DiabloFans

Murder is a pre-meditated killing out of hatred, so self-defense wouldn't constitute murder, but manslaughter. Manslaughter, according to the bible is not a sin, so, according to the bible I'd say it's safe to say that manslaughter is not evil, but that doesn't make it good either, right? I think each scenario just needs weighed out in context and not generalized.

Hey I got another thing to bring up in conversation which is where do we get our morals from? I would say we are all "moral" people here in the sense we aren't murdering people or stealing etc... But why aren't we? If you find a wallet on the ground why do you turn it into the police department?

Since the general consensus here is that good and evil can't be defined except by the individual defining it themself, then how have we all come to the conclusion (as well as most people) that these things are evil?

I would argue that all morals have a stem from religion because religion (in my case christianity, but even in a general sense most big religions are morally pretty good in general) set a standard for us to agree upon instead of everyone just going by their own standard, which if we did that (and we do to some extent, but I would argue we form our morals unknowingly from religious doctrines) I believe the world would be even more chaos than what it is now.

Like here is good ----> GOOD ..................................<- Where good exists here, evil doesn't
.............................> Both exist in the world. But...
Here is evil ---------> EVIL...................................<- Where evil exists here, good doesn't

___
That diagram is better than original.

I'm not arguing they can't exist simultaneously, I'm saying where there is good there isn't evil, and where there is evil there isn't good.

If I murder a man, that's evil, no good is there, yet good still exists in other deeds other people are doing.

For arguments sake if someone commits good for the intention of evil then there are a couple explanations I would have to this... If the deed the person committed was good and the deed went through and was a good deed but the intention was for an evil work (that didn't go through, since the deed was good) then you're right, evil exists within the individual but good came out as a deed. The thing is though, we know that good and evil can simultaneously co-exist in the world, but not really. Man I can't explain what I want to say... Um...

Like here is good ----> GOOD <- Where good exists here, evil doesn't
> Both exist in the world. But...
Here is evil ---------> EVIL <- Where evil exists here, good doesn't

Quote from AnathemicOne »

Oh and @TwilightRealm, though I applaud you for passionalty supporting your position I have some comments on the story you posted above (yes I read through it).

Cold is absence of Heat, yes.
Light is absence of Darkness, maybe.
Evil is absence of Good, no.

On the Light/Darkness issue, I've always had controversy with this; the concept of Dark Space. Dark Space exists yes, it is space with no light, why does this exist? When stars come into being it releases light in all directions no? So why is the void of space black and dark? I support by stating the opinion that darkness is its own substance alien to what we know as darkness, not merely the absence of another.

Now Evil/Good topic, very controversial here. How do we define Good and Evil when they are both moral polar opposites? You cannot measure Evil, you cannot measure Good (even DnD charts can't define) so how do they exist? Because they are concepts, you cannot measure concepts like you can with Light/Darkness and Cold/Heat, these exist physically, Good and Evil do not, they are concepts.

If there is an absence of good, doesn't that leave evil to reign?

Btw, sorry I asked for clarification on your one post, I re-read many times but was having a brainfart, it made since, my bad.

Quote from AnathemicOne

Quote from LinkX

Einstein also said, "Cosmology without Atomic Theory is lame, and Atomic Theory without Cosmology is blind, and Evolution without either of these is only a third of what you need to know." Paraphrased of course.

Einstein was in no sense a religious man. He might, possibly, of been a deist, but he held no belief in a god that kept the busses running on time, or a god that helped with your spelling test.

As for the usefulness of religion, well, let's just say it's about as useful as a wool coat while swimming. And, to quote a great philosopher, it is a tragedy, either people will die believing this stuff, or they will wake up and realize what they have been taught, and it will be so painful to them when they learn the truth that many would not be able to cope.

I mean none of this to any offense to any religious person. When I say this, I say it with the utmost hope that one day you all will be able to learn and grow.

I didn't state Einstein was religious, I stated he acknowledged the link between religion and science which I support.

As for your comment on the usefulness of religion, how do you come up with said assumption and/or belief? From what I see there is the exact phrasing I would see from a religious priest and how they want one to convert to their own religion and whatnot, this is why I stray away from mainstream religions.

Dude rephrase bolded part if you want people to understand what you're trying to say.

Did I ever say I thought there was more evidence for Jesus existence then Abraham Lincoln? wtf.

I agree, faith isn't a bad thing.

I can overload you with documents from numerous sources that validate Jesus's existence. Socrates has evidence for his existence, but not as much as Jesus. Achillies I don't know much about though.

Photograph is some pretty solid evidence, I'll give you that, but I don't know if it proves his existence beyond a doubt. Take someone before the camera was invented that we revere. Martin Luther for example.

"What it comes down to is learning laws of the natural world so you can overcome the religiously instilled fear, guilt, and shame imposed by a supernatural being and a supernatural world." - Again, another argument of I'm right you're wrong... Since your view determined religion (Christianity in my case)is false(an assumption) it goes without say you believe that fear, guilt, and shame are basically a psychological hoax/trap of some sort, but, if you take my view of Christianity being true (an assumption on faith) then it's not a hoax, it's truth.

Do you think I haven't studied anything other than my religion? I know the world around me fairly well. Science doesn't know DIDDLY squat about how this universe came to be. Some stupid ass theories about a big bang? Really? Where did matter originate?

Same kind of thinking can be applied to my position. Where did God come from?

My point is, we both have a faith, and a naturalist doesn't recognize that they stem back on assumptions and a core faith that those assumptions are true to achieve their conclusion of their world view.

Quote from Puttah

Quote from TwilightRealm

Don't just say there are loopholes if you aren't going to explain at least one of them. All you do with that statement was just say you're wrong and I'm right. I'd like to hear the loopholes of the concept of prayer.

Certainly. If we take into consideration first that the idea of heaven and hell was a concocted by man to keep the peace within this evil-stricken world, then it is quite easy to see how praying for forgiveness can be a loophole in this regard. As long as people are left in fear of suffering the consequences (let it be going to jail or to hell) if they do something wrong, then there is incentive for people to be forcefully good natured. When you bring the idea of prayer into it, then this psychological fear vanishes.
While god can see everything, the justice system can't and as such people can go off and commit a crime and even things out again by praying for forgiveness. What good is religion if it can't fulfil its primary purpose?

Then you have the religious fanatics that have their own mindset on what their gods require of them. This is where terrorist actions come into play. Really in the end, it just depends on what one's definition of "good" is and that will be exactly what their imaginary god thinks of as good too. Another mad-made triumph right there.

It's pretty easy to see you're being hypocritical, you say "nice and easy" answer for the creation of the universe... I'll give you "easy", I guess, but it's clear you don't think it's nice considering you think it's nothing but a myth like Santa Clause that people take so far as to believe a lie, in your opinion. How is that nice, in your perspective?

Actually no, you're just in denial about how it could possibly be that believing in a lie can be a good thing. It gives those without the intellectual capacity to question and understand the physical world around them a means of escape. They have something to look forward to. God can be depicted as the perfect parent - He created you, he will protect you and he will always be there for you.
If I didn't think it was a good thing for people to be in this delusional state of bliss then I would go around breaking it to all the kids that santa claus isn't real. I don't think it's a bad thing that kids believe in santa and I don't think it's a bad thing that grown adults believe in god. What I do find disturbing however is that many religious folks aren't open to other possibilities and treat god as being 100% real and non-fictional, when they haven't even sensed him, ever.

You seem so clear as to say we won't ever interact with him, what makes you say that?

Have you interacted with him yet? Do you know anyone that has?
And as for the few cases you hear on the news that claim they have seen god or whatever, before you jump to that argument, may I add that there are still quite a few people out there that even believe in the flat Earth. What I'm trying to say is that there are a lot of wacky people out there, so believing the story of a select few, however sincere they might sound, could just be another hoax.
So given this past evidence, what do you think the probability of interacting with god is to you or me? I'd think it's relatively low, but I sure hope you are one of the lucky few to beat these odds

You said... "While in most cases it doesn't hurt to believe in something, there really is no reason to in my opinion."

So since it doesn't hurt to believe in gravity there's no reason too? Since there's no reason to I'll just go walk off a cliff and be oblivious to gravity.

Sorry this is a terrible analogy...
I was referring to the belief of god specifically. It doesn't change anything in your life whether you believe in god or not.

There are plenty of reasons to believe in God, I don't see how you can be so ignorant to at least see why some people choose too.

I've already given my reason as to why believing in god can be a good thing, and if it weren't for that, then I would deem religion to be the biggest screw up in human history.
But you can also give your reasons as to why you should believe in god.

Heaven and Hell concocted by man? Well, believing the word was inspired by God to the men that wrote the books within the bible is something you have to make a decision on, and it looks like you have. The writers claimed to be inspired, many went to their death preaching what they believed to be the truth because of what they had experienced, I chose to believe it what they said was the truth, so in turn believe heaven and hell exist and not just as a mere way to keep people in line. Are you kidding me right now? Yeah I'm gonna live the best I can to God's standards because I don't want to go to hell, but saying that it was made up by man to keep weak minded people in line is an assumption on your part that the writers were lying, just as I'm assuming they were telling the truth.

You talk as if religion fixes you to strictly follow a set path and that we basically have no free will. Religion's (I'm only arguing Christianity) purpose is just that though, that you have free will. You have a choice to follow or not to follow. Even if you decide you're going to be a Christian that in no way ensures you to be a perfect person. Sure, prayer sets things straight when you mess up but I guess I'm not seeing your point... If you're saying that we can do whatever we want because in the end a prayer will fix it, you'd be very wrong. Yes, we can be forgiven but Jesus looks at the heart of the man, if he is just using prayer by a means to still reap the treasures of righteous things but still continues to live a fleshly life to reap those pleasures as well, he won't be forgiven (this is where repentance from your sins is a major factor in if your prayer asking for forgiveness of sins you have committed, as a christian, will be forgiven).

There will always be religious fanatics, just as there will be political and science fanatics (ie Hitler and Josef Mengele). How can I have my own definition of good if my God defines it for me?

You can't say it's a lie positively... That's half of what I'm saying. And believing in a lie is never a good thing... But you and me both know the Santa Claus comparison is ridiculous, that's a kids fable we tell them, for pete's sake.

You never really defined what you meant by interacting. I thought prayer, singing, praising and worshiping was interacting, but I guess not.

So if you believed in God you don’t think it would change anything about you? I used to smoke pot everyday for two years straight before I got serious about Christianity, then I quit smoking. My belief in God changed my ways, if I had never gave God a chance I would still be gettin' baked every day, let me assure you.

My reasons are because he created everything. He gave me a life to live. He gave me his son for my sins. There's a lot more but those are the major ones I suppose.

@Link - Misquoted? If he was misquoted, somewhere Jesus's quotes would contradict themselves, which they don't. Never existed? Dude are you kidding? While we're at it let's re-consider if Abraham Lincoln and Socrates were real men. Also, King Arthur syndrome I don't know much about, but by the way you made it sound, I'd say you're right on the money with that.

What it comes down to is if you believe christianity is a lie (an assumption) then you can apply your theories to how and why it is a lie. If you believe christianity is the real deal(an assumption on faith), you take it at face value.

Quote from Puttah

Quote from Umpa65

This thread as a whole is just one big argument where nobody gets anywhere.

Did you expect anything more from a science vs religion discussion?


@TwilightRealm,
While I believe god to be no more useful than santa claus is for children - to give them some incentive to be nice all year round (which still doesn't work since there are loopholes in the system by praying for forgiveness and such) I do however think it is a nice and easy answer for the creation of the universe. I too would've believed in the Earth being in the centre of the universe by god's will back when there was no other evidence to counter this claim though.

So what other reason is there for god? Whether he exists or not, we aren't ever going to interact with him in our lifetime. And being sent to heaven or hell is ridiculous. This is a man-made concoction for the same santa claus idea once again.

While in most cases it doesn't hurt to believe in something, there really is no reason to in my opinion. The justice system does a much better job of keeping the peace anyway.

Don't just say there are loopholes if you aren't going to explain at least one of them. All you do with that statement was just say you're wrong and I'm right. I'd like to hear the loopholes of the concept of prayer.

It's pretty easy to see you're being hypocritical, you say "nice and easy" answer for the creation of the universe... I'll give you "easy", I guess, but it's clear you don't think it's nice considering you think it's nothing but a myth like Santa Clause that people take so far as to believe a lie, in your opinion. How is that nice, in your perspective?

You seem so clear as to say we won't ever interact with him, what makes you say that?

You said... "While in most cases it doesn't hurt to believe in something, there really is no reason to in my opinion."

So since it doesn't hurt to believe in gravity there's no reason too? Since there's no reason to I'll just go walk off a cliff and be oblivious to gravity.

There are plenty of reasons to believe in God, I don't see how you can be so ignorant to at least see why some people choose too.

i love lamp.

Quote from Irrational

How about everyone takes a breather before this thread heads toward an epic fail?

I don't need one, why would I? Maybe other people do I don't know, but I don't see why. Just continue to debate and this thread is fine, posts like the one I quoted, and this one (an attempt to just get everyone back on topic) are pointless and are actually what make these threads epic fails.

Quote from Umpa65

Quote from TwilightRealm

Dude are you serious? lol you got it pretty much right on ppl's views but don't come into philosophical thread like this and be like, okay well this is stupid to debate and talk about stuff, let's quit. Um, no.

I was very serious in fact. If you would like to browse the thread then you would know this is not my first post in the thread. This thread has not made any progression since it was started. Nobody wants to agree with anybody and it results in a lot of insults and trolling.

And there is nothing philosophical about this thread. Maybe a few insightful posts here and there. But even those go ignored and end up being cast aside. This thread as a whole is just one big argument where nobody gets anywhere.

This isn't politics where we can try to find some agreement. It's pretty elementary to understand that someone that believes die-hard science when speaking to someone who believes die-hard religion is not going to change the person in their beliefs more than likely, sorry you didn't get that memo.

I feel like I'm getting somewhere. The only goal I'm attempting to reach is that Christianity is just as valid as a belief system as Science, naturalism, or any other belief system is, because we all have underlying assumptions from which we must have a core faith of things not explained on.

Quote from Umpa65

To sum up this thread;Irrational: Religion is dumb!!!!Other people: Na uh!!!Can we be done with this now?

Dude are you serious? lol you got it pretty much right on ppl's views but don't come into philosophical thread like this and be like, okay well this is stupid to debate and talk about stuff, let's quit. Um, no.

Quote from LinkX

Einstein also said, "Cosmology without Atomic Theory is lame, and Atomic Theory without Cosmology is blind, and Evolution without either of these is only a third of what you need to know." Paraphrased of course.Einstein was in no sense a religious man. He might, possibly, of been a deist, but he held no belief in a god that kept the busses running on time, or a god that helped with your spelling test.As for the usefulness of religion, well, let's just say it's about as useful as a wool coat while swimming. And, to quote a great philosopher, it is a tragedy, either people will die believing this stuff, or they will wake up and realize what they have been taught, and it will be so painful to them when they learn the truth that many would not be able to cope.I mean none of this to any offense to any religious person. When I say this, I say it with the utmost hope that one day you all will be able to learn and grow.

um okay... and you say that Link b/c you undoubtedly know we are just plain WRONG and what we believe is false? It's actually pretty offensive. I like how you gave no argument as to why we are wrong too, really strengthens your position. A weak analogy about a wool coat, a paraphrased quote of Einstein that in no way helps an argument to falsify religion (in my case Christianity).

Refer back to my "liar, lunatic, Lord" post and read. That's some solid argumentation, there's really no way to prove Jesus was a fake. Now, since there isn't, you have the choice to believe he was a liar or lunatic, but for me I go the route he was who he said he was.

I think science is great, medical and technological advancements are usually good.

Argumentation through scenario on the topic of how evil exists if God is pure and holy: (not my example, found here, but this is in essence what I believe in this topic)... PS - read in it's entirety.

"LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes, sir."

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."

No answer.

"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?" No answer.

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From... God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?"

No answer.

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them?"

No answer.

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"

No answer.

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.

Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?"

The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

No answer.

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause. "Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers,

"Is God good?"

No answer..

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your Jesus?"

"No, sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

No answer.

"Answer me, please."

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"...yes..."

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"

The student doesn't answer.

"Sit down, please."

The Christian sits...Defeated. Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.

"There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence.

A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?" The class is all ears.

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is life and then here's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses.

"Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't vie this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face spits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"

The professor wisely keeps silent. The Christian looks around the room.

"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"

The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain...felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly.

"It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain."

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits...

Because that is what a chair is for.
______________________________________________

Just as another point, Russell's teapot in my opinion strengthens a Christian's world view, because we have historical evidence of Jesus' account and the ambiguity of who he really was leaves us the choice to decide with our free will. The concept of Russell's Teapot is true, but if the scenario of having historical evidence of a true man and his life (keep in mind my liar, lunatic, Lord post throughout any of my argumentation please) is labeled a Russell's Teapot argumentation, I myself am perfectly fine with that, sense I can easily do that with scientific "facts" and in fact does not falsify diddly squat, only leaves it more open really.

Okay I'll try that when I get home. I'm a computer retard just so you know... care to explain what you mean by "terminal"?

Also, I was getting some weird errors when I was attempting to use wine to install it, but I could have been doing it wrong, I'll try what you're saying after work. If I get errors I'll post'em on here and maybe you can help.

EDIT: Still havent got to it... maybe tonight if I have time. I gotta write a paper first though, ugh...

I'm wanting to start playing good ole D2 LoD again on West Ladder. The only thing is I don't know how to install it on Linux... I just got Linux cause my buddy said it's awesome. Well I do like it even though I have no idea how to use it to even install a game I've played for 6 or 7 years that I want to start playing again... Ugh...

Anyways I have Linux Ubuntu 10.10 I believe, help anyone?

Do I use wine? If so, HOW? As much detail as possible in explanation to installation.

Thanks guys