Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > General Community > Off Topic

View Poll Results: Do you live in one of America's inner cities?
Yes, I live in a but I got inner city 36 19.05%
Yes, I live in a crime infested inner city 28 14.81%
Yes, I live in a burning crime infested inner city 27 14.29%
Bush burned the crime infested towers 136 71.96%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 189. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3231  
Old 05-15-2017, 11:31 AM
JurisDictum JurisDictum is offline
Planar Protector

JurisDictum's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
LOL you guys don't know jack shit about actual science, eh?
Just (((global warming)))?
Damn embarrassing [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Since you were kicked out of your blue state HS for lowering their national standards, have you ever picked up an actual book or journal on science since then? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] ...if ever?
I don't really know all that much about science. Science is usually just unnecessary detail to people that don't work in a scientific field. What I do know, is if we have to start listening to creepy youtube videos and talk radio instead of the scientific consensus -- were fucked anyway.

I'm just going to have to go with the majority opinion of climate scientists...especially after -- you know -- its been revealed Big Oil, Coal, and Chemicals were all spending billions in climate denial media.
__________________
"There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can't remember what the second one is." -- Senator Mark Hanna, 1895.
Reply With Quote
  #3232  
Old 05-15-2017, 12:06 PM
Jarnauga Jarnauga is offline
Fire Giant

Jarnauga's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 938
Default

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Reply With Quote
  #3233  
Old 05-15-2017, 12:50 PM
Csihar Csihar is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
yes, why couldn't you? Adopting or rejecting a belief demands a decision, which is established with an argument. If you don't know, you don't decide and make no argument. Or are you arguing that belief is necessarily impulsive?
I do think belief is necessarily impulsive.
I like to differentiate between my thoughts and my opinions. Thoughts are an automatic process but I'll only call something my opinion once I think that I have enough information, thought it through properly and have a high degree of certainty. This distinction is arbitrary though. If you don't know you refrain from making claims of certainty.

What would be the logic behind saying "I don't know whether or not I believe that I have a bag of Cheetos"?

I do have to say that one issue here is that semantics is very important here.

Q: "Do you have a bag of Cheetos?"
A: "I believe so".

That answer means "I think I do". The word believe is used in a bunch of different ways and it can be confusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
:3 there is a belief or there is not. you believe or you do not. arguing that the absence of a belief does not constitute disbelief is arguing that disbelief is either not itself, or something else entirely.
In regards to your first two sentences: I agree entirely. I think that ties in with belief being impulsive.
In regards to disbelief equaling a lack of belief, I disagree entirely. And that's the key point.

I posted this before:

A person tells a story to three people.

Person one thinks the story is true.
Person two thinks the story is a lie.
Person three doesn't quite know.

Does person one (who thinks it's true) believe the story? Yes.
Does person one disbelieve the story? No.

Does person two (who thinks it's a lie) believe the story? No.
Does person two disbelieve the story? Yes.

Does person three (who doesn't quite know) disbelieve the story? No.
Does person three believe the story? No.

That is the distinction between lack of belief and disbelief.

Lets just take the common usage of the word agnostic and speak on a person who hasn't been convinced of the existence of a god/gods. Does this person believe in any gods? Does this person hold a belief in a god/gods? The answer is no.
A person who doesn't believe/hold a belief in a god/gods is an atheist. An agnostic in the common usage of the word is actually an atheist. But common usage doesn't really mean much in terms of truth. "I could care less" is incorrect, no matter how much it is used.
'Atheist', 'theist' and 'agnostic' are all misapplied.

Wikipedia isn't exactly a source but in this case it can be helpful since we're talking about the usage of a word. A dictionary isn't an authority source on proper definitions either but both a dictionary and in this case Wikipedia do provide information on usage.

Wikipedia: "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"

Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
it does not necessarily follow that failing to be convinced by either the bible or qur'an would mean you do not hold belief in any gods, only that you do not hold belief in those gods. If we expand on the cheeto analogy, you do not believe you have a bag of jalapeņo cheetos and you do not believe you have a bag of limon cheetos. Do those beliefs make you believe you do not have any bags of Cheetos?
You're right that it doesn't necessarily follow but I wasn't implying that it did. I only spoke on the Abrahamic god (for reasons I think are obvious) but I haven't been convinced by any.
Christians reject all other gods except for one. So you're right that their disbelief/lack of believe doesn't mean they don't hold belief in any gods.

I don't really see your point here though.

There seems to be some implication of belief limbo but that would be contradictory with what you said earlier ("there is a belief or there is not. you believe or you do not"). But I don't think that's your point. Maybe this is something that we agree on. That's logic 101.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
sure it is, you have made a decision. decisions are based in arguments whether they are sound or true or unsound or untrue.

not having a belief in god <in general> is different though from not having a belief in a <particular> god, which is why I asked my follow-up Cheetos question above :3
What decision was made? I don't think decision is the right word here though. Wouldn't 'making a truth claim' be more appropriate?

This is why the term 'positive atheist' exists. A positive atheist is someone who doesn't hold a belief in any gods [belief] and claims that there are no gods (knowledge). This is a positive assertion and requires evidence. That is a decision/truth claim.

To go back to my comment about babies and atheism. The terms 'atheist' and 'theist' can't exist without the other. So if a person can't be a 'theist' applying the term 'atheist' is inappropriate.
Lets use a term that used to be quite popular (I'm reading "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas" now and it's ripe with the word) 'savage'. Imagine there was a group of savages that never had any contact with the outside world. They don't have gods in their culture and no concept of such a being. Therefore they don't hold any beliefs in gods. If they don't even have a concept of god they can't logically reject it. Yet they still lack a belief in any gods. This is what being an atheist boils down to.
Last edited by Csihar; 05-15-2017 at 12:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3234  
Old 05-15-2017, 12:56 PM
Jarnauga Jarnauga is offline
Fire Giant

Jarnauga's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 938
Default

If you don't get why the whole world think 'muricans are morons, just read the last 5 pages of this thread

I am myself fighting hard to remember that the majority of people didn't vote for golfer in chief
Reply With Quote
  #3235  
Old 05-15-2017, 01:04 PM
Csihar Csihar is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If you don't get why the whole world think 'muricans are morons, just read the last 5 pages of this thread

I am myself fighting hard to remember that the majority of people didn't vote for golfer in chief
If you're referring to the religious aspect at all then I don't think this is an American thing in any way. Every atheist vs. theist discussion I've seen boils down to the same arguments, regardless of the country.
Reply With Quote
  #3236  
Old 05-15-2017, 01:57 PM
mickmoranis mickmoranis is offline
Banned


Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,666
Default

https://youtu.be/V4qMbWRzCRA

This guy knows whats up
Reply With Quote
  #3237  
Old 05-15-2017, 02:16 PM
Daywolf Daywolf is offline
Planar Protector

Daywolf's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Peeing on the grass cats chew on. And on your
Posts: 4,194
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
He simply doesn't understand that atheism doesn't mean the denial of the existence of a god. That is hard/strong/positive atheism.
No you simply do not understand the difference between agnostic and atheist by their practice. Agnostics say you can't know God, but don't deny God's existence, they just don't know. Atheists, many/most of them deny the existence of God, some even to militant levels trying to change laws and cultures of nations to fit their own unproven beliefs.

If they want to leave and go form their own country and declare atheism their established religion hehe, or freedom FROM all religions, well they can do that. But to try to take over a country by the minority and by way of w/o fulfilling the burden of proof and also gaining majority. well it's just selfish. As they say, if it's not broken, don't fix it. We can make popcorn, sit back and watch france burn due to this, and as their atheists think they can tame and dominate islam. Islam is no ones friend, never can be.

Look at Jarn regret the days of Hitlers rule over his country having come to an end. "Stupid Americans!" hah
Must also hate our ingenuity and contributions which are very many to civilization. Would rather live by candlelight and dysentery.
heh the thoughts out of franceghanistan, forced for a period of time to not be a 3rd world islamic state living in caves.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3238  
Old 05-15-2017, 02:27 PM
mickmoranis mickmoranis is offline
Banned


Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Atheists, many/most of them deny the existence of God, some even to militant levels trying to change laws and cultures of nations to fit their own unproven beliefs.
This poster is afraid of his own shadow.
Reply With Quote
  #3239  
Old 05-15-2017, 02:29 PM
mickmoranis mickmoranis is offline
Banned


Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,666
Default

Asteroid that destroyed the dino's hit a very small target:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39922998

It was shallow coastal water with a ground formed by a mineral called gypsum, that got vaporized and sent sulphur to the atmosphere, which created a nuclear winter way worse than wat would have happened simply by the impact. Had it landed in the Marina Trench for example it may not have ended the reign of the dino's

sounds like INTELLIGENT DESIGN to me.
Reply With Quote
  #3240  
Old 05-15-2017, 02:44 PM
Daywolf Daywolf is offline
Planar Protector

Daywolf's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Peeing on the grass cats chew on. And on your
Posts: 4,194
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I don't really know all that much about science. Science is usually just unnecessary detail to people that don't work in a scientific field. What I do know, is if we have to start listening to creepy youtube videos and talk radio instead of the scientific consensus -- were fucked anyway.

I'm just going to have to go with the majority opinion of climate scientists...especially after -- you know -- its been revealed Big Oil, Coal, and Chemicals were all spending billions in climate denial media.
Science isn't by consensus, it's by proven result. I mean you really just defined what I said about much of scientists being locked into old world propaganda to control not only a population and their ideas but also how they buy or consume.

zero-point energy generation is one good example. It's been proven, a system invented, and then seized by the govt to prolly never be seen again. Such things are a threat to a set consumerism, such as a reliance on nuclear energy production, natural gas, coal and oil. You must have your petrodollar or else, so don't touch the oil.

Meanwhile best propaganda, nuclear reactors are just so destructive. But nuclear energy is scientific consensus, at least of the consensus allowed to participate in the consensus as is the norm. So years ago they made it seem natural, explained how our star operates by nuclear fusion. Yet, isn't proven, but we have consensus, yet still an unproven theory. If consensus were to be allowed to swing towards electrically charged plasma such as in the electric universe theory, people may not be willing to consume nuclear power plants so readily any longer, maybe demand zero-point energy.

But then if nuclear power ended having been fully replaced by free energy, how could states like Iran be allowed to build a nuclear power plant for "energy production" uh-huh. And now if they didn't do that, our military industrial complex may slow down exchange of petrodollars. Seriously, you are stuck in a failed Matrix/1984 style system you think is ok because of manipulated scientific consensus. Free power and a world all with access to clean water is ssooo unscientific! Break free of it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32 AM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.