Assume Nothing
-
Posts
4194 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Assume Nothing
-
-
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.
-
Carl Sagan is agnostic. Every atheist here must be smarter than him.
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.
-
He also has been talking about you behind your back a lot. I overheard him telling RPG that you were ugly at the water cooler earlier today.
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?
-
I'm Chinese, but I was born and raised in the UK.
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.
-
EDIT - who am I kidding. I'd love to argue - insofar that if I could, I'd argue with myself.
>implying you don't
>taking it in a non-literal context.
-
I like it, but Jagex would lose a lot of revenue.
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)?
-
-
@Omar: I have far too little time in the morning to make a response to you, but I'll reply a little later.
I'll try and make this my one post. I like to say that I'm technically agnostic, but functionally atheist.
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.
Sure, there may be a god, why not? It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis and the existence of a more powerful force doesn't really have any implications in and of themselves. Now, do I believe in any of the gods worshiped here and now, or even before? No, I've found that there are enough holes in pretty much any religious belief to make it impossible to fully believe that any religion has the "one true grasp on the greater power."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.
Could some parts of some religions be true, maybe, but that doesn't really matter. Religions are inductive by Nature, and without a demonstrably true beginning premise I just see no reason to accept why something should be true when there are also various other explanations that hold the same amount of evidence behind them (Aka, none).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?
-
-
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.
Of course atheists can't prove their disbelief - it's not even a belief in the first place. In fact, no negative position could be disproven if we're questioning the very foundations of our beliefs - i.e. physical laws of the universe and their origins. I don't entirely follow how it's underpinned by nothing better than a theist's, given that it's not a belief in the first place.
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.
I submit that it's difficult to make an argument against all gods, but I can quite easily argue against the concept of the Christian god given the blatant contradictions in its very own scripture. I don't know what a moderate religious God entails (as others have failed/refused to clarify), so I'll operate on the biblical depiction.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.
Uh, I can't say I disagree that unknowable doesn't mean irrelevant - but what are you trying to get at?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.)
It's one of the things I hold contention with - picking and choosing religions doesn't make the belief in the deity validated. I read on.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.
It depends how you're defining faith. You claim that I 'must have some irrational faith in something' to justify my 'contempt of religion' - what exactly are you designating to be faith? If we operate on the webster's definition of 'belief without evidence', then I'd argue that this assertion is untrue.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).
I can't see where I've praised the thoughtfulness of atheists, if that's what you're trying to suggest. I see no relevance on the Kierkegaard comment so I'll disregard that.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]
@ 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.
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?
-
Things that annoy the HELL out of you.
in Off-Topic
Posted
EDIT - I think I'm misinterpreting you. I don't quite follow what you're saying.