|
Why isn't that a function? I feel like that would be a good function.
|
Because it doubles as posters just getting banned.
I want the weekend to be here, hopefully its just jet back to the office and home instead of working a few more hours; I didn't get home until 7 last night and was up at 5 to get back to work...
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:18 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:15 ComaDose wrote:On April 11 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote: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. It's human nature to turn to worship. how do you figure this? bonus bible bash: + Show Spoiler +the bible says bastards cant go in to a church.. but jesus was born out of marriage hahaha We idolize celebrities all the time. Hell you have rooms of young girls practically worshiping Bieber. Throughout history whatever we didn't understand we just chalk it up to some divine being's doing until some smart guy comes along and thinks about it. Just seems like a pretty concrete trends of humanity to me.
Those who are interested in this should read up on the idea of "god of the gaps."
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote: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. It's human nature to turn to worship so even if you just follow a person that tells other people those things eventually that person over time will get deified in some kind of way. Unless we as human beings evolve to a point where we stop doing these things I believe there's some merit in a benevolent deity that tells people to do those things. Ideally people shouldn't need such things but it seems that we aren't quite ready for that unfortunately. Over time if such a deity also pushes for open education then maybe society will start to change to a point where we realize we may not need this deity anymore. That'll be rather cool. As for your morality point I can't really say here. I don't feel I have an adequate grasp on morality as a whole to really put forward a discussion/viewpoint properly. While the previous point does tie into morality it doesn't really deal so much with it as a concept so I don't feel wrong talking about it.
It's not my nature to turn to worship and I don't think it's your nature either. If you will forgive me it seems a bit patronizing to say that all these unwashed, uneducated masses need a deity to act morally. I mean, if I can use phyvo or mordek as examples, I'd say they would be perfectly capable of and willing to act morally even without their faith (and I think we can clearly see a lot of signs of them using their own moral compass to judge the scripture, rather than the other way around). I might not be able to positively assert that religion doesn't make people behave better, but unless you can provide some large and good studies proving you right, I don't think you can assert the opposite either.
I also think we should distinguish between worship of a deity and an "worshipping" a popular idol. There are some stark differences between them. The popular idol usually isn't portrayed as (a very powerful) authority on morality, they aren't assigned any supernatural powers (and don't conflict with empiricism in such a way) and their basic existence can be demonstrated.
|
On April 11 2015 03:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:16 wei2coolman wrote:On April 11 2015 03:15 ComaDose wrote:On April 11 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote: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. It's human nature to turn to worship. how do you figure this? bonus bible bash: + Show Spoiler +the bible says bastards cant go in to a church.. but jesus was born out of marriage hahaha don't you know? you're married to god first and foremost. In the last several pages of surprisingly intelligent and thoughtful religious discussion, all of your posts have just stood out as a massive shit pile. I wish I could put you on thread ignore.
in readings of the bible, it's a common interpretation that Christians are married to god/christ, i don't understand your butthurt.
On April 11 2015 03:31 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote: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. It's human nature to turn to worship so even if you just follow a person that tells other people those things eventually that person over time will get deified in some kind of way. Unless we as human beings evolve to a point where we stop doing these things I believe there's some merit in a benevolent deity that tells people to do those things. Ideally people shouldn't need such things but it seems that we aren't quite ready for that unfortunately. Over time if such a deity also pushes for open education then maybe society will start to change to a point where we realize we may not need this deity anymore. That'll be rather cool. As for your morality point I can't really say here. I don't feel I have an adequate grasp on morality as a whole to really put forward a discussion/viewpoint properly. While the previous point does tie into morality it doesn't really deal so much with it as a concept so I don't feel wrong talking about it. It's not my nature to turn to worship and I don't think it's your nature either. If you will forgive me it seems a bit patronizing to say that all these unwashed, uneducated masses need a deity to act morally. I mean, if I can use phyvo or mordek as examples, I'd say they would be perfectly capable of and willing to act morally even without their faith (and I think we can clearly see a lot of signs of them using their own moral compass to judge the scripture, rather than the other way around). I might not be able to positively assert that religion doesn't make people behave better, but unless you can provide some large and good studies proving you right, I don't think you can assert the opposite either. I also think we should distinguish between worship of a deity and an "worshipping" a popular idol. There are some stark differences between them. The popular idol usually isn't portrayed as (a very powerful) authority on morality, they aren't assigned any supernatural powers (and don't conflict with empiricism in such a way) and their basic existence can be demonstrated.
while it might not be the most intellectually honest way of quelling the masses, it's not necessarily an immoral one.
and using 5-0 and mordek is a poor example, as i'm pretty sure they're far more intelligent than the average person.
|
The Last of Us intro... my dad feels...
|
On April 11 2015 03:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:16 wei2coolman wrote:On April 11 2015 03:15 ComaDose wrote:On April 11 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote: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. It's human nature to turn to worship. how do you figure this? bonus bible bash: + Show Spoiler +the bible says bastards cant go in to a church.. but jesus was born out of marriage hahaha don't you know? you're married to god first and foremost. In the last several pages of surprisingly intelligent and thoughtful religious discussion, all of your posts have just stood out as a massive shit pile. I wish I could put you on thread ignore.
I thought it was funny. and also probably close to the justification that would be used.
I don't agree with the previously mentioned agnostic-atheist definition. The fact that I'm open to the possibility of a god is just cause im open to the possibility of anything. Gotta hear all the evidence and come to your own conclusions kinda deal and there is always more evidence to find. Anti-theist is confusing me too. like I'm anti-christian-church but im not anti-all-christians. I'm anti-most-organized-religions but i think Taoism is alright but even they did the whole animal sacrifice bit.
|
Mordek its okay.
I cri Erre Tiem 
|
On April 11 2015 03:33 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On April 11 2015 03:16 wei2coolman wrote:On April 11 2015 03:15 ComaDose wrote:On April 11 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote: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. It's human nature to turn to worship. how do you figure this? bonus bible bash: + Show Spoiler +the bible says bastards cant go in to a church.. but jesus was born out of marriage hahaha don't you know? you're married to god first and foremost. In the last several pages of surprisingly intelligent and thoughtful religious discussion, all of your posts have just stood out as a massive shit pile. I wish I could put you on thread ignore. in readings of the bible, it's a common interpretation that Christians are married to god/christ, i don't understand your butthurt.
I was commenting on the trend of your posts, this just happened to be the most recent one, and thus the one I quoted.
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:34 ComaDose wrote: I'm anti-most-organized-religions but i think Taoism is alright but even they did the whole animal sacrifice bit.
So you don't believe in ejaculation and would like to redirect semen into your brain?
|
On April 11 2015 03:31 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:02 Numy wrote:On April 11 2015 02:56 Scip wrote: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. It's human nature to turn to worship so even if you just follow a person that tells other people those things eventually that person over time will get deified in some kind of way. Unless we as human beings evolve to a point where we stop doing these things I believe there's some merit in a benevolent deity that tells people to do those things. Ideally people shouldn't need such things but it seems that we aren't quite ready for that unfortunately. Over time if such a deity also pushes for open education then maybe society will start to change to a point where we realize we may not need this deity anymore. That'll be rather cool. As for your morality point I can't really say here. I don't feel I have an adequate grasp on morality as a whole to really put forward a discussion/viewpoint properly. While the previous point does tie into morality it doesn't really deal so much with it as a concept so I don't feel wrong talking about it. It's not my nature to turn to worship and I don't think it's your nature either. If you will forgive me it seems a bit patronizing to say that all these unwashed, uneducated masses need a deity to act morally. I mean, if I can use phyvo or mordek as examples, I'd say they would be perfectly capable of and willing to act morally even without their faith (and I think we can clearly see a lot of signs of them using their own moral compass to judge the scripture, rather than the other way around). I might not be able to positively assert that religion doesn't make people behave better, but unless you can provide some large and good studies proving you right, I don't think you can assert the opposite either. I also think we should distinguish between worship of a deity and an "worshipping" a popular idol. There are some stark differences between them. The popular idol usually isn't portrayed as (a very powerful) authority on morality, they aren't assigned any supernatural powers (and don't conflict with empiricism in such a way) and their basic existence can be demonstrated.
While I agree with most of what you said I just don't have much faith in people. I'm also not saying they need a deity to act morally more so than saying they will find a deity if they don't have one because that's just what people do. So if they are going to do it anyway I'd rather them follow some kind of benevolent deity that focused on those elements we mentioned prior.
Worship of an idol can quickly turn into believing them somehow above humanity. People are weird.
On April 11 2015 03:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:34 ComaDose wrote: I'm anti-most-organized-religions but i think Taoism is alright but even they did the whole animal sacrifice bit. So you don't believe in ejaculation and would like to redirect semen into your brain?
Can you ejaculate our your face then? That'd be a pretty cool party trick
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
Regardless of whether phyvo or mordek are acceptable counterexamples, I think your idea that a belief in deity makes people behave more ethically is unacceptable unless you can provide a good study (I would probably be happy enough with an observational one to be honest, if it was large and rigorous enough) that supports that claim.
This point is aimed more towards wei2coolman and Yango than at you, Numy :3
|
I think I need to quit OT
This is the wavebait I am most ashamed of starting, despite the actual somewhat tolerant and intellectual nature of most of the posting as of late.
|
On April 11 2015 03:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:34 ComaDose wrote: I'm anti-most-organized-religions but i think Taoism is alright but even they did the whole animal sacrifice bit. So you don't believe in ejaculation and would like to redirect semen into your brain?
dont judge my fetish
+ Show Spoiler +evidently there is more to it than the Tao Te Ching and i am ignorant. the hunt for an acceptable faith group continues!
On April 11 2015 03:40 WaveofShadow wrote:
I think I need to quit OT
This is the wavebait I am most ashamed of starting, despite the actual somewhat tolerant and intellectual nature of most of the posting as of late.
huh why? this seems pretty fine no?
|
On April 11 2015 03:39 Scip wrote:
Regardless of whether phyvo or mordek are acceptable counterexamples, I think your idea that a belief in deity makes people behave more ethically is unacceptable unless you can provide a good study (I would probably be happy enough with an observational one to be honest, if it was large and rigorous enough) that supports that claim.
This point is aimed more towards wei2coolman and Yango than at you, Numy :3
It has nothign to do with "needing" a diety.
It has to do with them making a deity out of something.
Even in the story of Moses, and bringing down the 10 commandments, people were already building idols of worship before Moses brought down the 10 commandments, and because people didn't even know any better they got smited for building false idols of worship.
You're making it sound as if smart people invented religion to quell the masses, when in reality the masses create their own religion to satisfy their own ignorance.
|
Pretty sure this is a 100% Scipbait and not Wavebait.
PS: I have read the entire Tao Te Ching and taken a university course on it, and have never heard about it being anti ejaculation.
|
On April 11 2015 03:42 Ketara wrote:
Pretty sure this is a 100% Scipbait and not Wavebait.
PS: I have read the entire Tao Te Ching and taken a university course on it, and have never heard about it being anti ejaculation.
the joke, is that it's pro ejaculation, not anti. (at least in my understanding of sexual intercourse in regards to taoism)
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:41 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 11 2015 03:34 ComaDose wrote: I'm anti-most-organized-religions but i think Taoism is alright but even they did the whole animal sacrifice bit. So you don't believe in ejaculation and would like to redirect semen into your brain? dont just my fetish + Show Spoiler +evidently there is more to it than the Tao Te Ching and i am ignorant. the hunt for an acceptable faith group continues! Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:40 WaveofShadow wrote:
I think I need to quit OT
This is the wavebait I am most ashamed of starting, despite the actual somewhat tolerant and intellectual nature of most of the posting as of late.
huh why? this seems pretty fine no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoist_sexual_practices#Male_control_of_ejaculation :3
On April 11 2015 03:43 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:42 Ketara wrote:
Pretty sure this is a 100% Scipbait and not Wavebait.
PS: I have read the entire Tao Te Ching and taken a university course on it, and have never heard about it being anti ejaculation. the joke, is that it's pro ejaculation, not anti.
? Taoism is pretty unambiguously anti-ejaculation, believing that semen contains the essence of life (I guess it makes sense if you think about it).
|
United States23745 Posts
On April 11 2015 03:33 mordek wrote:
The Last of Us intro... my dad feels...
One of the best intros and one of the best endings of any game. I just watched it again on Youtube earlier and it still gives me shivers.
|
On April 11 2015 03:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 03:41 ComaDose wrote:On April 11 2015 03:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 11 2015 03:34 ComaDose wrote: I'm anti-most-organized-religions but i think Taoism is alright but even they did the whole animal sacrifice bit. So you don't believe in ejaculation and would like to redirect semen into your brain? dont just my fetish + Show Spoiler +evidently there is more to it than the Tao Te Ching and i am ignorant. the hunt for an acceptable faith group continues! On April 11 2015 03:40 WaveofShadow wrote:
I think I need to quit OT
This is the wavebait I am most ashamed of starting, despite the actual somewhat tolerant and intellectual nature of most of the posting as of late.
huh why? this seems pretty fine no? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoist_sexual_practices#Male_control_of_ejaculation :3
Oh Asia, you so crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
