who inspires you?

Postby viking » Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:03 am

a simple question really, is there anyone out there that you are inspired by and if so why?
it could be anyone like a family member, your teacher, a celebrity, an actor, author, musician or perhaps even a fictional character from a book, movie or a video game.

personally i play guitar and are for instance inspired by other great guitarists like Eddie Van Halen, Kirk Hammet, Angus Young and Slash.

also as i am a chef i get inspired by other great chefs like Gordon Ramsey.
Once a scout, always a perverted pyromaniac with a fetish for knives and duct tape

Re: who inspires you?

Postby sarobah » Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:23 pm

Nice topic – it got me thinking.

As an aspiring scientist, my main inspirations are in science:
Albert Einstein – the most important scientist of the 20th century, perhaps the millennium.
Stephen Hawking – an amazing example of how a strong mind can transcend a frail body.
Marie Curie – overcame the obstacles to women in science to become one of the best (of either sex).

Outside science:
Socrates – Greek philosopher who taught us to question everything.
The Buddha – Indian philosopher who taught us what matters and what doesn’t.
Charles James Fox – British 18-19th century parliamentarian (I’m inspired by his politics, not his personal life).
Hillary Rodham Clinton – US politician, people love or hate her, which says it all.
Dorothy Parker – short and sassy, like me.

Fictional:
Alldera, heroine of The Holdfast Chronicles, by Suzy McKee Charnas – female slave in a man’s world who kicks butt all over the post-apocalyptic landscape.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer – if you have never seen BtVS, then watch and learn :o)

Since only two of my inspirations are real and still alive, I shall add my mother – strong, intelligent and sexy.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: who inspires you?

Postby KittyReaper » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:15 am

Very interesting, I guess my answer would be one person.
My answer would be Roger Ebert the film reviewer who lost his voice due to thyroid cancer but still has more of a voice about movies than most reviewers.

I'm sure there are many famous figures in science, religion/philosophy, medicine (Jonas Salk comes to mind) but none of these people are personal inspirations to me.

Re: who inspires you?

Postby TUfriend » Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:56 am

Alan Turing. Mathematician who did a lot of work in the computer science. He was also gay.
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.

See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.

Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

Re: who inspires you?

Postby sarobah » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:09 pm

TUfriend wrote:Alan Turing. Mathematician who did a lot of work in the computer science. He was also gay.

And the world lost one of its greatest talents due to stupid prejudice.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: who inspires you?

Postby xtc » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:19 pm

sarobah wrote:
TUfriend wrote:Alan Turing. Mathematician who did a lot of work in the computer science. He was also gay.

And the world lost one of its greatest talents due to stupid prejudice.


I'll second that!
Boxer shorts are cool,
but little speedos rule!

More by the same author: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729

Re: who inspires you?

Postby The Black Falcon » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:40 pm

As a musician, one of my greatest inspirations is Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. There's just such a balance and clarity in his music, and (unlike most of the other famous composers) there's a legitimate sense that he was having a blast working on it. He was a man dedicated to doing what he loved, and ended up bringing the world countless fantastic works because of it. I also admire Frederic Chopin, who defined the Romantic period - probably my favorite period of old music. I try to harness his amazing ideas into my own music.

And as for fictional inspirations, do you even have to ask?
Image
College student by day. Crime-fighting vigilante by night.

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Jay Feely » Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:00 pm

My brothers inspire me the most by encouraging me whenever I'm not doing well in college and they are my role models. They have taught me how to clean my room, how to fix a flat tire, and other life skills required for me to go far in life.
You will have to subdue me to restrain me. I been a bad boy so make sure you torture me too with anything but pain.

Re: who inspires you?

Postby mistofoleese » Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:23 am

xtc wrote:
sarobah wrote:
TUfriend wrote:Alan Turing. Mathematician who did a lot of work in the computer science. He was also gay.

And the world lost one of its greatest talents due to stupid prejudice.


I'll second that!


Its truly sad, Call me strange but if everyone lived by the simple code as we in the military and i am not saying just the US military as no matter what country you serve a Soldier is a soldier my point being coming from a diverse background you dont really care if the person next to ya is gay straight bi black white purple or what ever just as long as they got your back when all hell breaks loose.
AND you dont have to be military to have this way of thinking
People tend forget this.

my two cents

Re: who inspires you?

Postby mistofoleese » Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:31 am

Pretty much anyone who has courage to step up and help right the wrongs what ever they may be popular or unpopular just mere fact they have the courage to step up and willingly want to walk into the fray sure there are a lot of people who think their ideals " all that and a back of chips cool ranch flavor" if you have the guts to dare to be different

this could be anyone from the young to the old

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Amagi420 » Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:57 pm

sarobah wrote:Nice topic – it got me thinking.

As an aspiring scientist, my main inspirations are in science:
Albert Einstein – the most important scientist of the 20th century, perhaps the millennium.
Stephen Hawking – an amazing example of how a strong mind can transcend a frail body.
Marie Curie – overcame the obstacles to women in science to become one of the best (of either sex).

Outside science:
Socrates – Greek philosopher who taught us to question everything.
The Buddha – Indian philosopher who taught us what matters and what doesn’t.
Charles James Fox – British 18-19th century parliamentarian (I’m inspired by his politics, not his personal life).
Hillary Rodham Clinton – US politician, people love or hate her, which says it all.
Dorothy Parker – short and sassy, like me.

Fictional:
Alldera, heroine of The Holdfast Chronicles, by Suzy McKee Charnas – female slave in a man’s world who kicks butt all over the post-apocalyptic landscape.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer – if you have never seen BtVS, then watch and learn :o)

Since only two of my inspirations are real and still alive, I shall add my mother – strong, intelligent and sexy.


No Carl Sagan?

Some of my biggest would be Democritus the man who at the same time as Aristotle was talking about the idea of Atoms. And Sir. Isaac Newton the greatest mind to ever walk the earth. Living I would have to say Dean Kamen and Richard Dawkins.
Any other lifejacket/five point harness/safety gear fans out there? Shoot me a message!

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Chris12 » Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:24 am

Darth Vader! :twisted: Well, its kinda true :lol: i'm not sure inspire is the word i'd use but i'm somewhat of a history guy so most people who would inspire me are dead for quite a few years. Mainly military people with big successes .

In this day there really aren't many people that i can say inspire me but some kind of do. Actors and artist who still work while in their eighty's for example

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:19 pm

That I have personally met: Isaac Asimov, who seemed to know practically everything and was skilled in explaining what he knew in language anyone of average intelligence could understand.
That I have seen on TV: Carl Sagan for reasons similar to Asimov
Still living: Steven Hawking, who managed to overcome adversity that would have overwhelmed most people and contribute more to science than anyone since Albert Einstein
Historical : Galileo, who considered scientific truth more important than than his own well being and defied the Catholic Church - at least, until they threatened him him with outright torture. Abraham Lincoln is a close second for similar reasons; he stuck to his guns to fight for something he believed in; in his case abolishing slavery.
Fictional - superhero: Superman, who has enough power to take over the world but uses it to freely help others instead. I wish more people with actual power in real life (IOW billionaires and politicians) felt a similar desire to help people rather than gain more power for selfish reasons. As is, the combination of power and generosity is so rare that the ones that exist (like Bill Gates) make headlines. More usually, they spend money just to get their taxes lowered... but enough of that particular rant before I get too off topic.
Fictional - sci fi: Mr. Spock, who was not only brilliant but who had difficulty being accepted as he was; something that as an Aspie I can relate to quite well (even though of course I'm nowhere near as smart). Also, through some genetic fluke from my mother' side of my family, my ears are actually pointed too (though nowhere near as obviously as his, Thank God). Spock was a class act who could always be counted on in a pinch.
Fictional - heroic fantasy; Frodo Baggins - because he proves you don't have to be strong and tough like Conan the Barbarian to be a hero.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: who inspires you?

Postby sarobah » Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:09 pm

Good choices, Jason, except that I have to take issue with one of your comments.
Galileo was one of the greatest scientists of all time, but he was also a bit of a dick. His method of argumentation was basically the straw man technique. His heliocentric theory was actually supported by Pope Urban VIII, until Galileo attacked the Pope’s authority. Keep in mind that if he had challenged any of the secular rulers in Europe, he would have ended up in a lot worse than house detention.
That’s why Galileo is not one of my principal heroes. His provocative behaviour possibly set back the cause of science by a hundred years.

On the lighter side, let’s not forget that Superman was born all-powerful. Bill Gates had to earn his wealth and power. (How he did so is, of course, another issue :o)
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:02 pm

I've heard a different version of this story myself, Sarobah. Though I agree that Galileo was a rather contentious bastard (but so was Isaac Newton), the pope did not support the heliocentric theory. In fact, Galileo was forced to recant the heliocentric theory in public.
To quote from the wiki about Galileo:
Earlier, Pope Urban VIII had personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio support, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton". This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book: an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defence of the Copernican theory. Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.
Though I agree Galileo made some errors in judgment (maybe he was an Aspie like me :big: ), my basic assumption remains valid, I think. He was more concerned about the truth than he was about public opinion or papal authority, and recanted (insincerely) only because he was threatened with torture if he didn't. In those days, the Catholic could and did torture people - and even burn them at the stake - for the crime of 'heresy'. He may have been a dick, but at least he was a reasonably courageous one (and what sane person would willingly undergo torture when he can simply lie his way out of it)?
As for his 'provocative behavior' setting back science at all, let alone for 100 years, I know of no evidence of this and can list a great number of his inventions and discoveries to refute it instead. He advanced science 100 years, if anything!!!
Isaac Newton, possibly the most brilliant scientist of all time (and IMO the only one of the 17th century greater than Galileo), was every bit a prick as Galileo was, and certainly *he* didn't set science back either!
Last edited by Jason Toddman on Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Nexus » Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:42 am

This man:

Image

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Jason Toddman » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:54 am

Nexus wrote:This man:

Not to argue with you or anything, but... why? :quirk: It's one thing to be a fan, what why does he inspire you?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: who inspires you?

Postby swamidfs » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:48 am

Jason Toddman wrote:I've heard a different version of this story myself, Sarobah. Though I agree that Galileo was a rather contentious bastard (but so was Isaac Newton), the pope did not support the heliocentric theory. In fact, Galileo was forced to recant the heliocentric theory in public.
To quote from the wiki about Galileo:
Earlier, Pope Urban VIII had personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio support, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton". This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book: an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defence of the Copernican theory. Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.
Though I agree Galileo made some errors in judgment (maybe he was an Aspie like me :big: ), my basic assumption remains valid, I think. He was more concerned about the truth than he was about public opinion or papal authority, and recanted (insincerely) only because he was threatened with torture if he didn't. In those days, the Catholic could and did torture people - and even burn them at the stake - for the crime of 'heresy'. He may have been a dick, but at least he was a reasonably courageous one (and what sane person would willingly undergo torture when he can simply lie his way out of it)?
As for his 'provocative behavior' setting back science at all, let alone for 100 years, I know of no evidence of this and can list a great number of his inventions and discoveries to refute it instead. He advanced science 100 years, if anything!!!
Isaac Newton, possibly the most brilliant scientist of all time (and IMO the only one of the 17th century greater than Galileo), was every bit a prick as Galileo was, and certainly *he* didn't set science back either!


What about Copernicus? Did the Catholic Church oppose him for his views?
Here is what wiki says: Copernicus' epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), published just before his death in 1543, is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the scientific revolution. His heliocentric model, with the Sun at the center of the universe, demonstrated that the observed motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting Earth at rest in the center of the universe. His work stimulated further scientific investigations, becoming a landmark in the history of science that is often referred to as the Copernican Revolution.
Galileo was anther 100 years behind this guy, so it could not be his astronomical views that caused his troubles.
As for the line that "In those days, the Catholic could and did torture people - and even burn them at the stake - for the crime of 'heresy'." That is also an unturth. Nowhere in Canon Law was heresy punished by anything other than an anathema. What you confuse with the Church are the Civil Punishments associated with heresy - like the Salem witch trials weren't Purtian Inquisitions by a Puritain Church, but rather civil courts not separating Church from State. It was because Catholicism was a State religion, that there were civil punishments for being a heretic. But it is nice to just overlook details in favor or rhetoric and propaganda.

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:20 am

swamidfs wrote: What about Copernicus? Did the Catholic Church oppose him for his views?
Here is what wiki says: Copernicus' epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), published just before his death in 1543, is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the scientific revolution. His heliocentric model, with the Sun at the center of the universe, demonstrated that the observed motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting Earth at rest in the center of the universe. His work stimulated further scientific investigations, becoming a landmark in the history of science that is often referred to as the Copernican Revolution.
Galileo was anther 100 years behind this guy, so it could not be his astronomical views that caused his troubles.
As for the line that "In those days, the Catholic could and did torture people - and even burn them at the stake - for the crime of 'heresy'." That is also an unturth. Nowhere in Canon Law was heresy punished by anything other than an anathema. What you confuse with the Church are the Civil Punishments associated with heresy - like the Salem witch trials weren't Purtian Inquisitions by a Puritain Church, but rather civil courts not separating Church from State. It was because Catholicism was a State religion, that there were civil punishments for being a heretic. But it is nice to just overlook details in favor or rhetoric and propaganda.

I do NOT engage in rhetoric or propaganda when discussion religion or history, Swanidfs. Everything I said was a matter of historical record. And before I go on, I am not anti-Catholic; in fact, I was raised Catholic. I left when I studied the history of Catholism and was appalled by what I learned.
You cite Canon Law. I never mentioned Canon Law. And you admitted yourself that the Church punished heresy thru civil law; this is all *I* said. In any case, you cannot deny the Catholic Church had and used (and overused) civil law to further its own political ends. Everyone has heard of the Spanish Inquisition, I trust; if you have not I suggest you look it up. If ever we have a section for someone who I revile the most, Torquemada will be one of the people I will list!
Others suffered worse for their heresy too.Look at Giordano Bruno! He was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in proposing that the Sun was essentially a star, and moreover, that the universe contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds populated by other intelligent beings. He was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for his pantheism and turned him over to the state, which at that time considered heresy illegal.
Copernicus did indeed invent the Heliocentric theory first, and was ahead of Galileo by about 70 years. But there were some reasons I did not mention him. Chief of these is the fact that he waited over thirty years... until he was safely dying, in fact... before he published his theory. By the time word got out, he was past all persecution. Not very courageous of him; this delayed knowledge of his theory for many years. The Church was unhappy about it but could do nothing about Copernicus. However, he was isolated enough in Poland so that the Church could suppress his theories from common knowledge. Even by Galileo's time few people had heard of it in western Europe. Learning did not spread across national borders and into other languages as readily then as it does today - and Copernicus's book was listed under the Forbidden Books by the Church which further inhibited its spread. By Galileo's time it was still a little-known and non-accepted theory.
Galileo on the other hand was not isolated; he was at a major center of learning, and he would NOT shut up about the Heliocentric Theory (which AFAIK he never claimed to have originated). Sarobah says Galileo set things back by being such a prick. On the contrary, he advanced things forward because he could not be intimidated into keeping quiet! He did not invent the Heliocentric theory, but he made sure other people heard about it, and was bold enough to do so while he was still reasonably young and healthy instead of waiting until he was on his death bed. It is, in fact, his outspokeness which caused the theory to spread; the Church could not suppress him even after he was arrested and kept relatively incommunicado. This is why I chose him rather than Copernicus, and why I consider him a hero despite what Sarobah said; his assertiveness was - in light of the circumstances - like a witness to a crime who refused to be intimidated by the actual perpetrators. He more than anyone (except for Kepler) ensured that The Heliocentric theory flourished as soon as it did!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: who inspires you?

Postby swamidfs » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:47 am

He was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for his pantheism and turned him over to the state, which at that time considered heresy illegal.

Thanks for proving me right.

And it does not matter if you were raised such or not ... that you repeat the propaganda that says the Church and not the civil governement burned people at the stake proves your hypocricy. In this one example you show the truth that the Church found someone guilty of heresy and it was the civil government and not the Church that burned the man at the stake. Which was my point.

As for the not mentioning Canon Law, that is moot. The Church tries on Canon Law and punishes according to that rule alone. The whole used civil government to its ends comment is a falsehood because the civil governments used the church to govern. Like Charlame and Constintine, civil governments enacted a state religion, like Catholicism, or in Henry 8's case, Anglicanism, to further their power to rule. But please, more rhetoric and propaganda .....

Galileo was punished not for his astronomy or science, but rather his mocking the Church.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds. And that is where his views became heritical.

In fact, the strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo's day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof."

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo's views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move for it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

So get the facts before you toss propaganda.

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:34 am

Dude, I'm willing to discuss the matter all you like, but only if you remain civil. This is the second time you've as much called me a liar and a propaganda artist, and I don't like it one bit. I am trying to be a nice guy, but I won't tolerate rudeness and disrespect - especially from someone who doesn't know a thing about me.
Come back when you are ready to talk in a civil fashion instead of being an argumentative asshole.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: who inspires you?

Postby sarobah » Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:45 am

As a wise man once said: “Can’t we all just get along?”

My comment was purely from a scientific and historical point of view and was not a statement about religion.

Adding (for clarification):
I won’t respond to the previous posts in detail, just make these points.

(1) While I admire Galileo as a scientist, he was not a tactful publicist for the scientific method. A modern parallel, I believe, is Richard Dawkins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
As much as I support his general thesis, there are times when I wish he would just shut up.

(2) There is much misinformation spread about the Catholic Church by its critics and opponents. A good example is the Inquisition. During the time it operated, the “puritan” witch-hunts in England alone claimed twenty times more victims than all the persecuted heretics in Europe – and at least the Inquisition victims were allowed a trial.* Four times more Catholics were murdered in Ireland in one year, 1798, than died at the hands of the Inquisition in five centuries. Does that make the Inquisition good? No, but demonizing the Church while ignoring or excusing similar and worse abuses and atrocities is propaganda, not history.
* I should add that the vast majority of Inquisition victims were males, while the vast majority of witch-hunt victims were females. Being a cynic, I wonder if that explains why one gets the bad rap and the other is never spoken about.
This has NO direct connection to anything posted by Jason or Swamidfs, just a comment.

Re: who inspires you?

Postby RolePlayerOfMadness » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:14 am

good question
I gues the joker did, from the batman:dark knight film
It didn't matter how far he went, no one would ever mess with him
A true agent of chaos, a true psychopath
Tying you up, is only to make you feel more comfortable

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:11 am

RolePlayerOfMadness wrote:good question
I gues the joker did, from the batman:dark knight film
It didn't matter how far he went, no one would ever mess with him
A true agent of chaos, a true psychopath

Interesting timing in regards to answering this question in this way. I am sure James Holmes would have agreed. :worried:

sarobah wrote:My comment was purely from a scientific and historical point of view and was not a statement about religion.

The same is equally true in my case. I have no religious agenda, and never have had. I simply stated facts as I have understood them my entire life, and I still maintain this is the case. I had no intention to offend (that's just not something I ever do on purpose)... or even to say anything i considered indisputable. I certainly never meant to imply that I thought the Catholic Church was somehow especially evil as compared to other denominations and religions (such as, as Sarobah points out, Puritanism), but it was a much different institution in earlier centuries and I thought everyone knew this. As before, I am willing to discuss it with anyone in a reasonable, civilized manner - but *only* if I am treated in a similar manner (as Sarobah was doing). Calling what I said 'propaganda' without and ranting on about stuff that has nothing to do with what I said isn't civil discourse.
As for comparing the atrocities of one religion against another, that was never my intent either. I have no idea what the relative number of victims of the Inquisition and compared to witch-hunting are. I'll simply have to take Sarobah's word for it, as otherwise I'd have to research it for myself and I have other things to study that I consider more interesting.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: who inspires you?

Postby swamidfs » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:53 am

Jason Toddman wrote:Dude, I'm willing to discuss the matter all you like, but only if you remain civil. This is the second time you've as much called me a liar and a propaganda artist, and I don't like it one bit. I am trying to be a nice guy, but I won't tolerate rudeness and disrespect - especially from someone who doesn't know a thing about me.
Come back when you are ready to talk in a civil fashion instead of being an argumentative asshole.


Dude I am being civil about your attacks on my religion. I am a Catholic and proud to be one. Your slurs on the Church are one sided and therefore meet the criteria of propaganda. If having that pointed out to you in open forum imbarresses and seems rude and disrespectful, then you need to really step back and consider just how rude and disrespectful you are being with your slurs about the Church.
I am not excusing the Inquisition. The only reason why such happened was because of the civil governments of the time were "in bed" with the Church as to having their power. Men like Charlemange consolodated their rule by becoming Catholic and being backed by the Church. To maintain their position heritics were criminals who were to be punished by civil punishments. When Protestantism came about, rulers like Henry VIII had to denegrate the Catholic Church and establish their own "churches" like Anglicanism to solidify their influence and power. Why is it only a lovely and righteous thing to dengrate the Catholic Church for having Inquisitions and not find fault with Purtian witch trials? Why such one sided hate against the Catholic Church?
If it was not for the Catholic faith western civilization would not have survived the Dark ages. The only institituions of learning after the fall of Rome to the Vandals and Goths and such, was the monestaries. The only caretaker of the poor and orphans was from the Catholic Church not any civil governments.
Have you ever really looked at real history of the Inquisitions or only concern yourself with propagandis whose only agenda is hatred toward anything Catholic?
There were no civil courts that gave rights to any accused at the time of the Inquisition. Our due process in modern courts of law come from the manner of trial that the Catholic Church provided in Inquisitions. And the only real punishment the Church ever prescribed for heresy was anathema and excommunication. All the burnings at the stake and other tortures associated with the Inquisitions were civil punishments not Church mandated punishments.
Look to Ivan the Terrible or any Czar of Russia for an example of nonCatholic jurisprudence and civil punishment if you have a hard time understanding the difference. Consider the treatment and pursecution of Catholics in Protestant Europe, like England after Henry VII, and note how they justified their treatment of Catholics by their propagandish views of the Inquisition.

Did Galileo get a raw deal because of his science or because he challenged the Church? How many scientists like Galileo were placed under house arrest or worse? Copernicus may have been blacklisted or on a list of banned books, but was he prevented from proving his science?

Or do we see from wiki that ...
In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus' theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. On 1 November 1536, Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:


Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject ...[71]

By then Copernicus' work was nearing its definitive form, and rumors about his theory had reached educated people all over Europe. Despite urgings from many quarters, Copernicus delayed publication of his book, perhaps from fear of criticism—a fear delicately expressed in the subsequent dedication of his masterpiece to Pope Paul III. Scholars disagree on whether Copernicus' concern was limited to possible astronomical and philosophical objections, or whether he was also concerned about religious objections.[72]

Which shows a more tolerant Church position on his scientific understanding than you wish people reading here to comprehend?

If pointing out these points insult you and make you feel attacked, too bad. Your proaganda is attacking and insulting to me. Galileo was left under house arrest for his attack on the Church not his scientific views. Period. Look at the facts, not some Protestant propaganda of hatred for Catholics.

Does the Church have faults? Yes. Are their hypocrites that identify themselves as Catholics that bring disgrace on the Church? Of course. Does such give justifiable reason against her? No.

White surpremist do not undo the United States and such in the Catholic Faith do not undermind the reality of faith inherit within her.

Thank you for your open mind and true tolerance.

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Jason Toddman » Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:16 am

Thank you for your open mind and true tolerance.
First you accuse me me of propaganda and then you say this. Will you kindly make up your mind?
Dude I am being civil about your attacks on my religion.
You have an odd idea of what is civil. And I am NOT attacking your (or anyone's) religion. If you think I am, you must have some kind of persecution complex. I have said nothing that could reasonably be understood as an attack on ANY religion; Catholic or otherwise. Your personal attacks on me - calling me a liar and anti-Catholic among other offensive things - are the only attacks that have appeared here.
I am a Catholic and proud to be one.
No one said otherwise. I certainly would not. That doesn't give you the right to slam anything I say as propaganda however.
Your slurs
what slurs? Be specific, and prove why what I said are slurs and not facts.
on the Church are one sided and therefore meet the criteria of propaganda.
One sided in what way? I said what I said in context. Anything else (like Puritansism) would have been irrelevant and off topic). Also slurs imply lies, and nothing I said was untrue. Progaganda implies a deliberate intent to defame; I had none except in your imagination.
If having that pointed out to you in open forum imbarresses and seems rude and disrespectful, then you need to really step back and consider just how rude and disrespectful you are being with your slurs about the Church.
You keep calling what I say slurs but never cite any example nor point out WHY they are slurs and not the truth. Slurs imply lies. I never knowingly spoke a mistruth anywhere on this topic. Therefore what you are saying are slurs against me! Notice I have not stooped to saying slurs against you. So how about backing up what you say with some relevant facts of your own rather than simply insult me further or go off on tangemts that have nothing to do with anything I said?
Look, this all started because you took exception to something I said about the Catholic Church. I am unsure just what it is you took exception to or why, but I said nothing that I did not believe was indisputable and which I hadn't known my entire adult life. AFAIK the part you found it hard to take was my statement that it was the Catholic Church in general and the Pope in particular that had a problem with Galileo... if this is incorrect you'll have to elaborate what your actual point of contention IS (it's hard to be sure because you go off on tangents an awful lot). Assuming this IS the point, it is incontrovertible that it was the Pope himself who ordered Galileo to Rome, forced him to recant his heliocentric views, and had him placed under house arrest. The Pope could do this because back then the Pope had considerable political power in that part of the world - far more than now of course if considerably less than he'd had in earlier centuries.
Galileo lived at a time of great political and intellectual change. Early in his life, the Church positively encouraged free and open discussion of all topics that did not outrageously contradict doctrine - and that certainly included celestial mechanics. But times changed and the Church became much more conservative taking the view that no view was acceptable that was contrary to scripture (however tenuous) unless that view could be proven which would in turn require scripture to be reinterpreted.
Galileo insisted on continuing to teach that the earth moved just as Copernicus had said. Trouble was, he really could not prove it. When he was ordered to keep quiet, he persisted in the promotion of his views. To make matters worse, in doing so he seemed to be insulting the intelligence of the Pope himself.
In troubled times, the Pope really just had to establish his authority and silence Galileo.
If Galileo did "grovel" in the end it was primarily because he was, when the chips were down, a good Catholic.
It was the Pope, and therefore by extension the Catholic Church, that did all this. If youi dispute this, kindly explain why and what your sources of historical information are. Here is just one of mine that I selected at random:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/ ... ode52.html
Why is it only a lovely and righteous thing to dengrate the Catholic Church for having Inquisitions and not find fault with Purtian witch trials? Why such one sided hate against the Catholic Church?
Hate? I have no such hate. I mentioned nothing about the Puritans because the Purtians had nothing to do with Galileo and were therefore irrelevent. It was your initial attack on me that caused me to mention the Inquisition in the first place. That said, I never claimed (nor meant to imply because I never believed) the Catholic Church was unique when it came to religious persecution. They simply had more time than the Protestants had, but every religious denomination has its own skeletons in their closet. That's one reason why I gave up Church entirely eventually, and not just Catholicism; close-mindedness and a tendency of religious people to be thin skinned about their beliefs being two others. And yes I AM talking about people like you.
If it was not for the Catholic faith western civilization would not have survived the Dark ages. I find that highly debatable at best. In fact, I could cite much evidence for the reverse... that, in fact, the Church delayed scientific inquiry for many centuries. But again, this is not as firmly grounded in indisputable fact plus that has nothing to do with the original subject (who inspires me and why), would add nothing to this conversation, would probably not convince you, would be misconstrued as more anti-Catholic propaganda (a concept I still find as bewildering as I do offensive as I do NOT think that way nor ever have), and would take this increasingly off topic. We (you for starting me and me for trying to reason with you this long) have already spoiled this topic with this discussion; if you like, we can take it up in a fresh topic specifically for this purpose. Then, as long as you remain civil, we can debate the matter all you like. But not as long as you continue to equate unequivocal and historic fact with propaganda, and to imply to me motives completely foreign to my nature.
Copernicus may have been blacklisted or on a list of banned books, but was he prevented from proving his science? He was on his deathbed when he published, and this was no coincidence. He knew he'd be put through a bad time if he published sooner. Right after he finally published, he was dead and so had no chance to prove his science. Since his books were banned - as you yourself admitted - he actually was effectively prevented from proving his science.
Have you ever really looked at real history of the Inquisitions or only concern yourself with propagandis whose only agenda is hatred toward anything Catholic? I have looked at the real history of all religions. I never cited Catholicism as a special case. However, you seem to be seeing only what you want to see. You cite an intolerance for Catholicism specifically within me that does not in fact exist.
Which shows a more tolerant Church position on his scientific understanding than you wish people reading here to comprehend? I have no such agenda as you seem to imply, and find your insistence that I must have such an agenda both puzzling and annoying.
If pointing out these points insult you and make you feel attacked, too bad. Your proaganda is attacking and insulting to me.
And such close minded accusations without really trying to understand what I actually believe are an insult to ME. Have I attacked you or your beliefs anywhere so far? No... although now I'll say your spelling really stinks in places. But concerning me you have done nothing else but call me a bigot - someone no one who knows me would seriously consider likely for a single moment. Cite anything I said that you think was inaccurate in context and if you can prove me wrong I will admit it and say so; otherwise I challenge you to do the apologizing... something I notice NO religious person (Catholic or otherwise) is very good at despite what the Bible teaches.
Galileo was left under house arrest for his attack on the Church not his scientific views. Period. Look at the facts, not some Protestant propaganda of hatred for Catholics.
His attack on the Church was no more real in actuality than mine has been. The Pope chose to interpret Galileo's views as one, just as you have apparently chosen to interpret my defense of Galileo as the same. Galileo was blunt, and expressed himself badly at times. I can relate to this; it happens to me a lot too (this set-to with you is hardly the first time). When I wrote about Galileo, I meant nothing by it whatso-freaking-ever. I sure as Hell was not talking about modern Catholicism; you're the one who brought all that up! But, like Galileo, I refuse to apologize for something that exists only in the other person's interpretation or imagination. I expressed my admiration for Galileo and for standing up for the truth against the religion authorities of his day. Simple historical fact; nothing more. If you can't accept that with the simple spirit with which it was meant, then, as you said, TOO BAD. Luckily for me I don't live in Galileo's time and thus am not at the mercy of the good-will of religious bigots like you.
You've already completely spoiled this thread with this nonsense. Sarobah's objection was one thing; she was not entirely accurate but at least she didn't launch any personal attacks, and that was fine by me. But all you have done with my attempts at simple explanation is to continue to vilify me like you were just another religious troll and go off on wild tangents about Russian tsars and so on which have had nothing whatsoever to do with what I originally said. I've tried to be patient and understanding and polite(unlike you, it seems to me), but I've had enough of this. We can either take this somewhere else more private or at elast more appropriate (namely a new topic) or you can simply stuff it; personally, I don't care which you do. In any case, I am not going to reply any further to you on this subject at this topic. If you have more to say, then start a new thread. Otherwise, nuts to you.
White surpremist do not undo the United States and such in the Catholic Faith do not undermind the reality of faith inherit within her.
And who the Hell are you calling a white supremist?! ME?! That is not only irrelevant to anything discussed but in MY case a total, outright, stinking LIE! Either back up such offensive crap with facts or shut your lying mouth!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: who inspires you?

Postby rick63tied » Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:56 pm

John Wayne.

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Nexus » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:50 am

Jason Toddman wrote:
Nexus wrote:This man:

Not to argue with you or anything, but... why? :quirk: It's one thing to be a fan, what why does he inspire you?


I have been playing guitar for around 14 years now. For most of those years I have marveled at this man's technique, and tried desperately to mimic it, and incorporate it into my own playing. The performer he is on stage is also the type which I aim to be when I am on stage. Even down to his sense of humor and the way he talks has been ingrained in my persona. He just embodies everything I am and want to be, even if parts of him aren't perfect.

Re: who inspires you?

Postby Jason Toddman » Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:21 am

Nexus wrote:He just embodies everything I am and want to be, even if parts of him aren't perfect.

Cool. I feel the same way about Galileo. Who knew *that* would turn out to be so controversial? :worried:
Anyway, that's a perfectly good reason to be inspired by someone. Don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise. :big:
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: who inspires you?

Postby RolePlayerOfMadness » Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:10 am

Jason Toddman wrote:Interesting timing in regards to answering this question in this way. I am sure James Holmes would have agreed. :worried:


To explain it a little better
He is an agent of chaos, doesn't rely on anyone, beats anyone and corrupts everyone around him
He is a master psychopath, and clever.
He doesn't need rules, or plans or anything

That, is what inspires me about him
He just does things.. doesn't need people
you can beat him up yet he still laughs
Tying you up, is only to make you feel more comfortable