Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    55.497112 18.940430
  • Interests
    Chess,all card games,arcanists,bizarre stuff, and tennis.

RuneScape Information

  1. Who are you to request a lock? This thread has discussion value. Yeah, I have the evidence to prove it has discussion value, but I'm not allowed to post.
  2. Maulmachine


    And who says their morality is god given? The church?
  3. Maulmachine


    I'll start off with saying that I don't agree with what wep says the majority of the time, and his posts are probably fallacious. He's a poor example of an atheist, and I'd immediately question anyone who's goal is to persuade anyone to believe any ideology. For example, the variation in the changes associated with DNA replicated is known, not unknown. It's simply due to error in a large number of cases. Evolution states that a creature with a trait which inhibits development will be less likely to produce offspring, and that the family line will be less likely to survive. On the flip side, creatures which have traits which are advantageous are more likely to produce more healthy offspring, and such pass on the acquired characteristic. Wep seems to be arguing some form of quasi-lamarckism. There is no need to debate evolution, it isn't up for debate. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning that the amount of evidence in it's favor is incredibly strong. Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory—a “guess” or “hunch.” These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution. This is contemptible. Atheism is a lack of religion, it's inherent. It isn't a subscription to any certain ideology which would license anything. You think that in an atheistic society people have an inclination toward genocide? I contend that the vast majority of us are atheists in regards to most deities. It's ignorant to assume that a lack of a belief in your god would illicit any measurable sort of change in people. Are immoral people at a higher risk to commit genocide? Perhaps, but atheism isn't a moral code. Nor is it a lack of a moral code, atheism is typically related to Secular Humanism. An ideology which would spurn any genocidal statements. Right, as far you're aware. Meaning, you never bothered to maybe look it up, but just assumed you were right. As far as I'm aware the qualifications to be an idiot is ignorance. But y'know, I'm not gonna look it up or nothin', cause I gots me knowledge. Of course there's a structure associated with a belief, and of course it's been studied in philosophy... Perhaps you were ignorant of epistemology, unfortunately I've left my '69 volumes of philosophy at my parents house, as such I will have to use the SEP. It's good, but not as good. As such, this may be a tad wayward, but it defines belief well enough. Using this definition, we may choose to classify atheism, perhaps, as a dispositional belief. A belief which isn't considered. That would be the only classification of atheism as "belief" which would have merit, and I think that a competent individual would be able to make a fair argument that atheism could be considered a dispositional belief. However, it's slightly inane to hold that atheism is, by definition, an antagonistic stance towards religion. Denial and disbelief are completely different. Denial may be associated with antitheism,and disbelief associated with atheism. Disbelief would simply be the lack of an inclination in a certain direction towards a specific object. As such, disbelief is not a belief, and this is the argument which an epistemologist would make for atheism not being a belief. In my opinion(as a jew, mind you) is that the latter is a sounder argument. Either way, atheism is not a belief system by any means, it is at the most a dispositional belief. Unfortunately, many acts have been committed in the name of religion. The pursuit of justice for an associated god is fairly well documented throughout history. Atheism isn't a belief system, and as such nobody kills for atheism. It's rather silly to contend that atheism can be responsible for criminal acts, as there isn't a set of guidelines or structure to atheism. This isn't a debate, is it? You went from discussion(your 7th word) to debate(your 18th word). You really don't think that anyone has a clearer knowledge of an opposing viewpoint following this discussion? That's what I meant by misconceptions being cleared up. What people choose to label themselves as is a matter of sociology, as would be the discussion of appropriateness. I don't know enough about the sociological ramifications of calling oneself an atheist as opposed to an agnostic. So, I can't really respond which would be the more appropriate label.
  4. Maulmachine


    Listen, if you are questioning me as well, I find your statements thoroughly contemptible. You're thoroughly offensive to those who share a contrary belief, going as far as to infer that atheism causes people to become genocidal. And now you're pretending that you're knowledgeable on a subject which you aren't. If you take philosophy 101(if you happen to go to Columbia one of my relatives is the professor) then you would know that atheism isn't a belief system. It's a lack of belief towards god. That isn't a belief system, it's unorganized, unstructured, and there is a well classified and known set of requirements that something must meet to be classified as a belief. Your statements are formed out of sheer ignorance, and you've yet to pose a response towards me. Secondly, you mistake the purpose of discussion. Religion isn't discussed to persuade others to switch to a different side. It's discussed so that we can better understand each other and our separate viewpoints. I sure hope everyone is comfortable with their view(not belief) regarding religion. The point isn't to show someone the light, it's merely to clarify the misconceptions we hold about each other.
  5. Maulmachine


    No, I assume Stalin committed these atrocities because he was a communist. As atheism is necessary to the very ideal of communism (as there can be no authority higher than the state), yes, his atheism was responsible for the atrocities he committed. How is atheism not necessary to communism? I've yet to hear of a communist state that encourages religion..... Keep in mind however that the Greek Orthodox church continued to exist in some form during the entire reign of Soviet Communism, the Roman Catholic church enjoyed a certain degree of freedom during Czechoslovakia's communist era (now two seperate countries Czech Republic and Slovakia, with parliamentary democracies, Roman Catholics make up the largest religious group in both countries), and although it was repressed so does Buddhism in China. Once again, you're illogically correlating political and economic narratives and people who share them.Stalin didn't kill people because he was a communist, he did so because he felt it was morally justified for the same reason that he felt that communism was politically justified. Atheism had no role in either of these. Stalin may have been an atheist, but that's besides the point. He was unquestionably a deeply disturbed person, and an atheist. Simply because he was an atheist doesn't mean that any of his actions are caused by his atheism any more than they were caused by his mustache. Nowhere is it written that an atheist must adhere to a specific set of guidelines which necessitate murder or communism. Atheism is a lack of religion. It's a definition of what isn't there. Belief that religion is a negative influence isn't atheism, that would be anti-theism. There is a large distinction between the two. Your attack is petty and ill-founded, and I'd reconsider posting as it's quite offensive. I'm not an atheist, but I am deeply concerned with the mood of this thread. You're simply attacking others without considering a point opposite to your own. It's disconcerting, as religious discussion can be a great source of hearty debate and lead to greater understanding on both sides. But for this to progress we must first disregard and pre existing notions that the other side has an air of evil around them. What you're writing is sheerly ignorant and offensive, and I'm astounded as I used to have a great deal of respect for you.
  6. Maulmachine


    Atheism is inherent and necessary to communism. Saying atheism had nothing to do with the atrocities committed by Stalin is ridiculous - as the death camps, the outlawing of religious teaching, the destruction of churches and the killing of religious all serve to show. You assume that Stalin committed these atrocities because he was an atheist. I think it was because of his mustache. Stalin committed those crimes, not because he was an atheist, but because he was mentally ill. Atheism is not necessary to communism at all. Orwellian distopia's consist of the idealization of a head figure, to the point where he is revered as a god. Your arguments are quite offensive to atheists, and I'd seriously reconsider your posts before posting. Your points are merely attacks. You've obviously reached your own decision, don't attack others for drawing conclusions which are different from your own. Claims without evidence are, by definition, irrelevant. Evidence isn't needed to reject it. The onus of proof lies with the origin of the claim. This is the foundation of logic.
  7. Maulmachine


    My apologies then. What I DO think is that it's a potent example of how an atheist society could be worse than a Christian one. This argument is as fallacious as an ad hominem attack, as the USSR was not a society rooted in atheism, but a society rooted in communism atheism was a one of many characteristics of some communist leaders. It's but a reminder of the failing of communism. Your argument is equivalent to(Reductio Ad Absurdum) to saying that the USSR is a potent example of how a society with ice is far worse than a warmer one. Clearly we wouldn't acknowledge this statement as logical, so we must reject your statement as well. It's not only totally irrelevant, but it is also, from a logical standpoint, meaningless.
  8. Witchy loves you really <3

  9. If free trade is being restored, then what happened to the worry behind real world credit card theft which prompted the removal in the first place? The poll was a more or less to build hype, as you had to have already started the code behind the update, correct? Only questions I have, I cannot be certain if they have, or have not, been answered.
  10. Dude, I honestly don't even understand the question here. I mean, we can't know the future about rares. First, Runescape is far from an ideal market with far too many variables. Now, you used evaluate and devaluate completely incorrectly. Even if you meant, "will halloween masks rise in value, or will their worth be devalued?" that would still be near unanswerable. Value is a relative term, and it's hard to say, due to inflation, what will happen to the real value of H'ween masks. Nominally, it's possible they'll fall in the short term. One could argue that free trade would produce a rise in demand for regular pking goods. Thus, maybe one could say that the prices rares will fall due to more money being spent on pking goods rather than rares(thus demand for rares drops). Or, maybe the rise in the price of pking goods will be seen as disadvantages by players, and thus they'll attempt to put their money into rares in order to assure a somewhat stable(in the long run) amount of wealth.Either way is logical, and there is economic theory to support both conclusions. But then again, who said runescapians are logical! It could be equally as likely that one day people decide that H'ween masks are cool, and they skyrocket in price. We cannot tell the future mate, it's near impossible to tell what will happen to rares.
  11. Yeah, stupid treaties, always outlining words and idieas that aren't part of our narrative. I mean come on, it's just a piece of paper drafted by one of the most important founding fathers, who cares? Now, who do you mean by "we" are we talking about Madagascar? International forum, mate. The United States is not founded on Christianity, it's founded on freedom to believe whatever you want. The lost amendments? I'm extraordinarily confused by this comment. What lost amendment?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.