the archives

dusted off in read-only


posts by Cynadar Candidate | joined 11 Nov 2004 | 33

Friends... posted 20 Mar 2005, 06:03 in Author Q & AFriends... by Cynadar, Candidate

How can I convince friends of mine to pick up the series. They seem to be unmotivated to read something outside of their range of "comfortable authors". Even when I tell them of how great this series is, they continue to deny my requests to read it (after all, discussion face-to-face is alot easier than internet). Help??? view post

Character? posted 20 Mar 2005, 06:03 in Author Q & ACharacter? by Cynadar, Candidate

Is Cu'jara Cinmoi going to be a character in The Thousandfold Thought? If not, why did you choose that to be your user name? view post

I HATE PEOPLE... posted 20 Mar 2005, 21:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionI HATE PEOPLE... by Cynadar, Candidate

I just finsihed reading reviews on the Prince of Nothing Series by absolute idiots! People that didn't like the books because, what do you know, the events in them could have actually happened (minus the magic, of course). They said that there's not enough plot, and too much characterizing/ philosophy. When will people learn, plot isn't everything! If these books were plot only and no philosophy and characterizing, I would have stopped about page 7. The reason certain books have that ability to make you stop everything just to read them is: you care for the characters. A solely plot book cannot deliver anxiety towards characters and their fate. You have to make memorable characters and a society worth reading about to truly allow books to grip the reader so strong, that he finds himself worrying over what may happen in the next book: will this character die? Will he prevail against [antagonist]? And so on. Sorry if this annoyed anyone, but I just can't stand society's superficial nature. Maybe I should build a castle in the middle of nowhere and become Dunyian... view post

The Darkness That Comes Before posted 21 Mar 2005, 23:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionThe Darkness That Comes Before by Cynadar, Candidate

I was looking through some of the older posts last night and saw one that asked readers to define the darkness that comes before. Although I missed the competition, I would still like to post my thoughts on it: According to Kellhus, the darkness that comes before rules men and their emotions; the darkness that comes before is a woman. view post

posted 23 Mar 2005, 04:03 in Interviews and ReviewsR.A. Salvatore mentions Scott in passing by Cynadar, Candidate

Funny. My friend refused to start the Prince Of Nothing series because of his new Ice Wind Dale books, and the oh so famous Drizzt (I hope spelled that right...). Now that he's done, I think I can convince him to start the series. Also (from what I've heard by the Bakker fans out here), I'm glad I never read those books. Hope he'll feel like they were crap once he starts The Darkness That Comes Before... view post

posted 23 Mar 2005, 22:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Cynadar, Candidate

Anybody in to Bad Religion? view post

posted 24 Mar 2005, 02:03 in Author Q & ACongratulations! by Cynadar, Candidate

[quote="Aldarion":oyoo4ygr]At least you're not taking the Terry Goodkind approach toward all this ;)[/quote:oyoo4ygr] I realize this thread is apparently dead, but I was just wondering what the "Terry Goodkind approach" is? view post

posted 24 Mar 2005, 04:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Cynadar, Candidate

disorder view post

Erikson? posted 25 Mar 2005, 04:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionErikson? by Cynadar, Candidate

Steven Erikson seems to be a pretty popular author around here... how many books does he currently have out (and how many more are to be expected in his series)? Since he seems to be a great author that people rank as good (or usually better) than Bakker, I figured I should check some of his books. If you guys could post some info, that would be great :D! Thanks view post

posted 25 Mar 2005, 18:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionErikson? by Cynadar, Candidate

Thanks guys, and are there going to be more books expected in this series? view post

posted 30 Mar 2005, 02:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Cynadar, Candidate

hidden view post

posted 30 Mar 2005, 02:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionErikson? by Cynadar, Candidate

Thanks guys. I just started Gardens Of The Moon on Sunday. I'm not too far into it yet, but I think it's great. view post

What's up with Terry Goodkind... posted 30 Mar 2005, 02:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionWhat's up with Terry Goodkind... by Cynadar, Candidate

Terry Goodkind seems to be attacked... can someone explain to me why he is hated around here? view post

posted 30 Mar 2005, 18:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Cynadar, Candidate

(Stephen) King (novels) view post

posted 31 Mar 2005, 01:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Cynadar, Candidate

Dark (tower) view post

posted 31 Mar 2005, 01:03 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWhat is the Thousand-Fold Thought? by Cynadar, Candidate

Thread's been dead since november it seems, but I'll post my thoughts on the Thousandfold thought anyway. I think the thousandfold thought deals with Kellhus' ability to manipulate and even think with the thousands of minds that he is able to control. Does that sound like a real possibility? view post

posted 04 Apr 2005, 20:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Cynadar, Candidate

hair view post

posted 04 Apr 2005, 21:04 in Author Q & ABakker vs. Kellhus in Cranium by Cynadar, Candidate

Creating such an intelligent character as Kellhus must have been hard, as you say. But how can you possibly decide the thoughts of the idiot characters (such as the emperor)? view post

posted 06 Apr 2005, 00:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Cynadar, Candidate

silver view post

posted 06 Apr 2005, 00:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Cynadar, Candidate

I'm about to start (for english and becuase I've been intereseted in reading it for some time) Frankenstein. Has anyone read it before? view post

posted 09 Apr 2005, 04:04 in Author Q & ABakker vs. Kellhus in Cranium by Cynadar, Candidate

I really don't like the emperor very much because his thought process reminds me of my sister's. And she's extremely stupid, refusing to accept truth when it's put in front of her, spelled out flatly. Even after I prove something to her NUMEROUS times, it seems she is unable to realize many fundamentals of life. Just make her male, give her a position of power, and you have the emperor. view post

posted 11 Apr 2005, 06:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Cynadar, Candidate

Olympics view post

posted 13 Apr 2005, 20:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Cynadar, Candidate

different view post

posted 13 Apr 2005, 20:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Destruction of the Dunyain by Cynadar, Candidate

If they truly are conditioned, they shouldn't have to worry about this; their conditioned nature would allow them to fight this battle with great ease. We saw earlier in the Warrior-Prophet (or maybe The Darkness That Comes Before, I can't remember) Kellhus fight off 3 (or 4) assassins at once, IN THE MIDDLE OF A PROBABILITY TRANCE. Just try to imagine thousands of them fully armed and ready for combat... view post

posted 18 Apr 2005, 03:04 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Destruction of the Dunyain by Cynadar, Candidate

The only problem with the Dunyian being found is: currently two men (outside of Ishual) know where the fortress is. The consult will have to resort to actual searching (unlike the torchuring scene that cncluded the Warrior-Prophet). If they are to find the Dunyian, who's to say that the consult will decide to kill them? Perhaps they will propose a pact between the Conditioned to destroy the rest of the world? Imagine the power achieved in an alliance of Conditioned and skin-spying Consult! Imagine if Kellhus, Moenghus, and the rest of the Three-Seas have to take on the power of the full Dunyian army and the Consult. That may be how Kellhus turns out to be the Harbinger of the Second Apocolypse. This seems an almost impossibility. But who knows what that crazy Mr. Bakker is setting up in the conclusion to this great series.... view post

posted 24 Apr 2005, 04:04 in Author Q & AFeelings for our protaganist by Cynadar, Candidate

Personally, Kellhus is favorite character since the moment he first left the fortress. I guess I can kinda relate to him, isolating myself in a fortress hidden from everyone. I can watch, listen and analyze people very well (not to the degree that Kellhus can, but he is a fictional character after all). I can hide emotion when necessary, tell people what I need them to hear. To me Kellhus is who I would (or will) be in time. However I don't (and hope I never do) exploit weakness in people to manipulate them to my own ends. view post

posted 24 Apr 2005, 04:04 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Cynadar, Candidate

I believe that the possibility of any higher being is a paradox in itself. First of all, take the concept of time. We say time is infinite, meaning it spans an incalculable amount both forward and reverse. How can a being simply come from the start of that which has no beginning? The universe is also limitless, so how can there be nothing preceding the existence of a supreme power? He had to come from somewhere, but nothing could exist before Him... Next point, how can an all-forgiving god send someone to eternal damnation for no wrong-deed; for just being raised different (such as Christians saying all Muslims (for example) will burn in hell. How can something all-forgiving send someone who was raised Muslim his whole life, and was otherwise a good soul to hell?) This next point is just toward religious refernces based on Christian beliefs. Noah's ark: Noah fits one of every animal onto his ark. Did he manage to get one of every species of whale, fish, shark and other sea organisms? Did he have knowledge enough to build an aquarium with the correct ratio of salt and water, while maintaining size enough to fit these animals? Why would there be any point in doing this? But why would the bible say "two of EVERY animal?" How does that make sense? And take all the recently discovered species of animals dwelling in the rainforest... did he also manage to discover them and load them up on the boat? Next attack on christianity: Lucifer. God creates Lucifer, knowing that he will be betrayed by this very being. WHY??? Or, you can take the other answer to this: he truly isn't God, he isn't omniscient and omnipotent. Can a god lie? Well, that's it for my religious rambling attacks... view post

posted 25 Apr 2005, 22:04 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Cynadar, Candidate

[quote="Andrew":v1ey83rb]The comment about God creating lucifer is equally pertinent to the question of God creating people. Knowing they would reject him.[/quote:v1ey83rb] Exactly. Why the f*** would God create ANYTHING that he knew would betray him!? Makes no sense, huh? Time cannot be perceived of as an effect; rather, for our own understanding, it NEEDS to be thought of as a fourth dimension. Based on previous knowledge, the universe in infinite. The universe, in essence, contains everything, all previous 4 dimensions included. Therefore, the is no limit to the amount of space in the universe or the amount of time. Time is infinite; it has no beginning or end. Nothing can possibly precede that which is older then the age of the current universe itself. There is no possibility that a god (or any higher being) can exist once this knowledge is established. And what about my comment on God supposedly being a great forgiver, yet refusing all who have differing world views but manage to live a good life? And moving on to "Either nothing created everything or god created everything" argument: Not true. As I mentioned above, there is no beginning or end to time. Therefore, everything has been in existence for longer than this very universe has. It has simply shifted state due to certain effects such as the universe expansion. Science is not a gamble. It is a study of effects of what we already know in order to determine what we don't. For example, testing drugs on animals. We use the drugs on animals to determine the fundamentals of how the drug will work and affect the body. Once we establish these key basics of how the drug works, we attempt to study its effects on humans, knowing that they will be similar, but not exactly the same. So we find the final effects after months of testing on animals who share similary characteristics (one reason why we classify animals into groups such as Mammals. Is that a gamble? Relying on hundreds of years of work that animals can be classified into distinct groups to help with tasks such as this?). Let's take that child in the largest library in the universe example and make it truly useful. The child reads and understands everything presented in the text. He then sits down and thinks about everything the book has just taught him. He thinks this over in a new light that the author hadn't thought about. He then comes up with some a new hypothesis and puts it to the test. Working on countless experiments, he soon finds a new law that holds true for everything he has experimented with. Is this known as learning nothing that he didn't already know? view post

posted 30 Apr 2005, 03:04 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Cynadar, Candidate

Time to start chipping away... (damn these long posts) prediction/ extrapolation/ gambling is not how science works. If science was only guesswork, we would be nowhere farther than following animals, because we know they provide food. We would have no language, no religion. You refuse to accept this fact, yet fight for religion which is a product of scientific advancement. Quite interesting, don't you agree? First of all, I don't understand what the example of the library does to prove the existence of god, but here we go. We're saying that this child was (for no apparent reason) in a library. This child is able to read a book that describes (from what you said earlier) everything imaginable about science. This child understands everything presented in the text. But what does that tell us about the nature of the library? Everything and nothing. You see, you're taking a single moment in an infinite amount of time. We can assume the child doesn't miraculously die seconds after reading this (if he did, the whole argument would be useless). Therefore, the child continues living (and will continue to do as he is a CHILD). The reason I say everything and nothing, is because the book itself provides no example to these questions, but the example of the child as a whole gives us evidence that looking farther into time, we learn everything about the library. This child is smart enough to read and understand EVERYTHING in a book about physics, chemistry, astronomy and basically all forms of science. And then the next sentence you completely disregard this intelligence. The child would then THINK. He would realize he knows everything about the laws of physics and decide to either read more of what the library has to offer, or determine his current position. He would find the entrance/ exit of this library, or a references to the books contained in the library. One side of this, he reads the list of books and determines the reason of the libraries existance. Or he leaves the library (if possible) and determines its location and can use later resources to find its purpose. Third option, he continues reading, and determines the organization of the books in the library, the type of books this library offers and everything else he reads and learns from these books. You looked at one single moment throughout the scale of the situation, when there was so much more. You did not even look into the child's past, which may give reason for the library to exist. Perhaps this child was bred (with modern technology) to be a super-genius (of the likes this world has not seen). The library was a compilation of every single piece of writing ever written to give him abundant knowledge of what we (as humans) already know. You are refusing to take past or present events into account, and therefore, look over any event (past or future) aside from the child reading this book. You label them useless to further the point of your argument so you can attempt to crush any opposition towards it. The statement that the universe is infinite is completely in line with the fact that is expanding. We as humans cannot perceive anything infinite. When we decide to look at "End Behavior" of a graph (as in math), we draw it out to infinite. Can we actually perform a calculation with this number? NO! We substitute a very large (or very small) number that will cause the calculation to be so nearly equal to the "infinite" value of the function that we can say the two are "equal." Infinite is simply the state of rapid expansion (and decomposition) with no signs of slowing. And, as I said earlier, time in its infinite state will continue to progress in a positive and negative direction. The statement that "God created everything or nothing created everything" becomes a completely useless argument in this case. However, you already gave up this argument, so I'll move on. The law of conservation of mass/ energy states that mass (or energy) cannot be created or destroyed, simply transferred. Again, disproving god's existance. However, "suspending disbelief," god would (of course) have the power to manuever around his own laws... But that goes to the essential simpson's question: (assuming omnipotence of god) "Can god create a..." Burrito in this case, it is simpsons... "Burrito so hot that he can't eat it." How does an omnipotent being exist? It would be impossible for Him to create a burrito so hot that he can't eat it, becuase he can do anything (eat that burrito included). But perahps you can argue omnipotence and keep up with these discrepansies... I am not saying God does not forgive everyone, I'm saying he doesn't forgive you unless YOU ASK FOR IT (like you said, proving my own point). He claims to be a great forgiver. I am saying that you cannot call him forgiver, when he refuses to forgive all those who deny him. I'll write out the example one more time: A young man was born and raised muslim. This is all he knows. He hears about the Christian religion, but can't possibly convert (his nature and upbringing do not allow this). He manages to live a good life, making NO MISTAKE WHATSOEVER (which I actually think would be impossible, but for this example, he doesn't do anything that God would not want him to do, aside from being muslim). He dies and God deems him unworthy of acceptance to heavan because of one small thing against him: he was muslim. How can you call that forgiving!? That's cruelty at its worst. God refuses this man simply because he was born to the wrong people? How can anyone in their right mind call THAT forgiving? Finally, "Why does a parent raise a child, when they know that child will rebel sometime in their life?" My simple answer is this: (most) modern parents are complete idiots, who have kids simply because they want to fuck. They hold expectations for this kid, and destroy any sense of individuality that child will ever have. I use myself in this case. My mom basically refuses to accept the fact that perhaps her religion is wrong; God may not exist. That simple refusal destroys my sense of self. If and when I become a parent, I will hold no expectations, leave my children free to live how they see fit. A certain amount of structure will obviously need to be provided, but I will not say "I don't believe in God, so they CAN'T." I'll raise them aetheist, sure. But allow them to choose whether or not they believe in god, whether or not they want to dress a certain way, whether or not they want a certain career or not, etc (the list goes on, trust me). Parents raise kids with expectations, where they should allow the child to be a true individual. They always hold that expectation that he (or she) won't rebel. "She'll be my little angel" "He'll be a rocket scientist" They are crushed when they realize that the child has no motivation to be a beauty queen or rocket scientist. That causes them to lash out at the child. The child knows that the only way to get back is to rebel and try as hard as they can to go against how their parent (s) raised them. This didn't work so well in my case, because naturally school comes so easy to me (and that's just about the only expectation (aside from religion) that my mom had for me), that I literally can't fail (plus it'll only hurt me later when I attempt to live on my own). That's the only thing we, as teenagers, know how to do to fight it. You see what I mean, how the parent doesn't expect the child to rebel, but by holding that expectation, they allow the child to rebel against that expectation... view post

posted 12 May 2005, 01:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Cynadar, Candidate

I've been really busy this last week... Here it goes for my reply... Your post about my remark on parenting was very understandible. I didn't mean it to be taken that way, but perhaps I should elaborate. All I simply meant was you should raise your kids according to your own beliefs, values etc. But don't expect them to follow those values. This may just be PROBABILITY and CHANCE that I'm drastically different from the rest of the human race, but I prefer to think on my own, and make my own decisions. This may also be because I, essentially, grew up without a father, but I like to think about and analyze things in my own light and decide what is right for me. That's I'm trying to get at. Raise kids how you see fit, but let them think things out for themselves. Tell them "I don't think you should have sex until you get married" (for example), and give them reasons why they should wait. Then let them decide if they still want to have sex or if they think it's right to wait. Don't just say "NO SEX" without supporting reasons and expect them to blindly follow the rule. That's what I was trying to say: let your children decide things for themselves based on what you teach them and their own thought process. And just to be a little thought-provoking, beginning of this semester, my chemistry teacher (he's really cool and sometimes gets off subject with this kind of talk) said that the only reason many adults have kids (Now anyway) is to fill their inadequacies. He says that the reason parents want you to get good grades or do well in sports is because they never did; they want to fill their own failures in their kids... I'm getting extremely irritated with these long replies, so here it is: Your have your beliefs, I have mine. Let's just leave it at that, and forget arguing because neither of us will ever agree with the other. I'm just gonna finish off with this quote from Grag Graffin (lead singer of Bad Religion, author of "Evolution, Monism, Atheism and the Naturalist World-View," and a professor of evolutionary history (or some kind of biology at least) at Cornell University) "We don't subscribe to dogmatic ways of life and dogmatic views of life. Religion, in general, is founded in dogma and in restriction of ideas, restriction of thought. It's these things that I feel are very bad about religion. It's also very bad about nationalistic views. It's something that mankind, as a group, is not going to benefit from. It's something that will instill violence and it will instill fighting and it will instill noncooperation of different groups of humans" I could not use my own words to put a better main reason why I don't follow any religion. It's for these reasons that, if I were to believe in God, I would still not follow any set religion, I would just follow my own beliefs. However, you already know that it is not the case, so... I'm done arguing now. view post

posted 15 May 2005, 01:05 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Cynadar, Candidate

Nine Inch Nails -- With Teeth (the new one) view post

posted 15 May 2005, 01:05 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Cynadar, Candidate

unique view post

posted 08 Aug 2006, 20:08 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Cynadar, Candidate

The first time I smoked pot (it was actually the second time, but it was the first time I was put into an altered state of mind), I was at home with my brother and I didn't really get "high." It was a horrible attack of paranoia! I couldn't sleep at all that night. But, I've never had a similar experience. But the next time I smoked, it was an amazing experience. It was right around the time the new tool album came out (10, 000 days), so I was listening to that CD (yeah, I know that was only like 2-3 months ago...). The song "The Pot" was crazy awesome! Every song on that CD was amazing, and I had a whole new insight into the filler tracks the put on there as well as the regular songs. Anyway, it really just depends on your surroudings. Because, when we used to get high at home, it usually wasn't as fun. And music is usually very important to me when I get blazed. Bad music doesn't really change the high that much, but good music can make the high so much better. Another random thought: one time, I got really baked while I was working on some huge essay for school. I was able to work on the essay just fine, and I had some amazing insight as well (I looked back on it when I was sober and was amazed at how well my research had been that night). The only thing that really hindered my work was extreme euphoria. I became so happy and felt so amazing, that I had to set the books down for a minute to sit and enjoy the feeling (which only last a few minutes anyway). I'm going to stop rambling about different experiences now. My final point is: using drugs is really affected by your surroundings and mood and can change based on either. view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.