Omar

I think there is an objective case regarded the topic. It is alright to say that black doesn't flatter many skin tones, nor is as versatile as you would think. It doesn't go with many colours, except for (in theory) grey, and white, and tan. That last point is illustrated in this photo: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-17lel0tNAEM/Twdk6wJIFAI/AAAAAAAABUo/1ASi1daGqMs/s1600/214.jpg. First off, adding a gradient map to this picture is kind of a cop-out; second, you can't know everyone is not colorblind (I may perceive black the way you perceive pink); finally, taste and beauty are culturally determined. Gid, I can't tell you where to look, but thrifting is not a bad idea, though suit pants and jackets tend to get separated; your problem is pretty much Skull's. It is of the utmost importance that you save 100$ to get the suit altered; you will look better in a tailored shit suit than in an ill-fitting luxury suit.

Yeah, I did. My point can be summarized like this: atheists don't have greater concern for the truth-values of their beliefs; those who hold this position are just flexing their brain, as it were. You believe I exist, don't you? Can't prove it, that's for sure. I once had a dream in which I was debating an issue in class, and someone put forward a reasoning that seemed truly astonishing to me. In my dream, I thought "I would never have thought of that!", even though it was my own argument on the issue, since it was my dream. You can't argue past a solipsistic position (I think, and this proves that I exist, but what next? Descartes only made his way out of solipsism by using a dodgy proof of God's existence). That being said, you do act as if it were true by having this conversation with me, and this is the manifestation of a belief, and one which is without proof (evidence is closer to empirical data, in my understanding), a faith. Underlined: absolutely false. As I have explained earlier, metaphysical problems (problems for which empirical evidence is not and never will be available) cannot be resolved; we can speculate about them, but incompatible yet equally valid statements can be made about them: this is what Kant calls antinomies. This includes God's existence, the existence of a spirit which animates matter (the existence of a soul can't be proven or disproven). Kant's criticism of metaphysical discourse is actually the answer to "Why does science make progress while philosophy goes nowhere?": science gets stuff done because it rejects questions which can't be tested. As such debate about God's existence is meaningless. What I'm saying is that through centuries of marriage of politics and religion and hand-copying of religious texts, there may have been mistakes, and critical ones as well. Additionally, the original meaning of the Bible cannot be known because the symbolic universe (the meaning we associate to each word or symbol) it refers to isn't ours; it would have to be translated into a new symbolic universe to mean something to us, and any linguist will tell you translation is treason of the original meaning. As such, a wide variety of interpretations of the Bible exist, including Spinoza's pantheist point of view. To boot, even nowadays Christians have widely varying beliefs. I don’t think it requires justification for a neutral/default position – in fact – as part of the justification; it is the lack of justification of the opposition. (Don’t get philosophical here, it’ll only serve to distract us from the crux of the argument.) Acting is not a neutral position. In order to act, you have to have faith that your action means something. In order to debate with me, you have to believe I exist despite the fact that my existence isn't proven. What I mean is that outside of philosophical debate, which is useless if it does not serve reality (the question of God's existence being important only because it has an impact on our way of life), atheists act as though their beliefs were justified; expressing greater concern with your beliefs is useless if, when the debate is done, you go against what you say. If I asked you, you would probably say you don't know I exist, but you're still talking to me, which means your belief cannot be shaken, despite a valid argument calling for a neutral position, i.e. inaction. "Belief without proof" would be more accurate. I could very well not exist, but you're still going to answer. Only in a debate. They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. You're misunderstanding me; the truth-value of a value is unimportant, because we need values and yet all of them are strictly false. It's the measurement by which we judge values that I don't agree with, not the value itself. Once this is established, we can use it as a premise, and then the truth-value of other statements ("the best way to x is y" for example) is important. If "best" means cheapest, we won't arrive at the same result as if "best" means "most expensive". What you were praising was essentially an atheist's skepticism, but no one is actually a skeptic. You don't know whether, say, a rock exists, but I'm sure if I throw it at you you're going to duck. And since the question of whether a rock exists is only important insofar as a rock may have an effect upon you, saying you don't believe its existence and yet acting as if it does is senseless. You too are faithful, as faithful as any theist in fact. They too doubt the existence of God (this is why I cited Kierkegaard: his philosophy was significantly more complex than ours, thus more critical, but he was still a theist).

There is nothing objective about my claim, sure. One can't say that if there were no humans to judge my wearing a black suit in the day, then there would be nothing wrong (on any level) with it. But the thing is opinions are precisely what matters, namely the opinions of others. It is a widely held belief than black suits shouldn't be worn during the day--although significantly less so now that men understand next to nothing about clothing, compared to the 1930s--and therefore they shouldn't. It's not about what I think, it's about what a significant fraction of people you're not aware of think. According to classic menswear rules, a black suit--the most formal of them--should not be worn with casual eyewear, a shirt any other color than white, and a tie anything other than black; according to those same rules, that jacket is too short, so are the sleeves, the shirt collar is too small (its collar points aren't tucked underneath the lapels as should be the case), and that is a shiny shoelace, not a tie.

Which biblical portrayal of God? A text whose author is no longer present to explain it is subject to to interpretation, and as such to inevitable misrepresentation. While, if a God exists, he only has certain properties and not their opposite, centuries of copy and translation have rendered the text corrupt and highly unlikely to be significant of what God truly wants. As such, no conception of Abrahamic religions is known to be false: Spinoza's pantheism was born from exegesis, for example, despite the fact that the text seems to call for monotheism.

Who's going to know that bedman is you in real life, and that you use Tip.it? Hell, I have friends who know both my internet monicker AND about tip.it's main site and they never put two and two together. AFAYK...

Chaos theory/deterministic chaos or Laplace's demon? I was just asking how time could be a movement, but I reread your post and you never said that.

[Next poster, rate Kalphite's song] You're right, I was just talking about the time signatures. Doom metal does tend to be a little less complex harmonically though, when it uses harmonies at all. Besides, there is no good criterion for defining progressive music, and the name in and of itself implies a comparison in time: considering our heritage from the late 60s/early 70s, if In the Court of the Crimson King was released today, would it have made any progress?

It's not only a matter of aesthetics (even for winters, it makes their faces look pale; black doesn't compliment anything other than true white, which is not the color of skin). It's a matter of social convention; everything you wear has a meaning; wearing sandals and a hoodie to a corporate meeting says "I don't care", even though that's not necessarily what is meant. Wearing a black suit during the day is a little bit like consistently replacing a word by another one which is similar to a layman but radically different to the audience at a convention: globally, most people will not see the difference, but some of the most important people will know. Also, good tweed kicks ass and most suits are made with wool.

Sounds a lot like the Tralfamadorians in Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five. Whether determinism is true or not is also a question we can't answer, like the question of the existence of God; all we can discuss is its relevance, as Assume has begun (I'll get back to you, by the way, but the answer is "yes, if it promotes my values (for Nietzsche, that would be life; for utilitarians, happiness, etc)"). The question of whether determinism exists must remain unanswered, and the decisions which this question influences should deal with the possibility of its existence. I don't understand the premise to your understanding of belief, though. If time is a movement, isn't that redundant? Does movement not imply time? Can something move without being somewhere at one point, and somewhere else at another?

It's not a belief, but you do act as though it was true in everyday life, because you don't do anything to . That's what's important: the question is relevant on more than just on a philosophical level. Gods transcend reason by definition and as such are beyond your arguments. The "create a rock so large he can't push it" argument is invalid because it's possible for God to do both; we just don't understand how. Besides, scripture was written by men and Christianity was propagated by them: our version of Christianity is corrupt. You have to act in some way or another, despite having no justifications. In this sense, you are not any more justified than a theist is. Truth is impossible to know for such things, and yet we have to act according to one of the positions in the debatewhich is why picking and choosing is justified. Going by the truth means doing nothing. Humanity will eventually be erased from the Earth, life is meaningless... This is why morality is indeterminable universally. I am speaking of faith in values--progress is probably yours. There is no justification for belief in progress. You wrote they were more serious about their beliefs. @ your questions: The first three you just have to accept as part Nietzsche's philosophy. It's only an example: the measurement he uses to figure out whether a value is one to live by is what he calls "life", Christianity doesn't promote it, and therefore it's bad. Christians The fourth: values are all empty in the end as life is meaningless. Unknowable was not a good word to use. The fifth: external values are imposed upon us by others, e.g. Christian values. We realize they are inventions through skepticism. The sixth: nothing, but we can't agree on those values you mentioned. Think of cannibals, murderers, dictators... These values you mentioned are the ones you have faith ("unjustified", as they are meaningless objectively, and "belief", because you have to believe in them to act according to them) in. Gonna go work, see you later.

Sorry, I'm not as prolific as you. I'll give you this quick example: Nietzsche believed the measure of all things is life itself, a "will to power" present in every organism. You don't need to understand this concept (I hardly do) if you're not familiar with his point of view; just keep it in mind. Nietzsche thought that our way of life should be determined by this principle: values can themselves be evaluated through it. What promotes life is good, what negates it is bad. He detested Christianity not so much because it was false, but because it negated life. Any value (belief in our case), whether it is true or not, is valid if it promotes life, according to Nietzsche, especially considering the truth-values of these values are unknowable. Man, at first, loads himself with external values, then, realizing they are all inventions, rejects them: this is the step of nihilism which follows true skepticism and which is not your case. Finally, he can create his own values according to the principle I mentioned. Nietzsche's principle of will to power can be substituted for whatever; Nietzsche offered little proof for it himself. Considering everyone has a different measurement for the value of a value (happiness being a common one), no belief is more justified than another.

Actually, there are several non-equivalent definitions of atheism out there, some of which are also incompatible with agnosticism. The question in this thread in this thread is the following: "Does a deity exist?" You and I agree this is unknowable; this is the default/neutral position. You've gone on to ask for justification for others' beliefs, which is what I interpret from what I quoted in my last post, where you made it sound like atheists' justifications for their belief in the absence of a deity is more valid. If the statement I underlined is true, these two positions are incompatible: atheists can't prove their belief, therefore it is underpinned by nothing better than a theists'--a belief being either logically validated or empirically corroborated. One of the two beliefs, however (this is me explaining the part you didn't understand) has to be held by anyone conscious of the issue, because they direct our actions; as Pascal explained, if the answer to the topic question is unknowable, it isn't necessarily irrelevant: you either decide to go to church, or you don't; being undecided belongs to the "not going to church" realm of possible actions. At this point, it is a matter of picking the most handy belief to live your life. Considering religion as well as irreligion are largely determined by social heritage (and not only your parents' influence), that whatever choice of a belief is left is largely a matter of a subjective choice of a way of life and that, barring nihilism (you wouldn't even be posting) you have to have some similarly irrational faith in something, there is nothing to justify your contempt of religion and your praise of an atheist's thoughtfulness. Kierkegaard has more philosophy in his pinky than this entire thread, and that didn't stop him from being very religious despite his skepticism.

This is categorically false. As someone who switched his username from "Skeptic" to "Assume Nothing", you would be expected to know that nothing can be proven objectively, that nothing within our subjectivity can be proven if it can't be perceived (as is the case with theological questions), and that therefore, in order to believe there is no God, one has to be relatively indulgent towards beliefs. Both atheism and theism are dogmatic positions: atheism can never be proven, and theism will only ever been proven if God indubitably presents himself to us. And since you have to act as though one or the other were true, it is equally valid to act as though God existed than it is not to. You do at least vaguely sense that a skeptic who debates metaphysical issues is not following the rigorous logic which brought him to skepticism, right? Modern philosophers have been convinced for centuries that this question is a waste of time; the writing that remains discusses the problems raised by the absence of proof.

So, who on TIF is into this stuff? I'm going to start with some RIO/Avant-prog, but feel free to go with any prog you want to share. if you don't know what I'm talking about, Progarchives is a good resource. To dip your toes into the genre, Miasma and the Carousel of Headless Horses' Perils is pretty good, if you don't mind the borderline Halloween atmosphere (as opposed to actually scary). The Manfauna EP is a little less straightforward with its 5 minute drone piece in the middle... Guapo shares three members with Miasma. More complex harmonically and rhythmically, more synths, more drones, less precise, and far scarier. Kick-ass album cover on this, too. I can't say what I think of each album because I've just discovered them. Not all their pieces are this ambient... ...as can be heard after four minutes of Magma-esque piano in Black Oni III: OK, enough with those two. U Totem is an American supergroup which shares members with the 5uu's and Motor Totemist Guild. They blend modern classical and RIO. Both of their albums are released on Cuneiform Records, as is the case with at least one of Guapo's. get ready for some atonality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6TSUynsBA4 I wanted to add Dance of the Awkward, but it's not on youtube. Live will have to do. Shorter, not atonal, but still very unusual. Wouldn't be avant-prog if it wasn't for the rhythm section. The noise intro was added by the uploader.

I repeat: black suits are for funerals. Your first suit should be navy or gray. You will never need a black sport coat. [Edit] And Dior is anything but an authority on this. I give you John Galliano, Dior's head designer (until he got drunk and started spouting antisemitic bullshit in March '11, but that has little to do with the issue):

Considering some individuals in OT's population that's probably not a good idea...

For summer, you would want lightweight worsted wool, cotton or linen. None of these work year-round; all season worsted wool will have you sweating a bit, but unless you want to buy two suits it'll have to do. For a summer wedding I would suggest mid or light gray (the brighter, the cooler, and I think it looks better on people who have blond hair (you have blond hair, right?)). I would suggest dark brown plain or cap toe oxfords for the shoes instead of wingtips. [Edit] Woops, missed a post. Black and brown are both fine with grey and navy, with brown being more casual (and as such more appropriate to a summer wedding). It's great that you're actually putting some thought into this, it's what we're here for.

4/10, too mechanical for my taste, and I actually don't like this display of skill at all. Some of the harmonies are nice, though, especially in the chorus. Prog doom metal. This isn't a live recording, at least the audio isn't.

a) Gray wool flannel, two buttons, and get it tailored; skimp on the suit if need be. Black suits are for funerals. Tuxedos are not black suits. b) Don't go to a department store. c) If you're done growing, it's not a bad idea to shell out some more cash for a suit like this; think of it as an investment. d) You will also need a dress shirt (light blue or white broadcloth), a tie (I would suggest navy twill, cheap on Styleforum or eBay), shoes (keep your eyes peeled on SF and eBay for an inexpensive pair of black cap toe oxfords, like Allen Edmonds' Park Avenue), and a pair of socks (navy, over-the-calf, wool or wool with less than 20% nylon). Put This On has articles about everything I mentioned so you can make a relatively educated purchase.

Personal 7/10, the solo kicked ass but the rest was meh. Rock progressivo italiano [edit: switched generale to appena un po']

One last argument against Pascal's Wager: imagine there is a lottery. You can only play once. The price to play is 0.25$. You have 49/50 chances of winning 2$, and 1/50 chances of losing 75$. The average gain is 0.21 cents, but that doesn't make the bet interesting because of our tendency to avoid risk. Mathematically speaking you should play, but practically speaking no one wants to risk that much money for a gain this small. If we had a similar bet with a possibility of losing millions, but of gaining little, and on average of being assured that one will profit, would it really be rational to play? Yes, it would. Would people do it? No. Why? Risk aversion. Considering you can only play once (#yolo), you can't win back your loss. Yes, there is a 1/A (where A is very large) chance to go to some sort of heaven, and admittedly the average gain of the wager is (infinity)/A, but you're not going to get the chance to level out. This calls for precautions. @Powerfrog: burden of proof applies to anyone who proposes anything to be true. To be an atheist is to propose that God doesn't exist, and to hold this position you need sufficient proof. Agnostics are the only ones who don't have to deal with it, because they don't propose anything. For example, if I, an agnostic, am talking to Range, and he just says "God doesn't exist", the burden of proof lies with him.

8/10, got repetitive. If you like Miasma and Alamaailman Vasarat, you'll like Pochakaite Malko. Maybe U Totem too, I uploaded One Nail Draws Another to YT if you're interested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGhZQxN_zsM

Divinities are not phenomenal; they are noumenal. They can't be perceived, at least not by everyone, as opposed to planes, atoms and computers. Logical demonstration relies inevitably upon axioms, i.e. statements which are said to be true and are not required to be proven. For example, euclidean geometry (the kind you were taught) relies on a handful, one of which is the parallel postulate, which boils down to this: "In a plane, through a point not on a given straight line, at most one line can be drawn that never meets the given line." This sounds obvious, but we can't really trust our senses (for example, a straw in a glass half-full of water will appear to be bent), so it sounds a bit risky to make this statement a foundation of mathematics, since math is what we rely on to shoot planes across thousands of miles of land. In an attempt to prove the parallel postulate, some have created geometrical systems which use one of its contraries (either "no line can be drawn that meets the given line" or "an infinite amount of lines etc"). This was expected to lead to some sort of logical absurdity, and thereby prove the postulate by proving contrary statements were illogical. It didn't. The geometrical systems that were created were perfectly valid logically speaking, although they had no common trait with reality whatsoever. The reason we use euclidean geometry is that it looks the same as the world. How do we know this? Through perception. The parallel postulate seems true because if you try to falsify it on paper, you'll fail. This is why it's the kind of geometry you're taught: practically speaking, when you want to solve a problem within your own subjectivity (for example, building a house), euclidean geometry is the one which tends to work best. No one really cares how objects are in and of themselves. When it comes to metaphysics (does god exist? does the mind exist, or is it mere matter?), we try to use logic to answer a question for which no axioms can be defined through perception. It would be handy if we could all look up and say, "Ah, yes, I see God, he is right there on the cloud that looks a little bit like an anvil", but we can't. Therefore trying to use logic as science does to prove God's existence is a useless pursuit: as has been shown by those mathematicians who created non-euclidean geometries, when attempting to solve a problem in the real world without axioms validated by perception, you can argue a proposition and its opposite in a valid way. Here's a better explanation.

Das, science will never be capable of proving God doesn't exist because it is concerned only with phenomena (what can be known through experience) as opposed to noumena (that which is known (if at all) without the senses); a theory is considered to be scientific only if it is falsifiable, which can only be done through perception, which is something God obviously evades: that's precisely why science actually provides results (albeit within the subjectivity of the observer), as opposed, survey aside, to this thread and any such metaphysical debate. The notion of proof is inferior to any kind of search for objectivity. Voted unsure. Now, the question is, considering one has to choose between leading a religious life and not doing so, which one should we do?

Yes.