Assume Nothing

EDIT - I think I'm misinterpreting you. I don't quite follow what you're saying.

What defines a good voice? It's so subjective that there is no correct answer, in all honesty. It doesn't appeal to me though - the lyrics lack meaning and his voice is too feminine for my liking.

Do you even know what agnosticism entails? It's not a mutually exclusive concept from atheism - they work in conjunction, because its definitions permits so. It's not 'I'm indecisive in believing/disbelieving' - it's a claim regarding knowledge (or the lack thereof in this case) pertaining to the existence/non-existence of a god/gods. ... in other news, I'll post a brief thought experiment for theists - or more specifically, creationists: (the last video starts at 3:54) What makes you think that your god/gods were responsible for the creation of this universe, and what makes you think that we don't live in a world without one? The point of posting these videos is to illustrate that for the most part, a deity is superfluous.

Banned for not knowing ;D

Banned for calling my name.

... meanwhile, in nostalgia-ville

I tend to pick that up, but if anything more were to be suggested... #suspectingdubiousmotives

Banned for not answering the question.

Is this satire, or irony? #kidsthesedays

It needs to be stated explicitly before anything could be done about it, but I'll call him out regardless. I don't follow the chain of logic though - somehow I have political beliefs because of the way I post, presumably? Uh, what?

That explains a lot. Please elaborate.

I'm Chinese, but I was born and raised in the UK. I sound weird, don't I? I hate my voice :(

I have a weird thing with breathing when I read, and I seem to put on more of an american accent when I read as opposed to talk. I find it really really odd, but I'll illustrate with a recording of it: http://vocaroo.com/i/s0PeQ2jsJHWB *confused*

Banned for thinking.

>implying you don't >taking it in a non-literal context.

You're talking short-term. Ever considered the further implications of quitting players who quite rightly find that the update undermines legitimate gameplay (i.e. gameplay that requires effort)?

http://vocaroo.com/ Let's do this.

@Omar: I have far too little time in the morning to make a response to you, but I'll reply a little later. I'd hate to argue, but I'd like to comment on some of the remarks nonetheless. I think the terminology is too often misused; agnosticism is not a mutually exclusive concept from atheism - it entails a proclamation of knowledge (or in this case, lack thereof). To be agnostic is not to say you're an atheist, or a theist - it merely says you cannot be sure about the existence/non-existence of deities either way - it's different from being indecisive. It depends what you mean by a 'god'. If you go by some of the Abrahamic faiths which claim active intervention in our lives, we can judge its relative plausibility based on how much of this intervention we can actually measure - so far, that is zilch. If you mean there may be a deistic god, then I'll agree. I can't say I disagree that because of the flaws in the 'holy scripture', it's very questionable at best since if there was a God, they should make darn sure that their word was infallible. I refrain from commenting here. EDIT - who am I kidding. I'd love to argue - insofar that if I could, I'd argue with myself.

I think that would be useful that it is to be made, since this thread is more specific about religion, its beliefs (specifically the existence or non-existence of deities), and the role of religion.

The philosophy is a little beyond my understanding, so I'll briefly ignore it. Question though - why is the Biblical portrayal of this 'God' character so human-like - i.e. with so much emotion?

... why?

I think you're referring to these concepts, but its very digressive:

I'm honestly surprised that no one has suggested hookers and blow, even sarcastically. Does that not even register as an option?

I've written a response before reading the edit, so I'll post that first. 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. I think you’ve left your sentence incomplete. ‘because you don’t do anything to […]’ I’ll refrain from commenting until you clarify. 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. Gods transcend reason? It sounds as much as a non-answer as ‘God works in mysterious ways’, if I’m interpreting you correctly. Everything we know of has been explainable – scientifically, mathematically, or philosophically. Please clarify: is it another way of saying ‘beyond reason’? I have no idea where you’re getting the ideas of ‘corrupt Christianity’ - how exactly do you know? I’d place a [citation needed] tag, but I don’t really want to engage in informal debate. 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. 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.) 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. Oh, I think I understand you a little better now. If you mean justified in the context of ‘having a good reason to act in such way’, but if you mean ‘having good reason to believe’ – I’d argue otherwise. I am speaking of faith in values--progress is probably yours. There is no justification for belief in progress. I’m not entirely sure what that means – faith in values. How exactly are you defining faith? If you won’t clarify, I’ll presume the Webster definition of ‘acceptance of a claim as true without sufficient evidence’ – which doesn’t seem to fit the context (thus I ask for clarification). You wrote they were more serious about their beliefs. I’ll clarify: by serious, I mean with greater concern for its truth values. You’ve illustrated a position with little/no concern for truth values – which makes this argument a little moot, but it’s a fun discussion nonetheless. [hide] I'll have to come back to this, it's more than what I could handle at 1:43am. We'll refer to this later.[/hide] EDIT - question of curiosity: does positive affirmation of the existence of God enhance life, or degrade it?

*grumbles about possessive apostrophe being misused* I find they're really good for hiking/camping expeditions, especially if it's during cold weather conditions.