NES2 V - The Great Game.

[das]

WAS hit by a car. As for the death, I'll leave that for you to guess. Besides, silver is right, if only because he's refering to something I posted a while ago.

 

[BananaLee]

I don't know.
I really think the car part is bullcrap and the death part is true

Well, I stand by the previous statement, get well soon. And remember me!

 

[Dachs]

Orders sent.

 

[das]

...and I was serious about ignoring treaties you don't PM to me...

 

[silver 2039]

Atheisim shall triumph.

So says the Holy Synod.

 

[andis-1]

...and I was serious about ignoring treaties you don't PM to me...

I SIGNED PEACE GODDAMNIT! ADD IT IN MY ORDERS!!!!

 

[silver 2039]

Nothing was ever here. Jesus be praised.

 

[andis-1]

Damn you religous fanatics. I hate you all. You all desrve to die and burn in your nonexistant hell.

I love you too silver

 

[Finmaster]

Funny how fanatical atheists tend to get these days. It seems almost as if their atheistic faith was.. a religion

 

[silver 2039]

Atheisim is not a religon. It has no docterine, central following, or evalngical qualities.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Agnosticism will defeat Atheism, as laziness is the easy path.

Aggressive atheists bother me. If they fight like that for non-religion, it's almost religious fanaticism in itself.

Agnosticism is the true Atheism!

*sir, bunker down. We may have ignited a flame war.

My god, look at silver. He's got over twice our postcount! What'll we do?

Bunker down!

*Iggy holds head under his hands and runs around in circles. Famliy looks at him oddly, as he should be unable to put any weight on his bad leg for several more months.

 

[silver 2039]

Agnosticism will defeat Atheism, as laziness is the easy path.

Aggressive atheists bother me. If they fight like that for non-religion, it's almost religious fanaticism in itself.

Agnosticism is the true Atheism!

*sir, bunker down. We may have ignited a flame war.

My god, look at silver. He's got over twice our postcount! What'll we do?

Bunker down!

*Iggy holds head under his hands and runs around in circles. Famliy looks at him oddly, as he should be unable to put any weight on his bad leg for several more months.

Atheisim is logical since it uses the principal of "innocent until proven guilty" and applies it to god. Agressive atheists are similar to religous fundamentalists but by no token can one claim atheisim to be a religon. Athemsim does not tell one how to live their life nor does it provide a docterine of any sort. There are no rituals or any such things involved. You simply cannot claim atheisim is a relgion since it is by defination a lack of religon.

 

[Kal'thzar]

Silver atheism does not DEFINE itself as the lack of religion.

Simply the lack of beleif (i.e. disbeleif) in gods.

religion can be atheistic.

Atheism in and of itself does not need to be logical, the view can be reached from many paths, one of which is the logical path you talk about. It might simply be that you beleive in magic, and that magic was what created the universe etc.

 

[silver 2039]

Silver atheism does not DEFINE itself as the lack of religion.

Simply the lack of beleif (i.e. disbeleif) in gods.

religion can be atheistic.

Atheism in and of itself does not need to be logical, the view can be reached from many paths, one of which is the logical path you talk about. It might simply be that you beleive in magic, and that magic was what created the universe etc.

Honestly theres only one real way to be atheist and thats through logic. Religon cannot be atheistic because all religons have and require gods. If you "believe" in a religon but not a god you are not actually follower of that religon/

We have (1) empirical, verifiable evidence; and we have (2) logic. Evidence and logic are the best tools we have to determine how the universe really works. These tools have been extraordinarily successful in science, engineering and medicine, and in our daily lives. This is the standard that most of us expect in dealing with the real world; we expect doctors to use the latest medicine, and engineers to use empirical data when building bridges. Why should we use anything else for examining external reality?
Each of us can choose between a magical view of the universe (one or more invisible, immaterial gods did it), or the “what you see is what you get” scientific version. I think that science, using empirical evidence, has done a far better job in explaining how the universe works

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm

 

[Stormbringer]

I sent the orders. Good luck to everyone.

 

[Finmaster]

Looking at this as a philosophy student.. Silver, logic does not equal to atheism. I'm not saying that atheists would be illogical, I'm just saying that atheism in itself is not based on logic, simply on materialism. You could claim that materialism is the only logical scientific view, but that would be only an opinion since many other scientific views exist and are (in my opinion) quite as logical. There is no logical reason for everyone not to believe in God.

Besides, I think replacing God with logic and worshipping logic like one would worship God IS a religion. But thats just my opinion

Let me prove my point:

"Each of us can choose between a magical view of the universe (one or more invisible, immaterial gods did it)"

Now here comes a problem: you define "something magical" as invisible and immaterial. Logic in itself is invisible and immaterial. Does that make it magical?

Your thoughts are invisible and immaterial. Does that make them magical?

If you claim that everything invisible and immaterial should be ruled out of the existance of the universe, we'd have to rule out the existance of our thoughts. You could claim that we can see our thoughts, but then I could claim that we can't see Kal'thsars or Lord_Iggys thoughts. Do they exist? That kind of "logical" conversation could go on for hours without any point in them (why is this kind of logical thinking even considered logical when it makes no sense at all?)

This brings us to an unfortunate conclusion: you cannot make statements of of atheism being logical without admitting that it is based only on what you see likely rather than what you see real. You might think its likely that God doesn't exist, and I can understand that.

But it would be quite illogical to claim that it's wrong for some people to see it likely for God (of some sort) to exist.

As an existentialist, I dislike all attempts to logically either prove or disprove the existance of this kind of substance. There is one thing uniting atheism and all religions: they are all subjective truths with no logic in them whatsoever.

If one is an atheist, I'd like him to be more like a true existentialist: he is an atheist who admits that he isn't an atheist because its logical, he is an atheist because he just happens to have a gut feeling that God doesn't exist.

Silver, tell me: how would you tell an existentialist that he needs to be logical, when he is one who sees ALL truths as subjective truths and doesn't believe in the existance of true logic in one's views?

EDIT:
To put it in a more understandable way:
GOD = something immaterial, invisible, that I do not see.
LOGIC = something immaterial, invisible, that I do not see (honestly, I don't believe in logic as a universal phenomenom, mathematical logics are all based on assumptions that cannot be proven and without these assumptions logic cannot exist, I believe that all truths are subjective)

So why should I chooce Logic over God?

 

[Finmaster]

Sorry about threadjacking

Silver, if you want this conversation to continue, I suggest we start a thread at the OT forum.

Btw, I'm not an atheist. Or an agnostic. I do kinda believe in God. Of some sort. In a way you could say that I believe in all religions. As subjective truths, like a true existentialist should. But thats beyond the point, I have no interrest in converting someone away from atheism (it can also be true to its subject), I'm looking at this purely philosophically. Or as philosophically as I can with my very limited intelligence.

 

[silver 2039]

Yes I'll do it tommorow. I need to study for a Canadian history test now(Canada has a history?)...

Or you could start it...

 

[Azale]

Canada, ruled by brits, then werent ruled by brits. They make some good syrup, the end.

Did someone pm the China treaty to das?

 

[Kal'thzar]

If you claim that everything invisible and immaterial should be ruled out of the existance of the universe, we'd have to rule out the existance of our thoughts. You could claim that we can see our thoughts, but then I could claim that we can't see Kal'thsars or Lord_Iggys thoughts. Do they exist? That kind of "logical" conversation could go on for hours without any point in them (why is this kind of logical thinking even considered logical when it makes no sense at all?)

I don't like this argument, mainly because Nobody understands the brain yet.