StarGateWars Forums

Mister Sandman wrote:

Juliette wrote:We cannot and should not cater to the idiocy of absolute morons who believe a **Filtered** book is real.
.

Didnt i say that in my post?

I summarised.. And agree.

never met anyone who thought a book (or any other type of fiction for that matter) about fictitious characters and events is real, though i have no doubt such empty people do exist...unfortunately

[KMA]Avenger wrote:never met anyone who thought a book (or any other type of fiction for that matter) about fictitious characters and events is real, though i have no doubt such empty people do exist...unfortunately

Neither is a fictitious book about real characters, real facts.
And that is in fact the more dangerous thing, because there are way too many people who let themselves be fooled into believing such books.

Juliette wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:never met anyone who thought a book (or any other type of fiction for that matter) about fictitious characters and events is real, though i have no doubt such empty people do exist...unfortunately

Neither is a fictitious book about real characters, real facts.
And that is in fact the more dangerous thing, because there are way too many people who let themselves be fooled into believing such books.

hmmm....
anyone specific in mind?

And the eternal struggle, to decide which make believe thing is better, continues...
[-X

LOLLLL
Universe/lois lane/ juliette/ kalima..... did an excellent job poking fun a sandman without him knowing it, while also getting him to affirm the joke as relevant commentary... Bravo

Thriller wrote:LOLLLL
Universe/lois lane/ juliette/ kalima..... did an excellent job poking fun a sandman without him knowing it, while also getting him to affirm the joke as relevant commentary... Bravo

That is where you are wrong. She summarised my example of the superman analogy with HP.

They are purely fictional. I.e

We cannot and should not cater to the idiocy of absolute morons who believe a **Filtered** book is real.
Maybe they're better off jumping off bridges believing they are immortal. Maybe ignorance is bliss.
I know I won't pay their medical bills, so they better do their hero-imitating properly, or properly wrong.

Here in bold shows where she refers to the superman suggestion.

A book in this case refers to fantasy and other books which are of that sort of genre.

If you were referring that she was implicating the bible, well budda, that's where you need education. The Bible, is not just "A Book" they are scriptures.

Definition:
scripture
c.1300, "a writing, an act of writing," esp. "the sacred writings of the Bible," from L.L. scriptura "the writings contained in the Bible, a passage from the Bible," from L. scriptura "a writing, character, inscription," from scriptus, pp. of scribere "write"


book
   /bʊk/ Show Spelled[book] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a written or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers.


With this lesson of definitions lets go on to say, that books are fiction or nonfiction. Or in laymans terms, made up, or not made up.

Now, if we continue along this line of logic.

We can safely say, that people who think they are in the fantasy world of the book, are morons, i.e people who are obsessed about LoTR.

Where as there is a science book and if someone would learn from that sort of text.

And there is scriptures i.e the bible where it has historical evidence backing it up. In addition to the abounds of evidence supporting it via science, and math, and other such logical reasonings.

Therefore, Thriller I must conclude, you must not read things with full understanding, or are you so blinded to your ignorance that you only read what you want.

In addition, if you did read my previous post you would understand the clauses and conditions i set.

Read before you speak.

Juliette wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:never met anyone who thought a book (or any other type of fiction for that matter) about fictitious characters and events is real, though i have no doubt such empty people do exist...unfortunately

Neither is a fictitious book about real characters, real facts.
And that is in fact the more dangerous thing, because there are way too many people who let themselves be fooled into believing such books.

Just for Thriller to understand,KMA referred to "never met anyone who thought a book or any other type of fiction for that matte rabout fictitious characters and events is real " meaning, fiction oh say like the twilight saga though some people do believe it is real.

In this case, since the bible is not fictitious, it cannot be substituted.

Juliette goes on to say it is dangerous into fooling themselves, because obsession is a bad thing. Again, she cannot be talking about the bible, why? because she used the term,'such books' meaning, the genre of fiction.

Thriller wrote:LOLLLL

LOLLLL!!!!!


your still here? i thought you left long time ago!

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Thriller wrote:LOLLLL

LOLLLL!!!!!


your still here? i thought you left long time ago!

I am always around Avenger, Watching and controlling everything from the shadows

I'm Batman!!

@Sandman
I took my interpretation from understanding other posts of Juliette, I beleive im right and you are just dogmatic.

Thriller wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Thriller wrote:LOLLLL

LOLLLL!!!!!


your still here? i thought you left long time ago!

I am always around Avenger, Watching and controlling everything from the shadows

I'm Batman!!

SUUUUUURE you are...and just how long have you had these delusions?

@Sandman
I took my interpretation from understanding other posts of Juliette, I beleive im right and you are just dogmatic.

Bold signifies why you are wrong. This is a debate thread, you show no logical reasoning and no evidence.

If you took the time to just even go through the steps of logic that I have presented, you would understand.

Mister Sandman wrote:

@Sandman
I took my interpretation from understanding other posts of Juliette, I beleive im right and you are just dogmatic.

Bold signifies why you are wrong. This is a debate thread, you show no logical reasoning and no evidence.

If you took the time to just even go through the steps of logic that I have presented, you would understand.

What's with you religiouse types and double standards. Does Cognitive dissonnance have to be precondition to organised religeon?

Thriller wrote:

Mister Sandman wrote:

@Sandman
I took my interpretation from understanding other posts of Juliette, I beleive im right and you are just dogmatic.

Bold signifies why you are wrong. This is a debate thread, you show no logical reasoning and no evidence.

If you took the time to just even go through the steps of logic that I have presented, you would understand.

What's with you religiouse types and double standards. Does Cognitive dissonnance have to be precondition to organised religeon?

without expressing my thoughts on the matter, i would like to say that Dr. Van-Helsing, of Bram Stoker's "Dracula", defines faith (mind you, faith, not organised religion) as "that which enables us to belive things which we know to be un-true".
EDIT: as for cognitive dissonance: cognition is usually refered to as "thinking", or "proccessing information". in the western tradition, God is unfathomable. he can not be thought of in full, nor understood. he can not be the subject of cognition, or a cognitive proccess, for he exceeds them.
in that regard, you can technically say that yes, cognitive dissonance is a prerequisite to organised religion.
ANOTHER EDIT: and to the point, my reading of julliete's post agrees with that of sandman's.
although, i might be wrong. damn hard to understand that gal. i wonder if she does.

"We cannot and should not cater to the idiocy of absolute morons who believe a **Filtered** book is real"

If i explain it, it ruins the joke that is sandman

read the quote carefully and consider other threads where beleif in books have been discussed.

Thriller wrote:"We cannot and should not cater to the idiocy of absolute morons who believe a **Filtered** book is real"

If i explain it, it ruins the joke that is sandman

read the quote carefully and consider other threads where beleif in books have been discussed.

you've got your point across. sandman doesn't accept it, and franckly, i think he's right.
i don't see any way to decide it short of Julliete herself explaining what she meant.
until that time comes, maybe we can return to topic?

You really want to discuss the question of whether harry potter, LOTR and by extension our imagination destroys our culture/civilization /values? Seriously? Your smatter than that hitchcok.