tryto

Sounds interesting. I'll see if I can pick it up at the book store next time I'm there. A book similar to that(but without the focus on religion) is Number of the Beast, by Heinlein. "As in other works, Heinlein brings up the philosophical idea of solipsism, but in this book he takes it a step further with the concept called "pantheistic solipsism" or "world-as-myth" the theory that universes are created by the act of imagining them, so that somewhere even fictional worlds (Oz is one of the examples Heinlein uses) are real. Burroughs' device is simply a means of accessing these universes."

Yes, personal beliefs are based on perspective. That doesn't affect their existance in the real world. For example, if you accept Christianity's teachings, God existed before humans. Ok? Then that would mean that God exists independently of humans believing in him. The point of the burden of proof is to prevent people from stating idiotic things, then, because no one can disprove it, claiming it's true. I can't state purple bunnies exist and expect to get away with it, just because no one can claim that it's false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... proof.html Love is a human emotion. It cannot exist without beings capable of expressing it. There is no floating cloud of "love" in the air. Oxygen is an element. It existed before humans. Without humans, there would still be oxygen. Before humans recognized oxygen existed and discovered it, it still existed, unlike love. Note that because I'm a nice guy, I showed some proof against the Universe affected by wishing hypothesis. I attempted it, and it failed. Sure, it's possible. But there's no reason for my to think so, unless I'm shown some proof. This applies to things I like to. I'm happy to prove evolution. I'm happy to prove electromagnetism. I'm happy to prove gravity, and happy to prove Snell's law. If I saw a yeti, I would attempt to show proof of such a being if I wanted everyone to believe me. Otherwise, I could state I saw a yeti, then dare anyone to show negative proof of it. Once none satisfactory to me is forthcoming(because negative proof can never be completely conclusive in this case) I can then state that the yeti exists because no one proved me wrong. And that is why the burden of proof is necessary. Yes, opinions are based on perspective. But claims about all powerful beings that are "infinite" are not. If they are infinite, they existed before you thought of your personal belief, and thus are objective and based outside of you thinking so. Of course, if you want to claim that the existence of gods is based on perspective, and god is different for everyone, then it's quite easy to claim that god has been invented by humans, and you'd have a devil of a time trying to deny my claim, while keeping yours. Of course, you're not stating that, it would be shooting yourself in the foot. Thinking that the concept of the burden of proof is a rule someone made up for no reason at all, is simply ridiculous. Do you think that when philosophy first started(it didn't) that some guy made up a slew of rules with no reasons behind them, and everyone decided to follow these for no rules at all?

So, youve never wanted anything to happen in your life I take it? I mean if rational people never wish for anything then your either irrational or have zero ambition. Unless of course some outside force is making everything you accomplish in life happen but since you say there is no god that cant be possible. Oh btw, believing in something =/= thinking I have to be right If you ask ten people what the best color is you will get somewhere between 1 and 10 different answers, each persons believes it but that doesnt mean they obsess if someone thinks teal while they think light blue. edit--to above post, if probability is >0 then probability of not being true is also <100. If there is not a 100% chance god doesnt exist then saying you know he doesnt exist makes no sense. Accepting the possibility but saying you dont believe there to be a god= aceppting the possibility but saying you believe there is a god. I may have misspoke; I mean do not expect them to happen solely from wishing. For example, someone once told me that they prayed really hard during exams. I remarked that studying works better. Surely everyone will agree on that. Nothing that I do can affect the existence of a deity, especially wishing. your analogy is not apt; because "best" is a matter of perception and is an opinion. Even if I think that there are twenty skins on this forum, it doesn't make it so. The answer is independent of what I think. Just like god's existence or non existence. Sure you may not "have" to be right, but then what's the point of debating on this subject? I could just go "it's my opinion that god exists, poodles have hidden gills under their fur, plants have hearts and do not perform photosynthesis, and purple cannot be worn by Caucasians; it's physically impossible.", but that would not make any of them true, and all of them could be wrong. Just because it's my opinion doesn't mean I don't have to back up these fabulous statements with proof in an argument. I just wished really hard for my computer screen to turn blue. It didn't happen. Prove it does. If you're claiming that the universe DOES adapt to our wishes, you have the burden of proof. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. ~Christopher Hitchens

The thing is, the universe doesn't change itself to adapt to our wishes. No matter how hard you wish for or believe in a deity, it doesn't affect the existence or nonexistence of such a deity. Rational people do not wish for things and hope they come true in real life, and they don't believe whatever they hear. They apply skepticism to extraordinary claims, such as "aliens built the pyramids". This could have happened, but they will demand proof for such extraordinary claims; if none is forthcoming, then it is simply not rational to believe in this event. There is no proof for a deity; therefore it is not rational to believe in one. I don't choose whether I believe there is a god or not; I would very much like, for example, a set of objective morals and the knowledge that there's something looking after me. Unfortunately, there's no proof for these, just like I would like to have wings, yet I don't, no matter how hard I wish. I could claim that I have undetectable, invisible wings that cannot lift me off the ground; it doesn't make it true.

agreed, so Im just going to ignore the actual odds as they are also impossible to obtain, the 50/50 was just most likely guess for a yes no question. to the post a few above faith is believing something without evidence, and is perfectly reasonable when their is no proof against one has faith in. If I roll a die and have "faith" the number it lands on will be even its reasonable even though its not guarenteed, because there is nothing that says it cant be an even number. The chance of it being even are not 100%, but since a die is impartial there is no proof of which way it will land. Now it would be illogical to say if I drink poison I wont be affected because we have evidence that most people dont respond too well to poison. I have faith in there being a god of some form because there is no proof against it and I dont like the idea that we just stop existing at death. I dont believe in things such as the purple bunnies because while there is no proof against it, there is no reason or gain from it. If someone is fine with the idea of no afterlife or whatever then it is fine by me I just choose my beliefs because its what I hope, and I see nothing wrong with that. I forgot to mention; if you don't believe in the purple bunnies, they'll get you when you die. Then they'll cut your "soul" up into little pieces, and put it in a blender. Then, they'll throw it in acid. Then, they'll restore your soul, chain you to a rock, and have an eagle eat your liver, heart, lungs, and eyes every day, restoring them the next day to be eaten again, for infinity and forever. Now tell me why you don't believe in them. To show you believe in them, you have to pray to them several times daily, or that will happen to you. If you do believe in them, then when you die, you'll live forever in bliss with a beer volcano, a infinity channel television with no commercials, and a stripper factory. For that matter, why aren't you a Hinduist? Why aren't you a Muslim? Why aren't you any faith that you are not? They all have benefits in believing in them, and dangers in not believing in them. [/hide] I really dont want to start a flame war but your being utterly ridiculous, I am not a member of any religion I merely choose to believe in their being some form of god and some form of afterlife. I follow no organized religion because I dont see the need, any god that would judge someone from their denomination is nothing I am interested in. I dont believe in your sadistic bunnies because there is no rationale or justification for faith in them. Why believe in a deity that punishes people for ridiculous things such as not believing? Does not the way you live your life matter in the grand scheme of things far more then which building you want to worship at? In fact, whether or not their is a god, living ones life to help the world grow matters much more then what could be after this life. Im at ease knowing that I may be gone forever when I die. I choose to believe Ill still be around in some form, at the very least I intend my memory to be something positive to look towards, to hell with your bunnies. You're missing his point, he's saying, there's as much evidence in God, as there is in Purple Bunnies. And I'm pretty sure any God would care what 'denomination' you're in, if you mean denomination as a religion? Also, this really confuses me, constantly. How do you believe and or not believe in a God because of what you want? "Why believe in a deity that punishes people for ridiculous things such as not believing?" Well, technically, if he is the deity, then you must believe in him, whether he is cruel or not. If you're parents punish you for 10 years for skipping school, while in most cases, that is cruel, can you deny they exist? No, you cannot. Just like, if you don't believe in God because you 'don't want someone controlling your life,' well technically, said God, doesn't matter which, would exist whether you wanted him\her to or not. If this God was real, he wouldn't bow to your whims when it comes to him existing, he exists, deal with it. Thanks Saruman. I was illustrating that nearly all religions offer rewards for believing in them and punishment for not. You said that you only believe in things if they offer you a reward for it; that's ridiculous, something is either true or it's not. I get no reward for accepting gravity, evolution, electromagnetism, or the lack of a god. Those bunnies are ripped from several religions; the eagle is taken from Zeus's punishment of Prometheus, the main eternal part is Christianity, and some of the rewards are taken from Pastafarianism. No one's calling God or Zeus sadistic, although I agree they are, should they exist. Just because something offers a reward for believing in it is no reward at all. The point stands; how can yo disprove my bunnies, but by doing so, not disprove your deistic god? You can't, there's no evidence for either, and that's why believeing in things without evidence is laughable.

agreed, so Im just going to ignore the actual odds as they are also impossible to obtain, the 50/50 was just most likely guess for a yes no question. to the post a few above faith is believing something without evidence, and is perfectly reasonable when their is no proof against one has faith in. If I roll a die and have "faith" the number it lands on will be even its reasonable even though its not guarenteed, because there is nothing that says it cant be an even number. The chance of it being even are not 100%, but since a die is impartial there is no proof of which way it will land. Now it would be illogical to say if I drink poison I wont be affected because we have evidence that most people dont respond too well to poison. I have faith in there being a god of some form because there is no proof against it and I dont like the idea that we just stop existing at death. I dont believe in things such as the purple bunnies because while there is no proof against it, there is no reason or gain from it. If someone is fine with the idea of no afterlife or whatever then it is fine by me I just choose my beliefs because its what I hope, and I see nothing wrong with that. I forgot to mention; if you don't believe in the purple bunnies, they'll get you when you die. Then they'll cut your "soul" up into little pieces, and put it in a blender. Then, they'll throw it in acid. Then, they'll restore your soul, chain you to a rock, and have an eagle eat your liver, heart, lungs, and eyes every day, restoring them the next day to be eaten again, for infinity and forever. Now tell me why you don't believe in them. To show you believe in them, you have to pray to them several times daily, or that will happen to you. If you do believe in them, then when you die, you'll live forever in bliss with a beer volcano, a infinity channel television with no commercials, and a stripper factory. For that matter, why aren't you a Hinduist? Why aren't you a Muslim? Why aren't you any faith that you are not? They all have benefits in believing in them, and dangers in not believing in them.

Good 'ol Occams Razor slices that away. It's not falsifiable anyways.

That was not a fallacy at all. I'm just saying there is no evidence for or against God, which means for all we know atheists are no more liable than theists in this situation. The 50/50 is not an absolute truth, it's just all we have to work with. Honestly, I don't even know what you guys are arguing about... Are you saying that atheists are more likely to be correct than theists or vice versa? You're being too anal about how I brought up probabilities. And for some reason this only seems to bother the atheists... Hmmm... :-k I've always thought it was ridiculous that we require proof to prove something that's proven unprovable. I hate trying to talk about any god in specific in my arguments (especially the Christian one), but doesn't the Bible say that God cannot be proven or disproven? Why do atheists insist on seeing proof for it? Now that is what I call a logical fallacy. Asking for something which everyone knows is not there. By the way, we're talking about something existing. Like Sly said long ago on this thread, something can exist without it being proven. No evidence for God? You just have to take it on faith? That's precisely why you don't believe in Zeus or the invisible purple bunny under my sofa, but you're not positing 50/50 chances for those undetectable things with absolutely no evidence for them. Once you realise why you don't believe in the invisible purple bunny, you'll realise why we don't believe in things without proof.

I saw this post on another forum, and I thought it was quite excellent.

That doesn't make sense. If there are two possible outcomes (God exists, God doesn't exist), and you have no evidence for either side (no proof for or against him) then wouldn't the standard probability already be at 50/50 from what we can tell? I don't see how 100/2 can equal anything else. I look at it the same as asking someone out. They can either say yes or no, so the most accurate probability would be 50/50. Of course there are factors that should contribute to the probability (your attractiveness, deliverance, personalities clicking) but from what you know, there's no way to tell how those factors would effect the probability. It just seems like 50/50 is the most logical answer out of any other set of probabilities from what we know (we know nothing therefore we don't have any factors to alter that 50/50). Fallacy of the Middle Ground: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... round.html

Pretty sure you have to save the image to your hard drive, then use the insert image option in powerpoint itself.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/4770/trainim4.png really quick job, not too good. I'm sure if you want a higher quality one people can do it for you, I'm supposed to be writing an essay :P

Its one thing to apply the anthropic principle to something like evolution, we know that other stars exist, but to theorise a multiverse with no evidence is surely as bad as theorising a god on no evidence? I'm not saying I think it's true or more evident than god for that matter, I'm just invoking another possibility to say why god isn't necessary (in reality I'd say neither are evident at all). As far as I'm concerned, the arguments for/against god don't definitively prove/disprove the idea at all. Perhaps we can start eliminating more illogical versions of god, but I don't think we can prove/disprove the basic idea. There's always the argument from noncognitivism for that :P. 1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us , these are: a. Primary Attributes b. Secondary Attributes c. Relational Attributes. 2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existants A in order to be considered meaningful. 3. The term God lacks a positively identified A. 4. Because of this, the term God holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2) 5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless. 6. Therefore, the term God is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5) 7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid. Primary Attributesor fundamental character of a thing, may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existants primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified. Secondary Attributesthe character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise. Relational Attributes This is the ability of an entity to relate to other things; to interact, affect, or be connected in some such way. Causality, for instance, is an example of relationships between objects. Comparison is another (ex: that tree is taller than me). Further examples would include the descriptions of a thing as superior, inferior, or creator. God has no primary attributes ever given to him by anyone; no one has ever said what god is. God is only defined in terms of a negative, which is not qualified to make a statement of entity. For example, in an attempt to define myself, I would not say "I am not Stephen Harper", because that leaves 6 billion + other humans, and any other entities capable of making this statement. In the first place, when terms like is loving, is forgiving, and brings about are applied to God, they seem to mean something very different from what they mean when they are applied to human beings. For example, when we speak of a mother as being loving, we are referring in part to her behavior, and in particular the way she responds to her children. When we say that Jones brought about a fire, we are referring to certain of his bodily actions, such as his carelessly throwing a match onto a pile of paper. But when we say God is loving or God brought about a miracle, we cannot be referring to the behavior or bodily action of God, for he has no body. -Martin All of the supposedly positive qualities of God arise in a distinctively human context of finite existence, and when wrenched from this context to apply to a supernatural being, they cease to have meaning. -Smith Again, if I asked you, for example, what is a car? You would not respond: it is attractive, fast, and enjoyable, because that is not what a car is, and does not help me in any way. Those are secondary qualities. God is only defined in terms of negative qualities. Limitless(lack of limits), infinite(lack of time), immaterial(not material), etc, etc. It makes no logical sense for me to point to my keyboard and state that it is not a insect. http://www.strongatheism.net/library/at ... gnitivism/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

This is true, I got one of these a couple of minutes ago. Added, thank you.

Ever notice that when people see apparitions, they're pretty much always the stereotypical Caucasian Americanized notions of the figures? There's no physical description of Jesus in the bible other than "He is very ordinary". Remember, he would have been a Mediterranean Jew, so would have had darkish skin and not looked at all like the typically Norwegian Caucasian you see so much of. The same goes for Mary. These "sightings" and "miracles" are always like this, and it's so laughably incorrect as well. It's definitely not a coincidence that these sightings are always of the pre-conceived images concocted by the media and the culture the viewer is living in. Here's an article and a picture of what Jesus would have likely looked like had he existed. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 82186.html

I'm a big fan of Ice Wines in particular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_wine They're probably hard to get out of the Northern areas and are fairly expensive, but they're very tasty and enjoyable.

Crewbies automatically get 10.

You'd prefer not existing to being bored? Oh come on. Having the inability to think is freaky. Sure, nonexistence wouldn't be too bad, primarily because you couldn't experience it, but I would rather be bored and still able to ponder my boredom. Not really. You didn't exist for billions of years before now. Was it that bad?

Well, if you agree that everything has to have a cause for it. Then you claim that the universe had to have been created by something. It then follows that everything needs to be caused, so that cause needs to have a cause. Then that cause needs a cause, ad infinitum. It's just infinite regression. If you argue that God isn't a part of this phenomenon, and doesn't need a cause, then that's special pleading, and destroys your argument that everything needs a cause. We could then easily argue that the Universe or the Big Bang or whatever didn't need a cause, it created itself or some other hogwash.

Thanks. I wouldn't have expected them to change the prices, thanks for the heads up. The new changes have been released.

:thumbup:

It's been changed, thanks for the heads-up. More than slightly wrong, completely incorrect! :P

Ghrim buys them out of his own pocket really; it doesn't affect your mtk at all. It's really a way for Jagex to make flatpacks from TT not completely useless. It's been edited, thanks :)

Both guide and items db edited, thanks :thumbup:

Guide has been updated and released. Actually, her prayers aren't actually prayers, per se. They merely increase her defence dramatically- that's why you can use a godsword/slayer task on her. You can actually hit through her prayer with a bronze dagger, it's just very difficult. If you guys have any recommendations, we'd be glad to hear them. Thanks :).