HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| sympatheic-darkness
sympatheic-darkness
♂️
[6857120]
[2008-03-10 23:33:59 +0000 UTC]
"Now fortified with Vitamin D."
(United States)
# Statistics
Favourites: 51; Deviations: 171; Watchers: 12
Watching: 10; Pageviews: 6053; Comments Made: 1286; Friends: 10
# Interests
Favorite movies: But there are so many to choose from.Favorite bands / musical artists: See above.
Favorite games: The Kingdom Hearts series.
Tools of the Trade: Pencils, paper, digital camera, my computer.
Other Interests: Too many to list. music, nature, anything artistic, theater, and anime/manga.
# About me
Favourite genre of music: I have a huge range of musical tastes.Operating System: Windows. Unique, huh?
MP3 player of choice: Sansa Clip, it's never done me wrong.
Shell of choice: Turtle.
Wallpaper of choice: A small white tree against a black background.
Skin of choice: The one I'm in. Then again, yours is pretty nice, too.
Personal Quote: "I think art ought to be experienced, not just seen."
# Comments
Comments: 106
Gaaarrreeett~!
-pounces-
Nice picture of yourself in your ID! : D
-shall now proceed to check out your gallery and watch you-
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Whaa, thanks for all the 
I'm not on here much, just so you know. I haven't added new stuff in maybe a year
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome! ^^
Alrighty, that's fine. Neither is Aleece. ;__;
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you! :]
Your photos are really cool. :]
The ones that you did with the cards are amazing :]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey, thanks for the
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha, no problem, do you think I should try selling the image or something?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Might be an idea. Do you have the print thing enabled? (or a print account?)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do, but it's not like I have much notoriety on this site. I'm not a professional photographer or anything, I'd need one hundred amazing shots instead of just one- I might see about selling prints of just that shot, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No problem, you deserved them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey. Do I know you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nope u have no idea who i am
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... Do you want to tell me who you are? Do you even know who I am?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No problem, keep up the great work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I haven't heard from you in a while.
Why'd you decide to talk to me?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know, it's been awhile..and I feel really ashamed for how I acted after..y'know, everything. It was stupid and immature, and I didn't want to live with it. I've been making some different decisions lately, and then I thought about how we'd left things. I'm really sorry, and I hope that we can somehow still be friends. Maybe not as close as we used to be, but friends. You're probably thinking about how stupid I am right now for talking to you after my tantrum. I'm also sorry for how my friend acted towards you, it was rude of me to give her your aim sn. But we haven't talked in awhile, we got in a..sort of fight. But anyways, I hope you can forgive me, maybe just a little bit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
*MEGAHUMONGOUSGLOMP*
Hey~ Missed you tons!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you have access to a computer where you're located now?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
On and off. *hugs*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hooray! *super-hugs*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*SUPAGIGANTICTACKLEGLOMP*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*ULTIMA-GLOMP*
9999 damage!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...lol....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey G Dog! I know Castle Oblivion's starting to try and pick its self up and dust its self off, but you should totally check out ~Org-Outcasts . They've got a lot of stuff goin' on, and I just got accepted! Look at it if you get the chance
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hiya. Sorry if Gale's sounding harsh, but that's basically a part of his personality. Ever see Rurouni Kenshin? Saito went by Aku Soku Zan, which means "Slay Evil Immediately" roughly translated. Gale pretty much does also, so he's going to be pretty critical.
Love the photos, by the way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey man. I understand it's just an OC, I'm sure you're not that harsh. XD
Yeah, I've seen Rurouni Kenshin- is that where you found inspiration for part of Gale's character?
I think you ought to write doujins or something, you've got a lot of great ideas whenever you RP.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am glad. I thought that was the case, but I've met those before who could not properly distinguish the fiction from the reality.
I am partially that harsh. Gale is, to about seventy percent, influenced by me. I'd made an earlier version of the character before, but I believe that this is a more perfect version. Saito's philosophy is one I am inclined to agree with, to an extent. So it seemed that Gale, with his reasoning that some things are wrong despite differing perspectives, would follow that also.
Well... don't go spreading it around just yet, but Kite and I are working on a little something. Not a doujin, and I don't want to spoil the surprise, but keep an eye on us for the next few months.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hah, that would be pretty wild...
Well hey, there's nothing wrong with that philosophy. Just don't go Light Yagami on anybody, okay? I think Gale is a great character, and so therefore you must have a great personality.
Okay- I'll wait patiently.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pretty annoying more like.
Light Yagami was a fricking idiot with a god complex, and totally abused that book. I personally wouldn't have touched it, knowing I wouldn't be going to heaven or hell after confirming they existed. My deal is more "I'm free to do what I want as long as I do not infringe on the rights of others. Therefor, I deserve not to have my rights infringed upon." The only time someone has the right to mess with a person is to stop that person from hurting himself, or if he's about to hurt others. that's my deal and Gale's deal. So don't worry.
Yeah, it'll be interesting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I dunno.
Yeah, Light was a total prick that nobody liked. That's the same point I would have stopped at, though I wouldn't even have used the book in the first place. Picking off all the criminals makes nothing better... violence doesn't fix problems. Plus, once it's all over, the world would just go back to the way it was before.
Do you believe in Heaven and Hell?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I do not. I'm a atheist.
I am actually of the opinion that some people are beyond redemption and that killing them would not be immoral. I just think Light abused the book. Not only that, but if he wanted to clean up the world using it, announcing his presence to the world works against that. It's why I think he's an idiot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I figured as much.
So wait, if there's no Heaven or Hell, what's the point of redemption at all? And what happens when you die?
And yes, he was an idiot. A genius that lacked common sense. Sigh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Heh heh. You say that like it's a bad thing.
You can redeem yourself in life by trying to be a good person, and to try to even out mistakes or wrongdoings. The point of redemption is to maintain your dignity as a human. I actually believe that a belief in a life after this one cheapens one's experience, even if only subconsciously. After all, if you've got a whole other life after this one, why bother living this one to the fullest? You've got a another one coming later. And when we die, I think we just die. There's nothing coming after. Sorry if this offends you, but you did ask.
Geniuses without common sense are shockingly more common than you would think.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, sorry if that offended you. I didn't mean it to sound that way.
So... let's say... you kill someone. How many good things do you have to do to make up for that?
And how do we decide what's right and wrong, anyway?
So, it's just over. Blank screen. Nothing left. I don't believe in another life, per se, (that'd be reincarnation.) I believe Heaven and Hell are more of a destination than another journey.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was joking. The fact that you didn't just call me a heathen and block me out ranks you higher than others I've spoken to over the internet. This kind of discussion unfortunately usually turns into name calling.
Depends on the killing. Murder is unjust killing, for which the only way that person could make up for it would probably be to get locked up for the rest of his natural life. Doesn't bring the dead guy back, but it equates justice. Sometime, if that person repeats this offense, redemption becomes unlikely to the point of ridiculousness. At that point, it would not be impermissible to execute that person. You don't do good things to make up for bad deeds, per say. You honestly do them because you want people to be good to you. Good rewards good. Punishments are only there to make sure justice is served. To be perfectly honest, I'm still a student in covering these kinds of things, and unfortunately might be a little sketchy in some areas.
You can decide what is right and what is wrong through objective natural laws. Here's how you can decide that murder is wrong. You own your property. Your life is also your property, you own it and no one else does. To kill you would be to steal what you own, your life. Thus it is an immoral action. This is, of course, a very great oversimplification.
Yes, that is what I believe. It's why I try to get enjoyment out of almost everything I do. You need to be active in making your life worthwhile. Should never just expect a free handout.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Haha, what kind of example would I be setting if I acted like that? Too many people are hypocrites, and don't actually live what they claim to be.
I suppose that makes plenty of sense from a strictly human standpoint. But if someone stole a life, why would letting them keep theirs be fair? Why not simply execute them on the spot? That seems more fair, doesn't it?
I've always thought: don't all humans have a general sense of right and wrong built-in? Even in a world with no laws, we understand general morality. If you were to see someone wounded by the road, you'd feel obliged to help them, right? Because it's the "right" thing to do. And if you saw someone being mugged, you wouldn't just stand by and watch, because that person is committing evil. Would you agree?
I believe that even after accepting a faith such as Christianity, you can't just expect a free handout. Many people only see it as a free ticket, but they're mistaken. True religion means changing your life.
Not to sound rude, but if there's nothing after life, why does anything matter besides self-glorification? And what good is life anyway, if we're just here today, gone tomorrow?
I've been wondering: why do you deny the possibility of intelligent design?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I try to as much as can be to be true to myself. I'm glad you do too.
Well, remember. I'm operating from a strictly human standpoint. I'm a humanist as well as atheist. And executing someone would only be right if there was absolutely no chance of rehabilitation, and to determine that would require observation. A killing in defense should only be taken if there is no other option possible. After all, sometimes the murderer is psychotic. That person isn't in complete control of himself. It'd be like killing a child. I'm not against the death penalty, but it isn't something that can gone into lightly.
A world with no laws at all cannot exist. I know you're speaking of human laws, but you need to be specific with these things. And yes, I would feel a need to help that person, to stop that mugger. the person is just because it hurts me to see another suffer, and I don't like getting hurt. The mugger is because I would see someone violating a person's natural right, and that makes me angry. Morality does not need an altruistic base, which is a good thing too because altruism, defined as a completely selfless action, is impossible. If you have a desire to do something, and you need to to do anything, then the self is involved.
Ahh, but I'm positing that the very act of believing that there is another life after this one, whether it be damnation or salvation, makes you appreciate this one less, even if just on a subconscious level. I see the end of my life as the end of everything for me, so I'll live my life to the fullest. I know I'm not going anywhere after it.
What is so wrong about self-glorification? Revel in the self, for it is through the self that you do anything. Humans, for all our faults, are magnificent creatures. You find your own purpose, it isn't handed to you. Life is good because not only is it all you have, it can be anything you make of it. It's so wonderfully versatile, so powerful. So what if you're finite? Why should that stop you from making the most of every single moment, getting happiness and contentment from all that you do? I find pleasure in almost everything, though I must admit that writing, and to a lesser degree reading, brings me the most joy.
Because the arguments I have heard for it do not hold up. Since I cannot take something completely on faith, it just doesn't work for me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I try to be true to what I know and believe, not as much to myself.
I suppose that makes some sense. I honestly don't know where I stand on the death penalty, so I can't really argue or agree.
Well of course there's a natural order of things- I agree that there can't be a world without any "laws". But how do you decide morals? Mine are different than yours, and yours are different from the next random person's. Everyone has a general idea of morality, but no one's specifics are the same. So how do you decide what the standard of right and wrong should be?
I'm not understanding your argument. It's not a whole new life I'm talking about, just a destination. It doesn't "degrade" this one at all. This life would be the journey, which in the minds of many is just as important as the destination.
I guess there's nothing wrong with self-glorification as long as there's no God. Since there's no possibility of that in your mind, I can't really argue that point.
Maybe you just haven't heard very good arguments. You're incredibly smart, it would take some pretty strong arguments to change your mind.
There's plenty of evidence if you allow the possibility that there could be a God. But if you completely shut out all arguments for Christianity or intelligent design because you refuse the possibilty that you could be wrong, arguments for Christianity can never hold up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I make myself and what I believe indistinguishable from each other, so I am always true to myself.
It's definitely something to think about.
Like I said, you can decide morals through the observation of objective natural laws. Like with what I said about you owning your life, thus it is immoral for another to steal it. You'd be surprised how many natural rights you have simply by existing, almost all of them stemming from the fact that you are the owner of your property. Like with my example, your life is your property.
But it would indeed be a whole new life. After all, what would you be doing at that destination? You wouldn't simply be in stasis, you'd be actively doing things. And I'm not meaning to sound cynical, but a great deal more people always put more weight on the destination, even if they don't realize they're doing so. That's why I mentioned that they could be subconsciously not appreciating this life, the only one they'll have.
I'm not sure what would be wrong with self-glorification even if there was a god. He's supposedly all good, so why would he care? A healthy love for the self never hurt anybody, after all. I'm remarkably selfish, and yet I respect people.
I've heard very good arguments, but they always fall apart if you look beneath the cover. Here's an example:
1. God is that entity than which nothing can be greater.
2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3. God exists in one's mind but not in reality.
4. The concept of God's existence is understood in one's mind.
5. If God existed in reality, it would be a greater thing than God's existence in the mind.
6. The final step to God's existence is that God in reality must exist.
Sounds solid, right? It's not. This famous bit of reasoning by Anselm of Canterbury was refuted quite skillfully by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He invited his readers to use the same process here, but to replace god in the equation with "The perfect island." I myself like to be amusing and use "The perfect donut." Just because you can think of something doesn't necessarily means it exists. That's what Guanilo was getting at. Just because you can think of a donut in which nothing can be greater does not mean it actually exists. Anselm obviously did a good bit of thinking, it just doesn't hold up when you poke it. Another objection came from David Hume, a scottish philosopher, who argued that ontological arguments, like the one above, are not possible.
I shut them out because all the things that they state require god as a beginning do not, in fact, require god in the equation at all. Things can be explained without god being a necessary component. There are other explanations that are as, most of the time even more, feasible than god.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...o-kay.
I'll consider it.
The whole idea of objective natural laws makes sense to an intellectual, but most of the world simply decides morals based on what they want. Your set of morals is not "correct", simply because it's based off of an observation you have made yourself, and is thus just as good as an opinion. And opinions can never be "correct."
It's true that you would be actively doing things at said destination. But how would that make you enjoy this life less? I enjoy my life as much as I can right now, simply trying to do without doing immoral things. Being a Christian, I greatly enjoy my life, I just follow the ideas of the Bible. Doing immoral things can be fun, but they always have consequences. that's the reason I try to do the right thing, not because I'm forced to. And I reap benefits because of it. I don't appreciate this life any less by believing that there's something beyond this one. The journey is just as important as the place you're getting to.
I believe there's a difference between love for yourself and worshipping yourself.
I put God before myself because I believe he created me, gave me a great life, and blessed me more than I deserve. I also belive he made it possible for me to enter Heaven. Honestly, I worship God just because I believe He deserves it. If I gave someone an amazing gift, I'd want someone to appreciate me for it, wouldn't you?
Actually, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. My IQ level is nowhere near yours, and I never dwell on psychological battles of what may be. I base my faith entirely on physical and historical evidence.
Also, I simply cannot fathom any possibility how this universe could exist without an intelligent Designer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Opinions based on objective laws can indeed be correct. Not all opinions are created equal, it's just people have equal right to an opinion.
There's also the fact that there's no physical proof for the existence of another life where your consciousness rests. That also bugs me.
I never said anything about worshipping yourself. I'm selfish, not a narcissist.
I'd just go "Hey, thanks for the gift. It's cool." And I'd be grateful, but I'd never worship. It's not worth that. But if you think about it, if god is real, why would he want you to put him before yourself?
I'm not super smart, I've just thought and read a lot. Nothing more than anyone else could do. Remember, I'm still a novice. My education will never end, but I'm nowhere near a competent level for debating this subject. It's why I'm glad we're not debating.
It's philosophical actually. Anselm wanted to create a logical proof to god's existence. He didn't want to just go on faith. I applaud him for it. I will not fault a person for thinking, for trying to understand. The fact that he was incorrect is irrelevant. He was using his brain, trying to stretch the limits of the time. I love it.
All the physical proof has alternative explanations as feasible as god or more so. Historical also has its own problems.
Also, technically, that's not faith That's reaching a conclusion through information. To take something on faith is to believe something without any definitive information at all. Believing for the sake of believing. It is defined as a "belief that is not based on proof."
Hume has some thoughts on that too. You should read the debates on these kinds of things. They're fascinating, and you would probably enjoy them.
These are not set in a logical argument, like Anselm's ontological argument, these are just several points Hume made against the Intelligent Design thesis. You'd have to read his works to get the play by play. This is just the bare bones from wiki. I've studied this in books and in classrooms, but copy and paste is easier. I recommend reading his "Dialogues concerning Natural Religion" and "An Inquiry concerning Human Understanding." Those would elaborate upon what is listed below.
1. For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".
2. Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine — as in Paley's watchmaker argument — when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal.
3. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer?
4. If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?
5. Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated natural selection.
6. The design argument does not explain pain, suffering, and natural disasters.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I suppose I should rephrase that, opinions aren't wrong unless they can be proven wrong through fact.
Is it possible to prove through fact that you even have a soul? Sure, you have thoughts and feelings, but that doesn't mean that you have a soul. For all we know, I could be hooked up to a table having artificial memories fed into my brain. Sometimes you just have to take things on by faith, since it's impossible to prove of disprove them.
I think I need to rephrase that, as well. It's so much more than just a gift. I believe that God created me, gave me a life, a home, and everything I could ever need (need being the keyword), and tons of things that I want. In addition to that, we gave me guidelines on how to live a great life, and a way to reach Heaven. All he asked for in repayment was that we treat him with love, and follow his guidelines so that we try not to commit sins. Honestly, I don't think that it seems like that much to ask. He doesn't force me to do anything, either. I have total free will. This is what Christians are supposed to believe.
I'm also glad we're not debating, because I could never hold up against any of the pshychological "if-A-then-B" arguments you keep copy-and-pasting into the bottom of each comment. I've got four years less education than you do, and I haven't really studied this psychological stuff, so it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. The only things I can really discuss with you are physical evidence and the theological principles of Christianity.
You'll have to point out the problems in physical and historial evidence to me.
Well, you can't "prove" the existence of God by most standards. So believing that He's there is truly a matter of faith. It's like a court case. You can never piece together exactly what happened, but with strong supporting evidence, you can make a conclusion you believe to be true.
Not to sound like a jerk, but I don't really care what Anselm, Hume, and all the other dead philosophers think. I want to know your opinions, and I truly hope you don't say that your opinions are the exact copy-and-pasted examples of others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>