Quake3World

Law wrote:Lots to think about.

thats what ur dad said the first time he cheated on ur mom with another man...

No it took him until about the third instance to make that remark.

Pext wrote:geoff is right. agnosticism or certain, quasi-agnostic notions of unitarianism are the only ways to settle the problem. everything else is superstition, fairytales and cowardly avoidance of a personal causa sui.

Gesundheit.

busetibi wrote: its what i believe 100%.
if im wrong, ill come back and haunt/stalk you

say ello to nana for me

:icon25:

Interesting post Law. I consider myself an athiest but that question feels a little weird to me too. I'm very certain in my beliefs but I'm not arogant enough to think I'm 100% right.

I would want to see the ritual on tape before I said yes. Hell I would do it for as low as $50 if it took an hour or less.

Foo wrote:

Transient wrote:

Foo wrote:Simply because stating as fact that a higher power does not exist is just as baseless as stating that one does.

The obvious answer is that we dont know, and cant divine anything useful from assuming one way or the other.

Or in other words.... jelluz?

Yeah, but the burden of proof lies with religion.

I don't see how this is a 'but' against what I said. Athiesm believing no higher power exists, religions believing that they do. Agnosticism is the position to which both sides owe the burden of proof.

Both sides seek to make definitive statements when there exists no evidence to support either view, and likely never will be. If you're aware of occams razor, you'll be aware of this as one of the often stated quirks of its application.

But occams razor states that the simplest explanation is most often the correct one. The simplest explanation in this case is that there is no God. Therefore, aetheists indeed have more of a base for their argument than Christians, Muslims, etc.

Your contention that the burden of proof is on both believers and aetheists doesnt hold water either. By that logic, I could make up anything - no matter how crazy - and say that the burden is on someone who opposes me to disprove it. Its not. In order for the burden to be on the skeptics, the claim must be rational in the first place. And religion is anything but rational.

However, anyone who claims that they absolutely know the answer to this question is full of shit. But, Atheism is more viable than the invisible man theory.

Occam's razor doesn't help you. The simplest explanation for the universe at the moment (bearing in mind physics still hans't come up with a Unified Theory) is currently that it was created by a big beardy guy with an anger managment problem.

Occams razor isnt just about the absolute simplest explanation, its about the simplest rational explanation - the one that makes the fewest assumptions, and the one whose assumptions are the most logical.

Therefore, the simplest answer to whether or not there is an invisble man who lives in the sky who hates fags and redirects hurricanes at Pat Robertsons request is: No.

Occam's Razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory

..when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities.

Edit: sorry, was getting off track

The 'razor' has more than one interpretive tradition behind it. The most popular one, however, suggests that the razor, properly understood, only applies to belief formation (i.e., "Do such and such to avoid error") not to the nature of reality itself (i.e., simpler explanations are, in fact, the true ones).

Geebs wrote:Occam's razor doesn't help you. The simplest explanation for the universe at the moment (bearing in mind physics still hans't come up with a Unified Theory) is currently that it was created by a big beardy guy with an anger managment problem.

LOL, that's more believable? :icon3:

Foo wrote:

tnf wrote:so is agnostic the only way then?

It seems to be the only one that holds up to all logical scrutiny.

If choosing not to disbelieve simply because there isn't somekind of overwhelming evidence against whatever that is you choose not to disbelieve then you're way of life is hypocritical, because I'm sure you choose to beleive certain things simply because you know they cannot be. Not because you have evidence to the contrary.

I don't even know what each person who talks about it thinks I'm choosing to believe or disbelieve in.

Hence the neutral standpoint. Taking a side in a debate where everyone is debating over a different concept is fucking retarded. And you're the posterboy for retarded.

Kracus wrote: If choosing not to disbelieve simply because there isn't somekind of overwhelming evidence against whatever that is you choose not to disbelieve then you're way of life is hypocritical, because I'm sure you choose to beleive certain things simply because you know they cannot be. Not because you have evidence to the contrary.

Kracus wrote:If choosing not to disbelieve simply because there isn't somekind of overwhelming evidence against whatever that is you choose not to disbelieve then you're way of life is hypocritical, because I'm sure you choose to beleive certain things simply because you know they cannot be. Not because you have evidence to the contrary.

What the fuck?

"You choose to beleive certain things simply because you know they cannot be,"
Put down the pipe and read that to yourself again...

Every time I read what Kracus just wrote, it gets funnier and funnier.

Foo wrote:I don't even know what each person who talks about it thinks I'm choosing to believe or disbelieve in.

Hence the neutral standpoint. Taking a side in a debate where everyone is debating over a different concept is fucking retarded. And you're the posterboy for retarded.

Choosing not to disbelieve something is as good as beleiving in it ultimately. I'm not trying to attack you or anything either I'm just saying, this is my personal view on the subject.

I can understand being told something and keeping it under advisement until further evidence is shown, like say, joe tells you he bought a red sports car. Well until I see joe driving around in his beat up mobile I would assume joe bought himself a red sports car. That is of course unless Joe's a chronic liar.

My point though is that if you choose to beleive in something with no evidence you do so within the context of reality most of the time. With religion, all that reality fly's right out the window simply because it's religion and offers a nice and neat afterlife. It's OBVIOUS that it's false but no one seems to see it for some strange reason. However, the beleif put into religion, be it like a fanatic or like an agnostic which is not to disbeleive is still naive AND it molds the brain into falsely beleiving things which aren't true when told to you by people of authority. The truth behind religion is more than whether it's true or not. It's how does it affect us as a population? Mentaly?

I do know this though and I'm sure anyone who isn't a complete idiot will agree with me and you should really ponder this question.

If you are aware of the truth of something and you make another person beleive something else, then you have the ability to manipulate that person, which means, on a mental level you are probably the more intelligent of the two. This doesn't mean you're better, you're just smarter, and able to manipulate the other person, meaning they are more gullible in a sense, because of their trust. If this is true, then ask yourself, how much more gullible are those that beleive in a lie versus those that don't?

Kracus is proof that 2+2=9.

Jackal wrote:Kracus is proof that 2+2=9.

You're proof that morons aren't a myth

Kracus wrote:

Foo wrote:I don't even know what each person who talks about it thinks I'm choosing to believe or disbelieve in.

Hence the neutral standpoint. Taking a side in a debate where everyone is debating over a different concept is fucking retarded. And you're the posterboy for retarded.

Choosing not to disbelieve something is as good as beleiving in it ultimately. I'm not trying to attack you or anything either I'm just saying, this is my personal view on the subject.

I can understand being told something and keeping it under advisement until further evidence is shown, like say, joe tells you he bought a red sports car. Well until I see joe driving around in his beat up mobile I would assume joe bought himself a red sports car. That is of course unless Joe's a chronic liar.

My point though is that if you choose to beleive in something with no evidence you do so within the context of reality most of the time. With religion, all that reality fly's right out the window simply because it's religion and offers a nice and neat afterlife. It's OBVIOUS that it's false but no one seems to see it for some strange reason. However, the beleif put into religion, be it like a fanatic or like an agnostic which is not to disbeleive is still naive AND it molds the brain into falsely beleiving things which aren't true when told to you by people of authority. The truth behind religion is more than whether it's true or not. It's how does it affect us as a population? Mentaly?

I do know this though and I'm sure anyone who isn't a complete idiot will agree with me and you should really ponder this question.

If you are aware of the truth of something and you make another person beleive something else, then you have the ability to manipulate that person, which means, on a mental level you are probably the more intelligent of the two. This doesn't mean you're better, you're just smarter, and able to manipulate the other person, meaning they are more gullible in a sense, because of their trust. If this is true, then ask yourself, how much more gullible are those that beleive in a lie versus those that don't?

DRuM wrote:

Jackal wrote:Kracus is proof that 2+2=9.

You're proof that morons aren't a myth

morons are a myth?

DRuM wrote:

Jackal wrote:Kracus is proof that 2+2=9.

You're proof that morons aren't a myth

Second warning DRuM.

Jackal wrote:Kracus is proof that 2+2=9.

You know if you get deep enough into math 2+2 really does = something other than 4 right?

no

DRuM wrote:

Jackal wrote:Kracus is proof that 2+2=9.

You're proof that morons aren't a myth

*plays the drums*

DRuM wrote:You're proof that morons aren't a myth

haha, just checked rnr.

wondered what you were doing bittering it up here.