| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
zocktol
Germany1928 Posts
On March 30 2011 02:49 iNcontroL wrote: is this real life? Religion debate in here? Is this just fantasy? Geoff, will you be touching all of the hate in the NASL thread, which is now turning into a lot of love? | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
TSL I really want to talk about all 8 matches from this weekend. Some of them more than others. But I think all 8 deserve at least 1-2 mins of time on a ~3 hour show. GSTL and Korea vs World have provided some interesting matches to discuss. And also a little discussion on how incredibly exciting winners league is warranted (by winners league I mean these team vs team matches where you play 1v1's one at a time and winner stays. it's called winners league for sc:bw, distinguished from proleague which is also team vs team but features a predetermined lineup for 4 matches and then an ace match if necessary. also, winners league format = team battle. proleague format = clanwar. just more terminology) PS: I think that's all SharkSpider had to say was that atheism requires faith. Going from faith to religion is an extra step. Going from rigorous scientific evidence to 100% belief in whatever the science supports requires faith. 100% belief is simply not scientific at all. Everything is up for revision in science. If you say "well I know that science hasn't proven God doesn't exist, but the evidence points toward that, so I operate under the assumption that God doesn't exist" well then either you truly believe he doesn't exist, so you're an atheist, and that requires faith, or the bottom line is that you don't know for sure one way or the other, so you're agnostic. | ||
|
taLbuk
Madagascar1879 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
and there has to be a reasonable wiggle room when saying you believe something. maybe the earth is the center of the solar system and some unknowable thing just skews our perception. that could be said of anything we claim to know. everyone should be agnostic with respect to everything if you require 100% certainty for "belief" | ||
|
LagT_T
Argentina535 Posts
Socke <3 | ||
|
pyrestrike
United States235 Posts
On March 30 2011 02:50 barth wrote: ![[image loading]](http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/470/train.jpg) Can't wait for the show, so much to talk about. I might actually tune in live this time. Indeed, on both accounts! It'll be quite interesting to hear both Tyler and Incontrol's thoughts on (Korea vs World spoiler)+ Show Spoiler + White-Ra's PvP against MC | ||
|
NotSupporting
Sweden1998 Posts
On March 30 2011 02:58 taLbuk wrote: I wonder if this SOTG guys are upset about the crafted NASL groups instead of them being random. I could be wrong, but I thought I recalled them being more than upset back in the HDH tournament about the set-up matchups in bracket. I guess I'm not sure of the consequences of a set up bracket compared to a set up group stage. Oh well. Unfortunately I fear that the players on the show will be rather hesitant when expressing their concerns with NASL since they are closely connected with the tournament through incontrol. Hopefully we can see a discussion about NASL and the groups that bring up both the good sides but also the critical voices that have raised regarding different aspects of NASL. | ||
|
vyyye
Sweden3917 Posts
On March 30 2011 03:23 NotSupporting wrote: Unfortunately I fear that the players on the show will be rather hesitant when expressing their concerns with NASL since they are closely connected with the tournament through incontrol. Hopefully we can see a discussion about NASL and the groups that bring up both the good sides but also the critical voices that have raised regarding different aspects of NASL. They had no issue in saying "I think X is stupid, though I see where you're coming from" about some things. IdrA with the application videos, Nony about the 5 player rule. Really, if there's anything that SotG has proved over and over is that they don't do some ridiculous self censoring. Just think about their criticism of MLG at times, it's not like JP goes "Hey, I work for them be nice!". | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
Chad3132 Posts
| ||
|
NonY
8751 Posts
On March 30 2011 03:08 IdrA wrote: you dont have to explicitly say there is no god to be an atheist, theres varying degrees true there are varying degrees of atheism and they dont all require faith. and even the ones that do require faith, i think there are arguments to be made that faith isn't the right word to use, or that it should be qualified in some way. if anyone really cares about this shit, stanford eyncylopedia of philosophy is usually a good online starting point for any philosophically related topic http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ key phrase "starting point" + Show Spoiler + The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure this is another way of saying that the discussion is a huge fucking mess. | ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
On March 30 2011 03:23 NotSupporting wrote: Unfortunately I fear that the players on the show will be rather hesitant when expressing their concerns with NASL since they are closely connected with the tournament through incontrol. Hopefully we can see a discussion about NASL and the groups that bring up both the good sides but also the critical voices that have raised regarding different aspects of NASL. if they don't say any criticisms it is because they have no criticisms.. not because they don't want to oppose incontrol | ||
|
joheinous
Iceland522 Posts
On March 30 2011 03:08 IdrA wrote: you dont have to explicitly say there is no god to be an atheist, theres varying degrees and there has to be a reasonable wiggle room when saying you believe something. maybe the earth is the center of the solar system and some unknowable thing just skews our perception. that could be said of anything we claim to know. everyone should be agnostic with respect to everything if you require 100% certainty for "belief" Plato making a strong comeback:D. If the thing is unknowable it's irrelevant. We could all be some weird purple plants in tubes with probes up our asses in an induced dream state and nothing that we perceive is real but just a dream, but speculating about that doesn't do us any good. We have to make basic assumptions that are actually useful to us in the reality we perceive to get anywhere. If that is a caveat you want to have for every single piece of knowledge humans have that's fine but it's not very useful. Putting this into the context of religious debate is misleading because the nature of the types of knowledge your dealing with is fundamentally different. One is about internal logical consistency and the other what that logical system is and how to approach it. And are you sure you don't have to explicitly say there's no god to be an atheist? I'm not really up on the semantics part of it  | ||
|
Piski
Finland3461 Posts
At least long enough to say just how awesome Whitera was and Dimaga. Can't wait for the next show! | ||
|
Dystisis
Norway713 Posts
On March 30 2011 03:08 IdrA wrote: I don't want to offend anyone, but I think that the existence of God could never be proven or disproven, because the sentence "there exists a God" contains an empty word, "God". What I mean by that is that it could never be verified empirically, since the word does not refer to anything which is even supposed to exist empirically (it can not be found physically in any way in the world, because it would then be comparable to other things and thus not God, etc., etc.,).you dont have to explicitly say there is no god to be an atheist, theres varying degrees and there has to be a reasonable wiggle room when saying you believe something. maybe the earth is the center of the solar system and some unknowable thing just skews our perception. that could be said of anything we claim to know. everyone should be agnostic with respect to everything if you require 100% certainty for "belief" But somehow I feel the SotG thread is perhaps not the best thread to discuss the limits of language in. | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
Chad3132 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + It wasn't that crazy of a game. just usual WhiteRa antics that paid off really well, due especially to the positions. Glad WhiteRa won, was nice to see units controlled well, but people are building this shit up a bit too much EDIT: but i guess given the rigidity of the game, the warp prism usage/control is worth getting excited about. | ||
|
HowSoOnIsNow
Canada480 Posts
Atheism does not requires faith. Atheist say, well theist, there's no proof around that would have me believing in your claims. Hence, i will not take your God theory very seriously. No chemist believe in the theories of alchemy, because there's absolutely nothing that can back it up. It doesnt take faith to not believe in alchemy. | ||
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
On March 30 2011 02:58 taLbuk wrote: I wonder if this SOTG guys are upset about the crafted NASL groups instead of them being random. I could be wrong, but I thought I recalled them being more than upset back in the HDH tournament about the set-up matchups in bracket. I guess I'm not sure of the consequences of a set up bracket compared to a set up group stage. Oh well. Wasn't that simply Day[9] fuming about being matched against Tasteless in the first round though? If i remember correctly the tone was more like being understanding with their first (LOL) tournament and they wanted to get an easier ride towards building a nice top end of the bracket. | ||
|
MotherOfRunes
Germany2862 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 108965
1096 Posts
| ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On March 30 2011 03:37 HowSoOnIsNow wrote: You know Unicorns might exist (has they are mentioned 12 times in the Bible). There's no proof towards the existence of Unicorns. No fossil records. Nothing in nature would allow anyone to believe that they actually roamed the earth. Nothing in the evolution of horses that would got us believing that one of it,s kind can grow a horn. But since it's mention in some myths, man made accounts from medieval time, i guess not believing in Unicorns requires faith. Atheism does not requires faith. Atheist say, well theist, there's no proof around that would have me believing in your claims. Hence, i will not take your God theory very seriously. No chemist believe in the theories of alchemy, because there's absolutely nothing that can back it up. It doesnt take faith to not believe in alchemy. There's something broken in your post with that unicorn stories from myths and faith and then ignoring the myth part about religion with that Moses miracle stuff with the parting of the sea, egypt and the seven plagues, speaking shrubbery, Jesus healing the lame and the blind, walking on water and whatever other miracles supposedly happened. Also, what's the technical term for the "I-do-not-care" faith? | ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
WardiTV Qualifier
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
BSL Open Qualifier
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
BSL Open Qualifier
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
