The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
There are "almost certainly" no invisible fairies sitting on my shoulder right now.
But I am pretty sure that you'd call me delusional if I insisted there were.
This solid wood floor I'm standing on is "almost certainly" not over 90% empty space and composed of countless tiny, orbiting particles of positive and negative energy moving at incredible speeds. Seriously, look, it's fucking wood.
What I'm saying is that even things which appear ridiculous can turn out to be true. So unless you have some real, actual proof, calling someone else's beliefs "delusional" is unfounded and rude.
And frankly, the argument that god doesn't exist is weak in the absence of a more solid answer to "how did the universe begin if it was not created by an extra-dimensional force?"
Defender on
0
Raneadospolice apologistyou shouldn't have been there, obviouslyRegistered Userregular
There are "almost certainly" no invisible fairies sitting on my shoulder right now.
But I am pretty sure that you'd call me delusional if I insisted there were.
This solid wood floor I'm standing on is "almost certainly" not over 90% empty space and composed of countless tiny, orbiting particles of positive and negative energy moving at incredible speeds. Seriously, look, it's fucking wood.
What I'm saying is that even things which appear ridiculous can turn out to be true. So unless you have some real, actual proof, calling someone else's beliefs "delusional" is unfounded and rude.
And frankly, the argument that god doesn't exist is weak in the absence of a more solid answer to "how did the universe begin if it was not created by an extra-dimensional force?"
there's no proof for either, though
Raneados on
0
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
This solid wood floor I'm standing on is "almost certainly" not over 90% empty space and composed of countless tiny, orbiting particles of positive and negative energy moving at incredible speeds. Seriously, look, it's fucking wood.
What I'm saying is that even things which appear ridiculous can turn out to be true. So unless you have some real, actual proof, calling someone else's beliefs "delusional" is unfounded and rude.
Except people can and will prove the whole "empty space" thing. Deists don't even begin to offer any real attempt at proof of god. Burden of proof has to be one way or the other. And you can't prove a negative. The logical default position would be to the negative.
This solid wood floor I'm standing on is "almost certainly" not over 90% empty space and composed of countless tiny, orbiting particles of positive and negative energy moving at incredible speeds. Seriously, look, it's fucking wood.
What I'm saying is that even things which appear ridiculous can turn out to be true. So unless you have some real, actual proof, calling someone else's beliefs "delusional" is unfounded and rude.
Except people can and will prove the whole "empty space" thing. Deists don't even begin to offer any real attempt at proof of god. Burden of proof has to be one way or the other. And you can't prove a negative. The logical default position would be to the negative.
You can't prove a negative? Why not? I don't accept that.
About the empty space thing, let's go back 1000 years. Nobody alive can prove that idea, and if we assume it to be correct (I believe it holds with modern physics), then by definition nobody can disprove it. It doesn't matter if anyone offers a good proof or a bad proof or no proof at all. It's true. You can't disprove it. So to publish "the empty space delusion" or to call all believers in empty space idiots is extremely obnoxious. They have faith in something, which inherently means that it's something that they cannot possibly prove or disprove.
what's the belief system called where you believe in rational explanations for things, don't believe in luck, or karma, or a god or higher power.
If you're Defender, you call it "being a smarmy prick".
well I'm not all like "lol lol lol god doesn't exist idiot" to people
I'm just like "hey dude, you want to get a beer?"
Yeah, hold on a second here, Geek. I'm not criticizing people who don't have faith. ("Faith" meaning "belief in things they can't prove or explain rationally.") I am not calling atheists "smarmy pricks." I am calling people who shit on others' beliefs, beliefs which they cannot disprove and beliefs which answer questions that they can't answer any better, smarmy pricks. So I would be every bit as critical of thiests who say that all atheists are damned as I would of atheists who say that all theists are retarded.
I get that you are agnostic, Defender? I share some of your views. I am entirely agnostic. I personally hate rabid atheism more than, say, Christian fundamentalism. I'm just not sure you're doing a good job of explaining yourself here.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
About the empty space thing, let's go back 1000 years. Nobody alive can prove that idea, and if we assume it to be correct (I believe it holds with modern physics), then by definition nobody can disprove it. It doesn't matter if anyone offers a good proof or a bad proof or no proof at all. It's true. You can't disprove it. So to publish "the empty space delusion" or to call all believers in empty space idiots is extremely obnoxious. They have faith in something, which inherently means that it's something that they cannot possibly prove or disprove.
Did people back 1000 years try to prove it, or did they just say "this is the way it is, and it is because we say so"?
defender, truth isn't a socially accepted ideal. Truth is what is. What people believe may be perceived as truth, but it is not.
Of course not. I made this point earlier, with the "empty space" thing. People a thousand years ago can't prove or disprove it, but when they think and what they can prove does not have any bearing on what is true.
There are "almost certainly" no invisible fairies sitting on my shoulder right now.
But I am pretty sure that you'd call me delusional if I insisted there were.
This solid wood floor I'm standing on is "almost certainly" not over 90% empty space and composed of countless tiny, orbiting particles of positive and negative energy moving at incredible speeds. Seriously, look, it's fucking wood.
What I'm saying is that even things which appear ridiculous can turn out to be true. So unless you have some real, actual proof, calling someone else's beliefs "delusional" is unfounded and rude.
And frankly, the argument that god doesn't exist is weak in the absence of a more solid answer to "how did the universe begin if it was not created by an extra-dimensional force?"
What I'm saying Defender, is what's been said for years.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
If you make such a claim, and are unwilling or unable to present the proof (or, on point of fact, even search for it), you are either intellectually dishonest, or intentionally deluding yourself.
Calling someone delusional because they hold an unlikely and extraordinary belief in the face of no corresponding evidence...well, if we can't do that, we might as well scrap the epithet entirely.
I think the point Defender is trying to make is that smug atheism is just as bad as smug theism. I've met atheists who have such a goddamn cocky righteous attitude as if their opinion is the most logical shit in the world and will sit there and shit on every religion and every person that believes in God. Sorry, kiddo - you have every right to not believe in God, but don't pretend your position is any more based in fact, evidence, or truth than people who DO believe in God. You are just as bad if not worse than people that go around with their fundamentalist missionary nonsense.
Christ, just agreeing with Defender is making me angry.
I get that you are agnostic, Defender? I share some of your views. I am entirely agnostic. I personally hate rabid atheism more than, say, Christian fundamentalism. I'm just not sure you're doing a good job of explaining yourself here.
About the empty space thing, let's go back 1000 years. Nobody alive can prove that idea, and if we assume it to be correct (I believe it holds with modern physics), then by definition nobody can disprove it. It doesn't matter if anyone offers a good proof or a bad proof or no proof at all. It's true. You can't disprove it. So to publish "the empty space delusion" or to call all believers in empty space idiots is extremely obnoxious. They have faith in something, which inherently means that it's something that they cannot possibly prove or disprove.
Did people back 1000 years try to prove it, or did they just say "this is the way it is, and it is because we say so"?
No I don't think anyone even considered the idea that far back.
And for the record, both theists AND atheists are saying "because we say so." Nobody can prove that god exists or that he created the universe. Nobody can prove that god doesn't exist or come up with a more provable explanation for how the universe got here. Both sides rely on faith.
I get that you are agnostic, Defender? I share some of your views. I am entirely agnostic. I personally hate rabid atheism more than, say, Christian fundamentalism. I'm just not sure you're doing a good job of explaining yourself here.
See, I'm an agnostic as well. I think that it's the only intellectually honest position. Anything other than agnosticism is, ironically, unscientific.
I just disagree that certainty is a necessary precursor to labeling something a delusion. If the burden of proof lies in one direction, and the proponents of that position cannot or will not provide (or even seek) evidence, yet they still rabidly hold onto their belief as the exclusive domain of truth, that constitutes gross intellectual incontinence, and--at least in my opinion--qualifies as "delusion."
I get that you are agnostic, Defender? I share some of your views. I am entirely agnostic. I personally hate rabid atheism more than, say, Christian fundamentalism. I'm just not sure you're doing a good job of explaining yourself here.
About the empty space thing, let's go back 1000 years. Nobody alive can prove that idea, and if we assume it to be correct (I believe it holds with modern physics), then by definition nobody can disprove it. It doesn't matter if anyone offers a good proof or a bad proof or no proof at all. It's true. You can't disprove it. So to publish "the empty space delusion" or to call all believers in empty space idiots is extremely obnoxious. They have faith in something, which inherently means that it's something that they cannot possibly prove or disprove.
Did people back 1000 years try to prove it, or did they just say "this is the way it is, and it is because we say so"?
No I don't think anyone even considered the idea that far back.
And for the record, both theists AND atheists are saying "because we say so." Nobody can prove that god exists or that he created the universe. Nobody can prove that god doesn't exist or come up with a more provable explanation for how the universe got here. Both sides rely on faith.
Most atheists I've met aren't "because we say so." They are "because we don't see any good reason or evidence that there is a god." Dawkins, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't do the "because I say so" bit. If you read the book, you'd know. Sure, the title is a bit edgy, but big deal.
There are "almost certainly" no invisible fairies sitting on my shoulder right now.
But I am pretty sure that you'd call me delusional if I insisted there were.
This solid wood floor I'm standing on is "almost certainly" not over 90% empty space and composed of countless tiny, orbiting particles of positive and negative energy moving at incredible speeds. Seriously, look, it's fucking wood.
What I'm saying is that even things which appear ridiculous can turn out to be true. So unless you have some real, actual proof, calling someone else's beliefs "delusional" is unfounded and rude.
And frankly, the argument that god doesn't exist is weak in the absence of a more solid answer to "how did the universe begin if it was not created by an extra-dimensional force?"
What I'm saying Defender, is what's been said for years.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Certainly, I'm all for that. I mean, it's not logically watertight, just like if someone had posited relativity in the year 1007, it would still be just as correct as it is today, but nobody would believe it because nobody could do anything to prove it. So yeah, the weirder your claim, the more you need to back it up for it to be credible, but your backup doesn't affect whether or not it's actually true at all.
Furthermore, the origin of the universe is extremely mysterious; so much so that if I submitted the idea that the universe always existed (i.e. it never appeared, it was never created, it is eternal; it was always there), you can't even prove THAT wrong. So you can't even prove that the universe HAS an origin. But we're all pretty sure that it exists right now. So there's this huge void of evidence to explain how and why the universe exists. Saying "some extra-dimensional force created it" is not, to my mind, any more "extraordinary" a claim than to say "it just appeared" or "it is simply eternal and cannot be explained."
There are "almost certainly" no invisible fairies sitting on my shoulder right now.
But I am pretty sure that you'd call me delusional if I insisted there were.
This solid wood floor I'm standing on is "almost certainly" not over 90% empty space and composed of countless tiny, orbiting particles of positive and negative energy moving at incredible speeds. Seriously, look, it's fucking wood.
What I'm saying is that even things which appear ridiculous can turn out to be true. So unless you have some real, actual proof, calling someone else's beliefs "delusional" is unfounded and rude.
And frankly, the argument that god doesn't exist is weak in the absence of a more solid answer to "how did the universe begin if it was not created by an extra-dimensional force?"
What I'm saying Defender, is what's been said for years.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
If you make such a claim, and are unwilling or unable to present the proof (or, on point of fact, even search for it), you are either intellectually dishonest, or intentionally deluding yourself.
Calling someone delusional because they hold an unlikely and extraordinary belief in the face of no corresponding evidence...well, if we can't do that, we might as well scrap the epithet entirely.
The question of God, for instance, is one that is more or less the ultimate unknown property. For many, the question of God is simply one facet of the ultimate "Why?" that every Human being eventually wonders about. "Why do we exist?" For what purpose do I, personally, exist? Why do Humans exist? What is the point? All of these questions are related.
There is absolutely no way and no evidence to suggest that a God does or does not exist. By nature of your personal orientation on this matter, it is reasonable to assume the other side is delusional...but it cuts both ways. Hardcore theists, with immense faith, find it hard to believe that someone cannot "see God" in the world. And atheists find it hard for people to "see God" at all. But, see, "seeing God" is the crux of this question. Either you do or you don't. The question is there for theist and atheist alike, and I believe either position is a matter of faith, unless you were raised in a manner which the subject of God was never brought to your attention. Rather impossible in most of today's civilized society. There is no de facto/default position here. It's not as though belief in God replaces an already existing conceptualization of the world. God is a divisive concept, and people either tend to one side or the other or simply recognize that there is no evidence to support either. But it's a choice all have to make for themselves, eventually. I don't really feel there's a default "I just don't believe in God" position. It's almost always "I believe there is no God."
edit: I do agree with you in other matters. If someone told me they thought water wasn't wet, I'd call them a delusional twit.
Posts
Supposedly he went to Tibet and talked to some monks.
He taught them Kung Fu.
Getting ready for his MC run.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
This solid wood floor I'm standing on is "almost certainly" not over 90% empty space and composed of countless tiny, orbiting particles of positive and negative energy moving at incredible speeds. Seriously, look, it's fucking wood.
What I'm saying is that even things which appear ridiculous can turn out to be true. So unless you have some real, actual proof, calling someone else's beliefs "delusional" is unfounded and rude.
And frankly, the argument that god doesn't exist is weak in the absence of a more solid answer to "how did the universe begin if it was not created by an extra-dimensional force?"
there's no proof for either, though
Except people can and will prove the whole "empty space" thing. Deists don't even begin to offer any real attempt at proof of god. Burden of proof has to be one way or the other. And you can't prove a negative. The logical default position would be to the negative.
pantheism
it's awesome
Science.
no I don;t want people to think of Nacho Libre
If you're Defender, you call it "being a smarmy prick".
I'm not thinking of Nacho Libre
well I'm not all like "lol lol lol god doesn't exist idiot" to people
I'm just like "hey dude, you want to get a beer?"
Yes. There is no proof for either. They are equally unproven. That's what makes it such a douchebag move to call the other side names.
You can't prove a negative? Why not? I don't accept that.
About the empty space thing, let's go back 1000 years. Nobody alive can prove that idea, and if we assume it to be correct (I believe it holds with modern physics), then by definition nobody can disprove it. It doesn't matter if anyone offers a good proof or a bad proof or no proof at all. It's true. You can't disprove it. So to publish "the empty space delusion" or to call all believers in empty space idiots is extremely obnoxious. They have faith in something, which inherently means that it's something that they cannot possibly prove or disprove.
Sorta.
Secret Satan
both sides call each other names
like
all the time
defender, truth isn't a socially accepted ideal. Truth is what is. What people believe may be perceived as truth, but it is not.
fuggin saved
Yeah, hold on a second here, Geek. I'm not criticizing people who don't have faith. ("Faith" meaning "belief in things they can't prove or explain rationally.") I am not calling atheists "smarmy pricks." I am calling people who shit on others' beliefs, beliefs which they cannot disprove and beliefs which answer questions that they can't answer any better, smarmy pricks. So I would be every bit as critical of thiests who say that all atheists are damned as I would of atheists who say that all theists are retarded.
Did people back 1000 years try to prove it, or did they just say "this is the way it is, and it is because we say so"?
Those people are the ones I am calling names. The ones who crap on other people's beliefs with no evidence of any sort.
Of course not. I made this point earlier, with the "empty space" thing. People a thousand years ago can't prove or disprove it, but when they think and what they can prove does not have any bearing on what is true.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
If you make such a claim, and are unwilling or unable to present the proof (or, on point of fact, even search for it), you are either intellectually dishonest, or intentionally deluding yourself.
Calling someone delusional because they hold an unlikely and extraordinary belief in the face of no corresponding evidence...well, if we can't do that, we might as well scrap the epithet entirely.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
Christ, just agreeing with Defender is making me angry.
Maybe I'm not, I'm fucking tired as hell.
No I don't think anyone even considered the idea that far back.
And for the record, both theists AND atheists are saying "because we say so." Nobody can prove that god exists or that he created the universe. Nobody can prove that god doesn't exist or come up with a more provable explanation for how the universe got here. Both sides rely on faith.
I just disagree that certainty is a necessary precursor to labeling something a delusion. If the burden of proof lies in one direction, and the proponents of that position cannot or will not provide (or even seek) evidence, yet they still rabidly hold onto their belief as the exclusive domain of truth, that constitutes gross intellectual incontinence, and--at least in my opinion--qualifies as "delusion."
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
I hate it when you make me agree with you, Drez.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
Most atheists I've met aren't "because we say so." They are "because we don't see any good reason or evidence that there is a god." Dawkins, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't do the "because I say so" bit. If you read the book, you'd know. Sure, the title is a bit edgy, but big deal.
Certainly, I'm all for that. I mean, it's not logically watertight, just like if someone had posited relativity in the year 1007, it would still be just as correct as it is today, but nobody would believe it because nobody could do anything to prove it. So yeah, the weirder your claim, the more you need to back it up for it to be credible, but your backup doesn't affect whether or not it's actually true at all.
Furthermore, the origin of the universe is extremely mysterious; so much so that if I submitted the idea that the universe always existed (i.e. it never appeared, it was never created, it is eternal; it was always there), you can't even prove THAT wrong. So you can't even prove that the universe HAS an origin. But we're all pretty sure that it exists right now. So there's this huge void of evidence to explain how and why the universe exists. Saying "some extra-dimensional force created it" is not, to my mind, any more "extraordinary" a claim than to say "it just appeared" or "it is simply eternal and cannot be explained."
The question of God, for instance, is one that is more or less the ultimate unknown property. For many, the question of God is simply one facet of the ultimate "Why?" that every Human being eventually wonders about. "Why do we exist?" For what purpose do I, personally, exist? Why do Humans exist? What is the point? All of these questions are related.
There is absolutely no way and no evidence to suggest that a God does or does not exist. By nature of your personal orientation on this matter, it is reasonable to assume the other side is delusional...but it cuts both ways. Hardcore theists, with immense faith, find it hard to believe that someone cannot "see God" in the world. And atheists find it hard for people to "see God" at all. But, see, "seeing God" is the crux of this question. Either you do or you don't. The question is there for theist and atheist alike, and I believe either position is a matter of faith, unless you were raised in a manner which the subject of God was never brought to your attention. Rather impossible in most of today's civilized society. There is no de facto/default position here. It's not as though belief in God replaces an already existing conceptualization of the world. God is a divisive concept, and people either tend to one side or the other or simply recognize that there is no evidence to support either. But it's a choice all have to make for themselves, eventually. I don't really feel there's a default "I just don't believe in God" position. It's almost always "I believe there is no God."
edit: I do agree with you in other matters. If someone told me they thought water wasn't wet, I'd call them a delusional twit.
I submit that it does not.
t kazhiim: hi5!!
STEAM!