|
On April 11 2015 02:23 Ketara wrote:Here's something completely different. I was practicing cooking this past week or two. Made some things: + Show Spoiler +
that is, actually very impressive. is it correct to assume everything was made from scratch?
|
On April 11 2015 02:23 Ketara wrote:Here's something completely different. I was practicing cooking this past week or two. Made some things: + Show Spoiler + your camera setting makes the food look fake.
also, why is there a slit in your pie?
|
On April 11 2015 02:28 wei2coolman wrote:your camera setting makes the food look fake. also, why is there a slit in your pie?
to hide the saw duh. also shrink your pictures you just made me get a message from the tl bot.
|
On April 11 2015 02:28 wei2coolman wrote:your camera setting makes the food look fake. also, why is there a slit in your pie?
Because you poke something in it to see if it's done?
Nah, I fucked it.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
Well, the position you find yourself in is a fairly common one Numy. Nobody can disprove the existence of deities unless they are logically impossible (in which case we have a good reason to reject the possibility of their existence) or unless they can be demonstrated to be false.
As for the rest of logically possible but unfalsifiable deities, they are non-scientific claims of what I would argue to be dubious usefulness and live my life without worship. That is the position you'd find the modern atheist writers defending. What may be the difference between our positions is how probable we think that an unknown supernatural (nevermind what supernatural is even supposed to mean) "force" exists. Or it may be we are in the exact same position.
|
On April 11 2015 02:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:that is, actually very impressive. is it correct to assume everything was made from scratch?
The pie had a premade pie crust, rest was scratch yeh.
|
United States47024 Posts
The "usefulness" of those deities is more or less so that the existentially distraught can fall asleep at night. Which I think is fine.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On April 11 2015 02:39 TheYango wrote: The "usefulness" of those deities is more or less so that the existentially distraught can fall asleep at night. Which I think is fine. Some unkind people might say that believing something you yourself know to be very likely untrue for comfort isn't very intelectually honest nor very adult. Some unkind people
|
Some unkind people say "meow".
|
He doesn't say meow.
He says "Mmmnnnneeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyuhhhhhhhh"
|
On April 11 2015 02:33 Scip wrote: Well, the position you find yourself in is a fairly common one Numy. Nobody can disprove the existence of deities unless they are logically impossible (in which case we have a good reason to reject the possibility of their existence) or unless they can be demonstrated to be false.
As for the rest of logically possible but unfalsifiable deities, they are non-scientific claims of what I would argue to be dubious usefulness and live my life without worship. That is the position you'd find the modern atheist writers defending. What may be the difference between our positions is how probable we think that an unknown supernatural (nevermind what supernatural is even supposed to mean) "force" exists. Or it may be we are in the exact same position.
I think you're on the right track honestly just as you said slightly different positions. Deities have their uses if they push in the right direction I feel even if they may not exist. A deity that tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted individuals would be one I could get behind regardless of my view on the existence of it. Also if deities do exist then it stands to reason that superpowers exist too so no way I'm not keeping that possibility open :D
|
On April 11 2015 02:41 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 02:39 TheYango wrote: The "usefulness" of those deities is more or less so that the existentially distraught can fall asleep at night. Which I think is fine. Some unkind people might say that believing something you yourself know to be very likely untrue for comfort isn't very intelectually honest nor very adult. Some unkind people have you met most adults? they couldn't care less about intelligence, much less intellectual honesty.
|
On April 11 2015 02:44 Ketara wrote: He doesn't say meow.
He says "Mmmnnnneeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyuhhhhhhhh"
I didn't realize you owned scip.
|
|
|
United States15536 Posts
lol I actually had a bit of trouble with Normal Garr. Made a Priest deck to deal and it was fine, but damn if you don't have early board clear or Frothing Berserkers that shit hurts.
|
On April 11 2015 02:51 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 02:41 Scip wrote:On April 11 2015 02:39 TheYango wrote: The "usefulness" of those deities is more or less so that the existentially distraught can fall asleep at night. Which I think is fine. Some unkind people might say that believing something you yourself know to be very likely untrue for comfort isn't very intelectually honest nor very adult. Some unkind people have you met most adults? they couldn't care less about intelligence, much less intellectual honesty. Only us superior OTblirinas care about intelligence and cat girls.
@Ketara You know that leg of lamb is pretty much always braised right? Otherwise it will get dry and chewy.
|
On April 11 2015 02:07 Numy wrote:Cool thanks. Never really looked into finding a word to describe how I feel. Now you done it for me :D. I also believe in the possibility of Aliens. Just seems highly unlikely we'll ever encounter each other. More likely each civilization dies long before that point. Seems to fit lol
Pretty sure the term you're looking for would be an Agnostic Theist. Gnosticism dealing with whether or not you claim actual KNOWLEDGE of whether or not you are correct in your beliefs, and Theism dealing with your belief itself.
So if you're a person that's chosen to believe there is a higher power, but that we can't be absolutely sure, you'd be an Agnostic Theist.
If you're a person that does not believe in a higher power, but leaves open the possibility because we can't be absolutely sure, you'd be an Agnostic Atheist.
Those who would claim that they are certain in the existence or non-existence of a higher power would but Gnostic Theists and Gnostic Atheists, both positions I think any intellectually honest person would have a hard time defending effectively.
|
United States47024 Posts
"Believing things you know are very likely untrue" sounds more like politics than religion, lol.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On April 11 2015 02:48 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 02:33 Scip wrote: Well, the position you find yourself in is a fairly common one Numy. Nobody can disprove the existence of deities unless they are logically impossible (in which case we have a good reason to reject the possibility of their existence) or unless they can be demonstrated to be false.
As for the rest of logically possible but unfalsifiable deities, they are non-scientific claims of what I would argue to be dubious usefulness and live my life without worship. That is the position you'd find the modern atheist writers defending. What may be the difference between our positions is how probable we think that an unknown supernatural (nevermind what supernatural is even supposed to mean) "force" exists. Or it may be we are in the exact same position. I think you're on the right track honestly just as you said slightly different positions. Deities have their uses if they push in the right direction I feel even if they may not exist. A deity that tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted individuals would be one I could get behind regardless of my view on the existence of it. Also if deities do exist then it stands to reason that superpowers exist too so no way I'm not keeping that possibility open :D What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in.
Moreover I'd say it actually clouds what morality is actually about, which is how we should act towards each other and other living beings, rather than about what kind of behavior we believe gets rewarded and what gets punished. Great deal of progress has been given up by the second school of thought.
|
On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 02:48 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:33 Scip wrote: Well, the position you find yourself in is a fairly common one Numy. Nobody can disprove the existence of deities unless they are logically impossible (in which case we have a good reason to reject the possibility of their existence) or unless they can be demonstrated to be false.
As for the rest of logically possible but unfalsifiable deities, they are non-scientific claims of what I would argue to be dubious usefulness and live my life without worship. That is the position you'd find the modern atheist writers defending. What may be the difference between our positions is how probable we think that an unknown supernatural (nevermind what supernatural is even supposed to mean) "force" exists. Or it may be we are in the exact same position. I think you're on the right track honestly just as you said slightly different positions. Deities have their uses if they push in the right direction I feel even if they may not exist. A deity that tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted individuals would be one I could get behind regardless of my view on the existence of it. Also if deities do exist then it stands to reason that superpowers exist too so no way I'm not keeping that possibility open :D What about a person who tells people to be good, rational and kind hearted? You don't need to invoke the divine or the supernatural to either suggest or demand that others act in accordance with those rules. I would even say that invoking the divine (and, presumably, the possible punishments or rewards the deity offers) to assert these are rules one should live by is less honest, less effective and less permanent than engaging in an honest philosophical discussion of what kind of society we want to live in. Moreover I'd say it actually clouds what morality is actually about, which is how we should act towards each other and other living beings, rather than about what kind of behavior we believe gets rewarded and what gets punished. Great deal of progress has been given up by the second school of thought. again, have you met most people? remember, the average iq is 100. and 50% of the population is below that. and 100 is like shit level iq anyways. so you're probably realistically looking at maybe only 10% of the population that has the actual intelligence quotient to understand, and even less that care.
|
|
|
|
|
|