Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Socialist

16 (32%)

Green

8 (16%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (4%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (22%)

Libertarian

8 (16%)

Republican

2 (4%)

Constitution

2 (4%)

Total Members Voted: 49

[Sir Pseudonymous]

EDIT: also, let me clarify: I am Omnist: I consider all religions, including Atheism, to be potentially correct. That said, I am totally indifferent to all squabbles between them, and act as a totally neutral party.

If there is no evidence for something, believing (in) it is a matter of faith, but the lack of evidence in favor of it is pretty compelling evidence against it. Therefore, believing that it doesn't exist isn't just a matter of faith, because the lack of evidence in favor of it existing forms a compelling argument against its existence. I believe the statement "In the absence of compelling evidence in its favor, atheism is a matter of faith rather than reason," is true, but also that there is compelling evidence in its favor, in the form of complete absence of evidence of the existence of the things it purports do not exist, therefore it is a matter of reason, rather than one of faith.

That's the thing though, we are not talking about compelling evidence, we are talking about irrevocable evidence. This is a high demand, of course, because the events the transpired before recorded history exist Solely as a giant Schrödinger's cat in a Big, temporal box. In layman's terms, it is essentially impossible to provide irrevocable evidence about evolution, because noone was around to see it. I know, an easy response to this argument is to say, "Idiot, we have fossils!" but if you'd care to search that up on google, you'd find yourself plethora conspiracy theories riding against them. This means that the evidence of fossils, among other pieces of historical data, while likely true, are not irrevokable.

This was actually a criticism of a question that did use the term "compelling," in its incoherent explanation of why it's totally right and shit. I am attacking the logic the person who put the thing together, not trying to argue some wider point.

If something is all powerful, it wouldn't be constrained by any set of laws, at least none you are familiar with, otherwise it is not all powerful. Therefore, it could do things which contradict the laws you are familiar with. It is indeed pointless to postulate the existence of such a being, and thus we should disregard the possibility of its existence.

Again, you're missing the point, It's not a matter of "should" or "shouldn't," it's a matter of "can" or "can't." You cannot prove, disprove or argue about the existence of a god that can do any action, regardless of established laws of the universe, using logic. Therefore, you bite the bullet.

It is indeed pointless to speculate on anything related to such a being, so I don't. I simply ignore it to begin with.

I really think that all of this stems from you simply assuming that gods cannot exist. It is completely ridiculous to assume anything exists or does not exist with no evidence either way. No evidence for it does not equal evidence against it by any means, no matter what you apply it to. You have as much of a bias against gods that theists have for gods.

Atheism is the state of disbelieving outrageous and groundless claims. Further, we know that people can and do make shit like that up, and we can observe dramatic shifts in the memetics of religions of the years. All this paints a pretty compelling picture against their claims, while they have exactly nothing except personal feelings and "but I was told this was true!" to back up their side.

I would like for both of you to stop this train of thought before we have a thought-wreck on our hands. We are not arguing "Probability" in this instance, we are arguing "Possibility." As long as there is no irrefutable proof that god cannot exist, there is the possibility that god may exist, therefore you both have the possibility of being correct. LETS LEAVE THE YOUR MENTAL ICONOCLASMS AT THAT, GENTLEMEN. YES I'M LOOKING AT YOU TOO CROWN. BOTH OF YOU. TOGETHER.

What are you on about here?*


*Don't feel obligated to answer that. Or encouraged. In fact, feel discouraged from answering it.

[Grakelin]

I got an ENTJ.

    * moderately expressed extravert
    * moderately expressed intuitive personality
    * slightly expressed thinking personality
    * slightly expressed judging personality

[Heliman]

If there is no evidence for something, believing (in) it is a matter of faith, but the lack of evidence in favor of it is pretty compelling evidence against it. Therefore, believing that it doesn't exist isn't just a matter of faith, because the lack of evidence in favor of it existing forms a compelling argument against its existence. I believe the statement "In the absence of compelling evidence in its favor, atheism is a matter of faith rather than reason," is true, but also that there is compelling evidence in its favor, in the form of complete absence of evidence of the existence of the things it purports do not exist, therefore it is a matter of reason, rather than one of faith.

That's the thing though, we are not talking about compelling evidence, we are talking about irrevocable evidence. This is a high demand, of course, because the events the transpired before recorded history exist Solely as a giant Schrödinger's cat in a Big, temporal box. In layman's terms, it is essentially impossible to provide irrevocable evidence about evolution, because noone was around to see it. I know, an easy response to this argument is to say, "Idiot, we have fossils!" but if you'd care to search that up on google, you'd find yourself plethora conspiracy theories riding against them. This means that the evidence of fossils, among other pieces of historical data, while likely true, are not irrevokable.

This was actually a criticism of a question that did use the term "compelling," in its incoherent explanation of why it's totally right and shit. I am attacking the logic the person who put the thing together, not trying to argue some wider point.

I'm sorry, you do have me there. I made a grievous misquotation.

[Max White]

Well that was an entertaining card trick.

Spoiler: For those who didn't catch on (click to show/hide)

They removed all the cards from the first hand, so of corse your card was missing, they all were. Also, I havn't tested, but if I had to guess I would say any code works.

[Earthquake Damage]

I don't like the "are you sure you're not dreaming" question, because it relies on the author's definitions for awake and dreaming.  As far as I'm concerned, I'm awake.  My use of the word is based in my experience.  What I call awake is very distinct from what I call dreaming, and I can say with irrefutable authority (my vocabulary being my own) that I am not currently what I call dreaming.  Were I to "wake up", I currently lack a word to distinguish this new "awake" from what I call awake.  The author's opinion is irrelevant.

Also, cute card trick.  Having seen it before, I expected it.  In fact, I confirmed it by writing down all six cards like a jackass. 

Also also, stupid slow text.  Makes the test take forever.

Anti-skeptic.

[ECrownofFire]

There's a bullshit question in that Matrix test. The one where you memorize a card then it removes it. It replaced all the cards with different ones. I've seen that trick before, and knew it was coming.

[Max White]

 
I hadn't seen that trick before, but while choosing my card, I realy wanted to choose the queen of clubs, it seemed like a good choice. However, worryed that it had somehow been suggested to be somehow earyler, maybe by that access code trick, I went for the jack of clubs instead. When you spend time thinking about one, then change your mind, you notice when neither are there, and so the trick is revealed.

[FuzzyZergling]

I picked two cards. The reason I found out the test cheated is because I cheated.

[Diablous]

Thought it was something like that, but I didn't get a chance to test the theory.

[Darvi]

I noticed the trick when there was only 1 jack left, when I chose a king. Anyways, I'm a skeptic. I don't let any dumb program tell me what's reality or not.

[Max White]

It's annoying that there is no middle ground between sketpic and hero. There isn't a 'We may or may not be living in the matrix, and we may or may not one day show that we are in the matrix.'

[Cthulhu]

Also, there are ways to determine with a significant degree of certainty whether or not you're dreaming (Holding your nose, looking at your hands, jumping, etc.) so it isn't really the same thing.

[Taricus]

Becoming a dictator

[Darvi]

Ya but the matrix is a bit more realistic than a dream innit?

[Taricus]

Not really...