response directly proportional to how grossly they break the rules
Hey, we try to give people enough rope to hang themselves before we start insulting themKahlis wrote:As far as the idea of intelligent faith.. it is possible and exhibited in our world, though sadly not that often. Faith itself presumes that there is more to existence than physical description can provide, and so it cannot be totally rational (in a strict sense), but it can be entirely rational in an integrated sense. Good historical examples would be Aquinas and Augustine, neither of whom you can describe as "idiots" or "fundie morons" as blatantly as some describe most [if not all] Christians.
And if it turns out to be a misunderstanding, we aopologise (well, I try to, anyway).On the 'intelligent faith' idea, I only have two criteria:
1. The believer never allows their beliefs to contradict reality (i.e. if the two come into conflict, then they modify their beliefs rather than denying reality)
2. They recognise that faith is always subjective and personal. They can describe what they believe, why they believe it and how it helps them deal with the world (and I'll usually be happy to listen). But I expect them to be just as accepting of my point of view as I am of theirs (that's the only atmosphere where you can have a discussion instead of an argument).
The only believers I will attack are those who appear to be breaking one of these rules. To those who break the first rule, I will point out that they're being dumb. To those who break the second, I'll tell them to stop bugging me. Violence of response directly proportional to how grossly they break the rules
"People should buy our toaster because it toasts bread the best, not because it has the only plug that fits in the outlet" - Robert Morris, Almaden Research Center (IBM)
"If you have any faith in the human race you have too much." - Enlightenment
"If you have any faith in the human race you have too much." - Enlightenment
