Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Josephus]

We are not arguing about the validity of Jack Chick's tracts.

We are arguing about whether or not he is:

a) Batshit Insane
b) Batshit SELF-PARODY AWESOME.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You forgot the "Jack Chick isn't real, and is in fact a group of atheists trying to make christians look bad." theory.

[Muz]

Could you imagine the flame war that would ignite if we got Jack Chick, Jack Thompson, and the Westboro Baptist Church on this site?

Lol, I think a lot of religious debates flame wars are about some people picking at a few complete imbeciles and deciding that everyone they represent is an idiot.

[MaximumZero]

Oh, no, no. I fully understand that there are some good people that have, for some reason, decided that listening to the above listed folks is a good idea.

I do, however, fully believe that the above listed should be removed from public perception entirely. I'd say wholesale slaughter, but that would make them martyrs, and I'll not have that.

[Micro102]

Hell if an angel descended form heaven and beat me up I'd probably start believing in God too.

[Realmfighter]

We are not arguing about the validity of Jack Chick's tracts.

We are arguing about whether or not he is:

a) Batshit Insane
b) Batshit SELF-PARODY AWESOME.

The first time i read a Jack Chick tract was about 8 years ago, after having it been handed to me by a friend.

That is way to much dedication to a parody.

[The Doctor]

8 years? Try 40.


Maybe more.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yeah, Chick Publications (in addition to being an actual thing) has been around for a long time. Chick himself is 80-somthing, although most information on him is outdated due to his belief that people are trying to kill him for spreading "the truth".

[KaguroDraven]

Foolish mortals. I am god! .......or I'm just delutional and like to annoy people, either way.

[Virex]

Hell if an angel descended form heaven and beat me up I'd probably start believing in God too.

I'd start believing in him... and be very very pissed at him too...

[Shade-o]

How can one form any perception of reality if one cannot accept or reject any concepts or ideas due to one being inherently subjective and biased?

Good question. Philosophers have tried to answer that for millennia. There are several answers, but each is again based on some kind of belief.

This is still bothering me. If all perception and judgement of any reality is critically flawed to such an extent that nobody can hold anything to be true or false or any value between, then how can anyone espouse any sort of solution?

It's really tearing me up.

[MaximumZero]

The thing about that question is that true and false are based on perception. To a hardcore evangelist, there is a god. That is the truth to them. To me, that seems to be more than likely false, based on what I've perceived, and other things that I perceive to be true.

So, that said, all it takes to make something true is to perceive it in a way that is, to you, undeniably true.

[MrWiggles]

How can one form any perception of reality if one cannot accept or reject any concepts or ideas due to one being inherently subjective and biased?

Good question. Philosophers have tried to answer that for millennia. There are several answers, but each is again based on some kind of belief.

This is still bothering me. If all perception and judgement of any reality is critically flawed to such an extent that nobody can hold anything to be true or false or any value between, then how can anyone espouse any sort of solution?

It's really tearing me up.

You accept it, and live with it.

Then you try to build models through redundancies based on observations, and experimentation that with never ceasing refinements that is done through falsification.

Though it can never lead us to a 100% understanding, it can lead us closer to such a thing, and help improve our lives.

[MaximumZero]

I like MrWiggles' answer better than mine.

[Shade-o]

I'm quite aware of observation and experimentation. The argument that I quoted simply confused me, as it seemed to be stating "I am wrong, you are wrong, therefore I am right."