Omar

I don't understand. I was replying to Assume.

Bad Dobby, bad!

You can't. Or rather, you could give God an arbitrary definition in the same way you can say: All cups are green. Socrates is a cup. Therefore, Socrates is green. And someone could answer: All tables are pink. Socrates is a table. Therefore Socrates is pink. [Edited, that was very unclear]

@Sprint: If God isn't human, and God is omniscient/omnipotent, then he doesn't necessarily behave like an omniscient/omnipotent human (who would not demand faith from its creatures, for example)... Atheists are the ones who are turning God into a human being here. We're still having empty debates here. We have never acquired any data on God, and therefore we have no premises for our arguments for and against his existence. Reason alone will tell you God exists and doesn't exist (and that time is both infinite and has a beginning), because all we can do is make valid arguments, both for and against, although none of them will be sound. Since we have no idea whether God exists, we must reject the question and do without its answer. So the state should allow all religions and absence thereof (so long as they don't limit others' freedom); this policy would make religion capable of holding us back only in the private sphere, which is none of your business.

Is this the same idea as rationalization?

Determinism is unfalsifiable (which is not to say it is true; both God's inexistence and existence are unfalsifiable for example) because of the argument the OP presented. There are two practical questions which arise from this problem as I see it: a) Does it make sense to make a choice if our actions are determined? b) Does it make sense judge actions if they are determined? Time is the important variable here: a) questions the notion of choice (before the act) whereas b) questions the notion of responsibility (after the act). I think there issuch a thing as subjective freedom (freedom before the act), but objectively (i.e. notwithstanding the notion of time) there is little difference between toppling dominoes and humans, or at least it's a very reasonable hypothesis: since we can't prove indeterminism, we can't judge an action a posteriori (couldn't have happened any other way, might as well judge an earthquake or a storm...). he The existence of subjective indeterminism, however, means it's perfectly reasonable to choose a priori--in the same way an eye can't be in its own field of vision, a machine/brain can't take its own functioning into account when calculating its next step. Fatalism is the opposite of determinism. Determinism states "if x, then y and if not-x, then not-y"; fatalism states that "y no matter x", where x and y are events. If a brick is falling from a balcony, determinism states that stepping away will avoid injury whereas fatalism states that the brick falls on you no matter where you are. @ those saying free will results in anarchy: free will is the ability to determine oneself to do something. Total absence of constraints is what would result in anarchy (or rather anomy). Free will is the premise to law, responsibility and morality. Freedom is not the antithesis of laws, either.

This is what I was thinking of: http://putthison.com/post/22330654876/i-see-all-too-many-small-men-or-very-tall So long as they fit in the seat, trousers don't need to be tight. I think as long as they're long enough, a really wide cut (by today's standards) can look very good IMO.

- I like your glasses and your shirts (dat collar on the second pic) - I personally don't like footwear without lacing. - I don't like gray with pink. Apparently that's just me though. - Very round, clunky shoes don't like good with small leg openings IMO (2nd). - I would suggest wider lapels on your next jacket/suit purchase. - How do you look in fuller pants?

We could also just wait for him to reply :P

I'm asking for what he meant in particular, not in general. Topman probably call a blazer, a deep V tee, skinny acid wash jeans and fingerless gloves "smart casual", but I don't think that's what Shiny meant.

What does that mean?

What?

I don't like grindcore. Would have liked higher snares. And more proggy flute riffs. Personal 2/10. Post-hardcore/indie rock

I'm just saying atheists aren't necessarily more rigorous about their beliefs. I chose the example of my existence because strictly speaking, nothing proves I do. It's a reasonable assumption to say I do exist, but it's still an assumption, and you could be dreaming or in some sort of matrix. Is this an interesting question? Not really. It's not like we can exit this matrix: the truth of the answer doesn't matter. Same goes for the existence of a God; it may or may not be true, but that doesn't really matter--what does matter is whether believing he does is useful. I don't believe in God; I'm just defending people who do. The question you two are answering here is whether religion is useful or not, not whether atheists are more serious about their beliefs. It's a different issue, and one in which I would likely end up agreeing with you. @Assume: the evaluation can't be universal. If I were to consider religious wars to be a good thing, then religion would be great. This is why it's a matter of personal opinion.

a) Someone who "assumes nothing" is a true skeptic. A true skeptic suspends his judgment and thereby attains ataraxia. b) Religion gives us a notion of morality and a horizon to look forward to after death. In this sense it gives meaning to a life devoid of one. If you don't understand that, your understanding of religion in general is going to be very limited. c) A faith is a belief which is not shaken by reasoning. For example, you believe I exist (your participation in this debate is proof) despite the fact that you can't prove I do... yet you say that since you can't prove God's existence, you shouldn't believe he exists. You're not applying the same criteria of truth to your own beliefs, and that's because truth isn't always that useful. d) Science (and I mean physics, for example, not humanities) does nothing to understand: it only describes. Science cannot give us the meaning religion does because it is nothing more than a tool we use to do certain things more efficiently (e.g. extract a tumor); it doesn't tell us what the meaning of life is, it is a means to act in accordance to certain meanings of life (saving someone who has cancer implies a valuation of life, and the statement "life is good" isn't universally true, as a cannibal or killer might explain). Truisms are generally not very valuable--they answer questions about which there is no debate--so I don't see where you're going with that. Philosophical ideals (such as progress) are nothing more than ideals and never contain universal truth; they can help us live, but they are not more valuable than religion in terms of truth.

A deity is superfluous to explain life (describe), not to understand (find a meaning) in it. Your question is disingenuous, because you call for skepticism whereas you are anything but a true skeptic in regards to your own irrational faiths (although not in the religious domain). What you may do is question the usefulness of religion, and suggest we replace it with another lie, because that lie would serve a certain value better.

It's okay bro, no one really cares about you this much.

Okay, fine. 8/10, some killer riffs, but also some riffs that I felt were too close to traditional metal. Doom/sludge. Near-BM vocals.

While I'm at it, I might as well post my own composition. This took me a year to finish. Sequenced on FL Studio. http://tindeck.com/listen/oyen

>implying you don't >taking it in a non-literal context. Relax, I'm kidding.

http://putthison.com/post/467904562/indochino Not the best, but it's fair for the price point, especially if you're hard to fit.

>implying you don't

You will learn that it really doesn't matter which college you go to for most people. You will end up working along side people from everywhere if you do well. I'm a Junior at Binghamton University, not to far from Cornell. I turned down Colombia University to go here, only because I couldn't afford it and due to some weird gray area couldn't get any aid. I can't really help you with your girl problems, but if you are planning on breaking up, do it now. Don't do it later then end up alone the rest of your years there. I wasted 3 years and now I basically have to be alone for a 4th year, since I'm graduating. No one is going to get into a relationship with someone who is basically running out of time. Do you feel lonely? Friends are usually a better solution than girls when it comes to that.

There is a link to a filtered eBay search on every "eBay Roundup" post on Put This On for good suits, great suits, and good footwear. That might help you find something cheap.

Jazz influenced prog (I liked Beardfish, didn't like the first track or the Porcupine Tree song(I've only ever listened to that one by them, actually; I do hate to hear a cool verse flow into a boring chorus)). This band's from Israel. Just read that their keyboard player died in 2008... Only the good die young. The band's working on recording his unreleased compositions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXYOQbdk6dg The rhythmic energy of hardcore and metal with the language of jazz: two pianos, two keyboards, one drummer (but he's an octopus). It's in 15/8 or 3 times 5/8, I don't know. Post-rock, since Hedgehog has started: Miasma's guitarist and Guapo's keyboardist, Daniel O'Sullivan (he's in like 60 projects, including Sunn O))) and Ulver). Post-rock at first but it gets more gothic and doomy as it goes. Don't know if the picture has anything to do with O'Sullivan.