Zierro

Wasn't he the one who thought of existentialism? I haven't even heard of that term since last year, but I must admit it's probably the most interesting and enlightening concept I've ever heard.

They don't have to be alive. I think it would either be Benjamin Franklin or Leonardo da Vinci. They've both contributed so much to society because of their intelligence it makes me jealous. They also both applied their capabilities to more than only one domain unlike your average person. Leo was an inventor and painter. Ben was a politician and I would undoubtedly give him the label as a true philosopher. Just take a look at all his notorious quotes. Who do you think it would be?

Does that mean you hate me too? Go ahead... you can be honest...

I don't know whether this belongs in OT or MM because it's an opinionated discussion but it deals with music, so mods can move it if they find it more appropriate there. It's really a question of if they are more of a band or a business. If you are in it for the money and not the fans then you are in it for the wrong reasons. Metallica wasn't like this at first. At first they were punks and wanted to play music that would inspire an audience much like themselves - much like how they looked up to Black Sabbath when they were kids. They were punks with the [bleep] you mentality obviously. It's quite ironic how a bunch of punks would do something so business-oriented as suing. Especially since they were suing their fans - their supporters out of all people. Now, I love Metallica as a band and this doesn't effect the way in which I appreciate their music at all. But when it comes to certain artists I can only give my respect on a musical level instead of a personal level. Just like Eminem. I'm not really fond of Marshall Matters - I'm fond of the music. There are artists who I give all respect to though. (Kurt Cobain, Maynard, etc.) They do a very good job of keeping their attitudes consistent with their style of music. My disliking of the band members of Metallica didn't last forever though. Lars claimed he regrets being the most hated man of rock n' roll and they reverted back to their original style of fast-paced solo-sufficient metal songs by releasing Death Magnetic (which I was actually extremely skeptical about before it came out). But all in all, I don't think anything justifies a true rock band to sue their supporters. It's a contradiction to who they are or who they were aiming to be.

What makes you think that? Or did you just mean in this context specifically (on earth before mankind)?

Chances are that at least one thing would be able to survive to be later discovered. But then again this is coming from a very limited human mind. :P

Because your average person is literally your average person - these are the people that communism/socialism has a more beneficial effect on instead of rich people who have a lot of power.

Yes, there is a big difference. BNP is a lot more hateful and intolerant than those groups but they are still exercising racism. What can black cops discuss that has no relevance to a white cop? And also, I am 99.99% sure that if a white cop committee was organized it would be labeled racist and be prohibited. Society is somehow fine with the idea of an all black organization though and this is hypocrisy. The problem isn't like-minded people joining together to discuss their general likes - the problem is refusing to accept someone because of their race.

The American electorate only existed because of white people in a country founded by white people. This doesn't mean that it's not racist to deny blacks the right to vote. I do think the BNP is racist on a much worse level than the groups on that site, but it is all racism nonetheless. Denying someone from entering a group based on their race is racism.

This site brings up a very good point: http://bnp.org.uk/2007/12/is-the-bnp-racist/ While I disagree with them about the BNP not being racist, I still think it's silly how most people would be completely indifferent to groups in that list but jump right on the BNP because they are a white-only group. Racism is racism no matter what races are involved. The groups which are listed on that site aren't much different than the BNP.

340

Having your game erased randomly someday isn't a big deal? :shock:

Me too, I had pork for dinner today.

Metallica - Whiskey in a Jar

sorry doesn't mean anything. Most of the time it doesn't, but in some cases a simple sorry can change someone's world.

You're right, it would be healthier but you forgot to add the part where you think we should kill people in order to get to this point.

They didn't just dislike them. They had "rational explanations" of how the world would be a better place without them, much like you do.

What are you talking about? You're the one who engaged in the logical fallacy - you told me I said something which I did not. I'm telling you (sarcastically) to save using them yourself for later - I'm not telling you to save pointing out mine for later. If you see any, then you can definitely let me know. Yes, I was fully aware of your false dichotomy trap but the way in which I worded my response completely evaded it. Sorry to disappoint you. You asked, "Which is more complex? The universe being here forever or god?" I responded, "The idea that god doesn't exist and our lives are an accident is a more complex assumption than believing he was the one who made us." The issue is semantics because you twisted my very own words by trying to tell me I said "God is not a complex being". I predicted your beliefs with insufficient data and I was correct. See, faith isn't always dangerous. Your entire argument derailed from my initial point with Shinjula. I didn't know you had a problem with being a little off topic, because you did so yourself. There has to be an answer. The universe having an infinite amount of causes doesn't make logical sense. All you are doing is throwing creationism under the bus with this one. Would you like to explain to me how something with an infinite amount of causes can exist? I'd love to hear it. Oh and plus there is the fact that science states that our universe has begun to exist a finite 13.7 billion years ago. If anyone is fabricating complex possibilities of how the universe came to be, it is you by bringing up this "superuniverse" which you speak of. Oh please. You are drawing attention away from the main argument too by continuously making posts like this. Completely random? Are you sure about that? If this is the case then there would be about an equal number of people who adore manure as there are who adore the sunset. This is not true. You will find many more fans of the beauty of sunsets. Assuming everything in life is an accident and assuming that something with an infinite amount of causes can exist aren't assumptions? SAY WHAT? :shock: I have a present for you: The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempt to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.2 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe. AND Richard Dawkins, among other atheists, thinks he has the ultimate proof that God doesn't exist. If God created a complex universe, wouldn't it take an even more complex entity to have created God? However, such logic assumes that time has always existed, rather than being merely a construct of this universe.

You don't need to get hammered. Honestly, you sound like a [bleep] alcoholic drinking cheap [cabbage] just to get hammered. And you sound like a sophisticated suit-wearing tea-drinking golf-playing businessman with a monocle. :evil:

It just happens to be the biggest one which you support... That's like saying, "I'm not a baker. I only bake bread."

Nice twist of words you used there. You should have surprised me and not engaged in logical fallacies in your first response - save them for later. I didn't say god the being wasn't complex - I said the idea that he was the one who created the universe was less complex than the idea that he didn't. Duh. He's the only one which the attributes can be attached to. Wild assumptions are made by both theists and atheists alike. Why would you fathom the fact that everything is a complete accident and that we weren't meant to be here? Of course you can pretend like you have logic on your side, but that's not the case - what you speak of derives from pessimism not Occam's Razor. If thinking your life was an accident satisfies you then I don't see how it isn't justifiable to think my life wasn't an accident in order to satisfy me. Cause and effect isn't relevant to god. If we can assume he made everything we can assume he made cause and effect and time so questions like that are meaningless. Also, beings with a consciousness are far greater designers than nature. Sure, nature is beautiful but when you compare even the most beautiful photograph with the most beautiful painting then it puts things into perspective. Beings with a consciousness can create beauty and manipulate nature into seeming even more beautiful. Nature does it by complete accident. I see the world as something too miraculous to be a creation of nature alone.

Well, judging by the awesomeness of this world, I'd say it's more complex that everything just happened by accident and the more reasonable answer is that a divine creator exists in this equation. This is an opinionated and biased answer though, so of course I wouldn't expect you to agree. :)

No one. There has to be a first cause, because an effect with an infinite amount of causes would not exist.

Most of the time, unless I need the extra inventory space or if they are dropping under 50 gp. It all adds up and usually after a Slayer task I have a few thousand gp in coins. Not bad for a little extra clicking.

8993