Both.

>>33263
You said I had a soul. Generally that has religious connotation. Are you sure you're an atheist?

>>33265
Ohhh, are you confused now? Why did you say you didn't in the first place?! As a response to my cookie logic or just as a fact of your own personal beliefs?

>>33265
She can means by "You have soul" something like "You have vital energy of universe inside your material body".

By the way Belphe, Agnostic doesn't mean a thing, please refer to this picture.

>>33266
Both. If not liking cookies means you have no soul then I have no soul. And it is also my own personal belief.

>>33267
Like a dualist.

>>33267
Get out Carl Sagan~

>>33263
How ridiculous. The scale makes perfect sense as it is because rating things in "Belphes" is a perfectly valid way of measuring the weirdness of any given person or thing.
That is, unless you'd rather the "Belphe scale" measure density instead of weirdness. In which case anything above 0.25 of a Belphe would be about as dense as Osmium, and anything above 1.0 on the Belphe scale would be dense enough that it would have its own gravitational orbit around it.

>>33268
R-Right, I remember someone telling me this a while ago.

>>33269
How odd that I managed to match them up. You would have to clearly define what a soul was anyway; are religious people even all in agreement with regards to the definition? I know Buddhism and some fringe religions get odd about it.

For me at least Soul is a compound of everything
from your personality your feelings and identity as a person.

>>33273
No, but my own personal definition of a soul would have to at least have some dualistic existence beyond matter/energy.

If someone suggested that's not necessarily the case, I would then proceed to reason that even single-celled organisms have souls. Or perhaps go even as far as inanimate objects.

>>33273
>Fringe

>>33274
I would call that "the self."

Can you people at least try to have your inane discussions without insulting or patronizing large groups of people you barely even know about?

>>33278
~

>>33271
Y-You're taunting me. I think I'd rather it be density than weirdness, to be honest!

>>33272
Did I do something wrong..?

>>33275
What do you mean by dualistic? What is your definition of it? You mean applying consciousness to it and giving it meaning beyond simply matter?

I always found it stupid that only "humans" have souls. Those arguments would be fun to make to infuriate the religious die-hards.

>>33278
O-Oh, that's why you're upset. At least with Lili I kinda had it focused on just me being a nerd; it's not like I have any problems with nerds or religious groups.

All of you are silly. Your kami-sama is right here ne.

>>33278
>Can you people at least try to have your inane discussions without insulting or patronizing large groups of people
No.
>you barely even know about?
Can you not assume I don't know what I'm talking about?

>>33280
Well... Reincarnation says you can reborn as an animal. So, animals have soul too.

Probably plants have soul too. Crystals and other minerals have "Gaia's energy"/Energy of Universe.

This is my opinion.

>>33283
I'm not assuming, I already know you don't.

>>33280
I mean in the context of materialism vs dualism.
>You mean applying consciousness to it and giving it meaning beyond simply matter?
Giving consciousness an existence beyond matter. Believing that it doesn't manifest from matter.

>>33285
How rude. But I was openly rude as well. Even so, you're just making yourself as bad as me if you're going to do that.

Damn gnostic theists. I really do have a personal problem with them. For the major troubles they have caused me in my life.

>>33282
hahahah you made me laugh George haha~~~

>>33284
I see, that is one way to look at it~

>>33286
I see. How could we ever do that though? Give consciousness an independent existence from the brain? It doesn't help that almost no one understands what consciousness is or how it works, but it seems plausible that it's connected to neurons and the brain. Unless you wanna get into solipsistic philosophical arguments. In the end though, consciousness has to be inexorably tied to what the soul is, should it exist in some way or form.

>>33288
Agreed.~

>>33289
Because nobody has a clue what consciousness is or how it works there are differing beliefs regarding it. I would actually say materialism is no more valid than dualism. You don't have to be a solipsist.

>>33291
Right. So the only thing would be to try and understand consciousness better? That would give us the answers to compile a better "picture" of the soul and ourselves? It's not like sitting here and thinking on it will ever give me the answers I need, nya~

>>33292
Good luck with that.

>>33287
I'm not entirely sure that it's rude to point out ignorance, as I will claim ignorance on a wide variety of topics as well.

In any case, it's quite natural for people to hate what they do not understand. That's the only thing I really dislike, the hatred between people. When someone has a problem in their life, they tend to blame it on someone or something different than they are instinctively. A lot of the time this extends to a hatred of a group or ideology, and this hatred is quite misplaced.

Referring to a group of people and saying "I hate them" because of what a few individuals have done is illogical and one of the world's major problems.

>>33293
I was interested in your thoughts too! It's not like I really care one way or the other. Now you've gotta please make peace with Rin-sama.

>>33294
I don't think pointing out ignorance is rude either. But aren't you taking your own belief that I am ignorant and stating it rather than pointing out my ignorance?

How can you hate hatred of people itself? People are the cause of all problems. If a group or ideology is a cause of these problems it should be fine to hate it. How can you be neutral or supportive of every kind of group and ideology that exists?

>Referring to a group of people and saying "I hate them" because of what a few individuals have done is illogical and one of the world's major problems.
Not if the actions of those individuals are a result of that group's ideology.

>>33296
It's like you said. Ideologies aren't people, so they can't be blamed for the actions of people. Therefore, hating a group of people based on their ideology is inane. If you're going to blame a group of people, blame them for their actions, not their ideology, even if you think their ideology caused said actions.

As for your statement, "gnostic theists" is way too broad a category to blame for any particular occurrence, since the beliefs and ideologies among them vary widely. That's exactly why I called you ignorant, because the fact that you direct your hatred towards "gnostic theists" is proof enough that you have no idea what it is you are really hating.

If only everyone thought like Rin. It's a shame that almost no one cares or goes through the pains you do to be understanding. Not to say that Jessica is wrong or anything.

>>33297
A gnostic theist believes that there certainly is a god and they can be absolutely sure of it. Obviously, you know that, but it easily leads into the worst kind of righteous hatred imaginable.

If there is a mind that is omniscient, what would be mere opinions when in other mind are, in this mind, fact. If that mind is omnipotent and the first cause, then everything is governed by the opinions of this mind, and defying them is simply wrong. Since they are the highest authority that cannot be questioned, their opinions are good. Opinions that oppose them are evil.

Considering religions based on gnostic theism have doctrines that state what these opinions are, they believe that there are people whose opinions defile the ultimate master and knower of everything. In so doing, they make their opinions the law of the universe.

What kind of ideology could be more sickening and prone to the devaluation of humans?

>>33299
>but it easily leads into the worst kind of righteous hatred imaginable.
Heh, and I'm the one who makes assumptions~? Those two statements do not logically connect at all and is very much further proof of ignorance. This kind of statement makes you just as bad as those theoretical individuals that you hate, you know? The one who's spouting "the worst kind of righteous hatred" right now is you~

>What kind of ideology could be more sickening and prone to the devaluation of humans?
That is your interpretation of an ideology that you have convinced yourself of, but I could easily brush it off by claiming that, say, Catholicism exalts humans by saying we are all "the body of Christ" (I only use Catholicism as an example because it is the religion I am most heavily educated about, I am certain it is not the only religion that could be used as an example).

>>33300
I don't believe myself to be god. I'm not therefore prone to righteous fury against those who disagree with me to the level a gnostic theist is. I recognize that they are my own opinions. Since I believe everything we do serves no end point anyway, all I do is talk about it. Obviously I'm fully capable of disagreeing with people and being disparaging of them when I disagree, but that's the limit of it. My ideals lead to apathy.

Did I not provide you with the logical process that displays how dangerous gnostic theism is?
>That is your interpretation of it that you have convinced yourself of, but I could easily brush it off by claiming that, say, Catholicism exalts humans by saying we are all "the body of Christ" (I only use Catholicism as an example because it is the religion I am most heavily educated about, I am certain it is not the only religion that could be used as an example).
But it's Catholicism that has not just one, but two ideas of punishment in the afterlife for going against the opinions of an omniscient. Purgatory and hell. Since what god believes to be right must be right since by definition an omniscient mind holds that authority, the acts of humans are below it, and if they do not correspond, they are given that kind of punishment.

To avoid that, followers of the religion are encouraged to give up all freedom to act in a way that differs from what scripture says the omniscient mind thinks.

>>33301
See, growing up in a Catholic school, I was never taught these things you're spouting about Catholicism. The message I got was one of peace and love for other people; there was no emphasis on smiting the unbelievers or eternal damnation for not holding to the belief in a deity (of course I did learn of such thing as Purgatory and Hell, but what I'm saying is that the emphasis is not on the belief in the deity, but instead the teachings of love and understanding). Given that I spent years and years shoulder to shoulder with Catholics and engaging in their services, I think my view on them is probably more complete and accurate than yours is~

I ignored your "logical process of the dangers" because it wasn't logical at all, it was biased and stupid. I mean, just look at this statement:
>I'm not therefore prone to righteous fury against those who disagree with me to the level a gnostic theist is
This only works if you assume that gnostic theists will react with "righteous fury" to the lack of faith, which is obviously stupid. What you really should be hating here is people who persecute each other (and act on it), which is hardly a quality unique to theists. They just justify it to themselves in different ways.

>>33302
>Note: I am not a Catholic

Damn, I'm like the only catholic. Jessica your ideals are good if they lead to apathy; we can use them when caveman world comes about.

>>33303
I think Lion is too, but maybe I'm wrong?

>>33302
I'm not ignoring anything you're saying, I'm just disagreeing. Why ignore it? I went on to, I believe, justify my stance.

Why don't we examine what Catholic doctrines say the opposite sign to the coin of Christ as the savior is? They need something to be saved from my default, that is original sin. Whatever your interpretation of it, it means that people are born wrong and need to accept Christ as savior to cleanse this sin. If they don't, they will also burn in hell. Therefore, the doctrine tells people that people must accept it to be saved.

How can you, if you're not Catholic, accept that viewpoint as anything but arrogant hatred that forces dangerous views upon others than devalue humans and take away their freedom? All you're claiming is that people may be gnostic theists but not actually follow through on the logic of their own beliefs and therefore not be dangerous. I don't have much respect for people who can't reason out the ramifications of what they believe, either.

>>33304
They say I'm catholic because I was baptized? I did the communion and went to Sunday School but it's kinda blurry.

>>33303
>Damn, I'm like the only catholic.

I was educated in a Catholic Family. My mother force me to do First Communion and tryied to force me to do Chrism (but since I was grown up enough to think about religion, I didn't do it).
However, I don't practice Catholicism. I beleive in God and some things written in Bible, but I don't go to Church, etc.

>>33307
Yup, I did that silly communion thing too! Going on Sunday to all those things was super annoying. I don't like how people claim you're still "Catholic" if you were baptized and went through the ceremonies even if you don't follow or believe in it personally. Curse them for branding me with their heathen ceremonies!

>>33308
Yes, those who say "You aren't a true atheist if you were baptized. Deal with it" are just a bunch of trolls.

And nowadays, when I go to the Church (rarely when my grandmother asks me or is a mass in honor of some deceased relative), host tastes like styrofoam. When my grandmother was young, host tasted like cookie or something.

Jeez John, I thought you disappeared then you reappear out of nowhere and disappear again.

>>33309
It's just that some of the followers seemed to actually believe it. It's like, chill out, so I don't wanna follow your stuff. I hate to generalize but the ones I've met were a bit crazy.

Oh god the host was tasty when I was young. I used to enjoy eating it and pretending it was cardboard or something.

>>33305
I only mean "ignore" in the sense that I didn't dignify it with a lengthy response, because there was no logic or justification in it. You're assuming things inherent in the belief system that simply don't have to be true, which is what I pointed out before.

As for your other two statements, I would say it actually helps me to be a bit distanced from it, as I can view it more abstractly and less literally. One of the things I was taught in the study of religious scripture was that many things were written with the cultural biases and sentiments of the authors in mind. Therefore, it is best to consider them in an abstract sense, rather than anything literal. You have seen how easy it is to hate what we do not understand, yes? And by the same token, how difficult it is to love and accept people who are different or unknown? This is what we need to be "saved" from, this is the "evil" that is "inherent" in humans, or the results of "original sin" if you prefer. Whether or not it was a belief implanted in us as the first few stories in Genesis outline really isn't important. Therefore, what's important isn't the divinity of Christ, but his teachings and beliefs. Love thy neighbor.

So yes, it saddens me when people try to use those teachings as a tool to hate and destroy others, because they are hypocritical in my eyes for doing so. I simply do not believe it is a quality that is inherent to a gnostic theist, as my background tells me that they can just as easily be kind and caring people, even to those who are different than they are (like me).

Anyway, I'll stop now and won't bring it up again. I had reservations with doing so to begin with.

>>33304
yup I am also catholic~

>>33313
Sorry that we brought it about to this. I thought your discussion was interesting to read though~

>>33312
Jesus's summary of the old rules isn't just "love thy neighbor." It's to love god and your neighbor. It's the former I have the problem with.

I wasn't claiming that Catholics necessarily are biblical literalists, that's why I said "whatever your interpretation." The fact remains that there is presented a problem everyone has to which Catholicism is the solution. The problem is extremely pressing, and the beliefs you must take up to address it are many. You can't form your own interpretation, as to the the official interpretation of certain groups, you're going against the omniscient mind and are a heretic. Pelagius was a heretic because he believed humans didn't need Christ to be saved. The church is out of a job if that's the case, after all. It's heretical to not accept the "divine mystery" of the trinity that God is somehow three and one, even though it's such a pitiful nitpicking.

Lets change of topic,
what combinations have you tried in Ougon Cross?

>>33311
Great Full House.

Fanaticism exists in every religion, unfortunatly. The only thing we can do is try to ignore.

However, the onyl thing that really pisses me off is: "Hurr Homossexuality is a sin! It is write in Bibble! Herp! Sodom and Gomorrah duuurr!"

No, it's not a f***ing sin! They think this because they didn't study the bible. I bet they didn't EVEN study the Torah, where is write all Old Testament in original written.
Also, I bet they didn't study WHY man sodomized other man in that age.
They don't know any of these simple things and still want to vomit crap from their mouths.

This is what pisses me off: Lack of religion study.

>>33318
actually being gay isn't a sin, you can be gay
HOWEVER, you will have to live a sex-free life.

>>33310
I always do that, though. Being unpredictable like that is my forté.
Though truth be told I'm just trying my best to avoid the current debate about religion since it's a subject I hold a certain amount of contempt towards, especially when it comes to Catholicism.

>>33318
Right, homosexuality is one big taboo or something with the bible. I honestly don't know much about the exact passages so I can't say anything one way or the other. If people were more well educated in things there would probably be less hate though~

>>33319
Ohh, so it's the act that is sinful, not just loving men. You cannot lay with men as it were.

>>33320
I was hoping you'd intervene! You know you wanna say some stuff~

>>33320
Then you have more self-control than me. I don't really want to offend anyone here, even if they do happen to belong to certain groups. But I knew that risk when I started.

>>33319
Yes, it's not a sin. But many catholic people don't see in this.

Well, changing subject, as you suggested:
I need to training more with Dlanor. I want to make a Defense Team Dlanor&Shannon. (Dlanor Attacker and Shannon Reverse)
If I can't do it, I'll continue with my Jessica&Shannon team.

>>33321
yup, actually most of christian/catholics customs
weren't set by Jesus

I don't know what you're talking about Rin, I'm just calling Belphe what she is.

>>33323
yup, catholicism is a religion that let you have
your own interpretations, as long as you follow
the ten commandements and dont fall under the seven sins~

>>33325
See? Rin knows you're wrong and she's disappointed that you would try to sully a creature as pure and kind as I am~

>>33325
its something undeniable....
Ignorance + Religion = Fanatism

>>33321
Actually, religion in general is among the top 3 in my list of "things that would sooner make me bathe in sulfuric acid so long as it meant not having to discuss them with other people."
One of the few, if not only, religions that I have very little problems with is Zen Buddhism, but that's another matter entirely.

>>33327
Judging from how she's disappointed in Piece and I both, I'd surmise it's related to the religious comment.

>>33327
I'm liking that devilish smile Miss "pure and kind".

I think we should stop all of this
This will end bad.

>>33329
Taoism kicks ass though! That kinda comment sounds like the old John I used to know~

>>33330
She probably was mad at him for not liking cookies or something. You interpret things oddly.

>>33331
Everything is always the opposite of what you think~

>>33332
So... What's your team on Ougon? Didn't you want to chage subject?

>>33330
I was actually flattered Rin thought I would know better than that. Rather than "as expected of Piece."

>>33333
I think you're kind and pure.

>>33333
>Everything is always the opposite of what you think~
You think you are not a nerd. By your own admission you are a nerd.

>>33334
well Beatrice/Evatrice is my favorite combination
but I usually use something related to Evatrice~

Evatrice/Ange
Evatrice/Ronove
and Evatrice/Siesta410

>>33336
G-Gah..

>>33337
I don't think, my dear child, I know. There is a difference here, you see.

>>33333
>five "3"

congratulations Belphe-tan

>>33339
ur a nerd

>>33340
I didn't even notice that, thanks~

>>33341
ur a liar, lindsay

>>33341
Everyone is nerd.

>>33339
Tsun for being a nerd huh.

>>33343
Red died and became useless on seacats long ago.

>>33343
me nerd? I dont think so

I have good grades and like anime and VN but nah
not nerd.

>>33344
No way, I don't know how you'd come to that conclusion! You're being an evil S and I could totally prove you wrong if it were worth my valuable time.

as Lily said ,Red is useless outside of gameboards, unless its something undeniable....

>>33349
Gold is useless too.

>>33345
Red is only as useful as the relationship of trust that exists between the one stating the red and the one reading it.

If there is no trust, the red has no meaning. So it is here, so it is in Umineko. The reader needs to be able to respect the rule that the red is truth the writer suggests. The writer needs to not violate that rule.

Red as rule is also an admission that sometimes things they say in red are not true, because if the reader simply believed the writer told the truth no matter what, there really would be no need for the red.

Misha wearing a Bush Cheney 2004 shirt waaaaaaaaat

>>33352
Good thing I didn't give it a chance.

>>33353
You should give it a chance regardless.

>>33354
Well, I will give it a chance if it's translated.

>>33355
It's already in english so there's no need for it to be translated.

>>33356
I'll read it as a punishment game if every single seacat reads all of Umineko.

>>33357
That's hardly a punishment game since it's never going to happen.

>>33358
I'm just making a point. There's something others here should be giving a chance before I give that a chance.

>try watching Fate/Zero again
>episode 2
>Caster's Summoning
>dropped

>>33359
Haven't the people who were telling you to give Katawa shoujo a chance the ones who had already read Umineko anyway?

>>33360
?

>>33361
Sort of. But what about the ones who won't try episode 8 but like the rest of the series?

>>33363
Little boy gets brutally tentacle murdered by Cthulhu.

>>33316
I still don't agree with any of those points, but I'll respect your wish to drop the issue rather than type out the counter-arguments I was thinking of.

One thing I would like to warn you of, however, is that hate is hate. When you hate other people, it's wrong, no matter how you dress it up or justify or rationalize it. You talk about how you're somehow better because you don't act on it (hey, you don't act on it, but you'll call other people scum and condescend towards them), but it still just means you're no better than they are for hating people whose beliefs differ. Your defense falls apart quickly every time a gnostic and an agnostic interact and the gnostic doesn't start a jihad against the agnostic (which, I guarantee, happens quite often).

>>33325
Are we to use this child's argument, Lili~? Perhaps we should hold it against the English for their invasion of France and history of subjugation and colonization then? Or do they get a pass because they couldn't hold onto their conquests~?