/)_(\ *hide*

talk about... stuff.

Anything that doesn't fit in elsewhere goes here!

Moderators: HeRetiK, The inner Core

Overall, MD's full of..

Ugly bitches!!11omfg
16
11%
OoOooOOo Hot..
55
36%
Meh.
81
53%
 
Total votes: 152

User avatar
Elen Sila
divine
divine
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:10 pm

Postby Elen Sila » Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:30 am

AUG wrote:
Anarch wrote:words


You don't look a thing like Schwarzenegger. You look more like Johnny Depp in Pirates.


Wat

Image
DW wrote:anarch is more than slightly mental, he's completely fucking bonkers

Voly wrote:Do you reproduce by budding? Because if so, I'm so selling you to science.


____

User avatar
Chichevache
divine
divine
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:36 am

Postby Chichevache » Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:19 am

Your usual facial hair and what not.
I can't decide which one of us will leave here alive
Your fingers breaking as I place them over mine
The only thing I need is time
To change your mind, I said

User avatar
Elen Sila
divine
divine
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:10 pm

Postby Elen Sila » Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:41 am

... I think what you failed to understand was that I was referring specifically to that picture, and not any other picture of me.
DW wrote:anarch is more than slightly mental, he's completely fucking bonkers

Voly wrote:Do you reproduce by budding? Because if so, I'm so selling you to science.




____

User avatar
evilredqueen
divine
divine
Posts: 7412
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: earth

Postby evilredqueen » Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:48 pm

I still like the one where you look like Manson. :)
Zyn wrote:Because God knows ERQ has always been a font of sensible and well-supported opinions.

Voly wrote:ASSASSINATE ALL THEM GOT-DAMN NIGGER SYMPATHIZERS


User avatar
Chichevache
divine
divine
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:36 am

Postby Chichevache » Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:11 pm

Anarch wrote:... I think what you failed to understand was that I was referring specifically to that picture, and not any other picture of me.


It's possible...

But really all you have is "rugged" features whereas Schwarzenegger has definition and tone to his face. You look like a wax model of him that never got painted and was left in the microwave for a few seconds on "defrost."
I can't decide which one of us will leave here alive

Your fingers breaking as I place them over mine

The only thing I need is time

To change your mind, I said

User avatar
evilredqueen
divine
divine
Posts: 7412
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: earth

Postby evilredqueen » Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:14 pm

Aug .... you are mean. :)
Last edited by evilredqueen on Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Zyn wrote:Because God knows ERQ has always been a font of sensible and well-supported opinions.

Voly wrote:ASSASSINATE ALL THEM GOT-DAMN NIGGER SYMPATHIZERS


Voly
divine
divine
Posts: 8107
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:57 am
Location: Ahead of the curve
Contact:

Postby Voly » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:08 am

His mean what?
Astica wrote:That's probably the wankiest thing I've heard all day.

Elen wrote:If they were just bickering about politics, instead of indulging ERQ's passive-aggressive, self-aggrandizing fuckassery, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

User avatar
Chichevache
divine
divine
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:36 am

Postby Chichevache » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:57 am

Median and mode?

evilredqueen wrote:Aug .... your mean. :)


He said I failed to understand.
I can't decide which one of us will leave here alive

Your fingers breaking as I place them over mine

The only thing I need is time

To change your mind, I said

User avatar
evilredqueen
divine
divine
Posts: 7412
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: earth

Postby evilredqueen » Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:24 am

Fucking local slang ...

Mean .. 1. To be cruel, spiteful, and malicious. To be ill tempered and disagreeable, difficult and troublesome.


Comprende?
Zyn wrote:Because God knows ERQ has always been a font of sensible and well-supported opinions.

Voly wrote:ASSASSINATE ALL THEM GOT-DAMN NIGGER SYMPATHIZERS


User avatar
Ashreal
divine
divine
Posts: 1837
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:36 am
Location: Apudne te vel me?

Postby Ashreal » Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:28 am

Si me comprehende
For those that fight for it, life has a flavour that the sheltered will never know.

User avatar
evilredqueen
divine
divine
Posts: 7412
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: earth

Postby evilredqueen » Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:41 am

Esto me hace feliz. :)
Zyn wrote:Because God knows ERQ has always been a font of sensible and well-supported opinions.

Voly wrote:ASSASSINATE ALL THEM GOT-DAMN NIGGER SYMPATHIZERS


User avatar
Ashreal
divine
divine
Posts: 1837
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:36 am
Location: Apudne te vel me?

Postby Ashreal » Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:46 am

Si?

tengo amor por ti
For those that fight for it, life has a flavour that the sheltered will never know.

User avatar
evilredqueen
divine
divine
Posts: 7412
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: earth

Postby evilredqueen » Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:57 am

Te quiero :)
Zyn wrote:Because God knows ERQ has always been a font of sensible and well-supported opinions.

Voly wrote:ASSASSINATE ALL THEM GOT-DAMN NIGGER SYMPATHIZERS


Voly
divine
divine
Posts: 8107
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:57 am
Location: Ahead of the curve
Contact:

Postby Voly » Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:03 am

I wasn't making fun of your use of the word mean. I was making fun of you using the wrong "your".

I originally typed "you used the wrong "your"". I guess it would have been more effective if I didn't try to use wit.
Astica wrote:That's probably the wankiest thing I've heard all day.

Elen wrote:If they were just bickering about politics, instead of indulging ERQ's passive-aggressive, self-aggrandizing fuckassery, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

User avatar
evilredqueen
divine
divine
Posts: 7412
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: earth

Postby evilredqueen » Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:27 am

Got me there ... I corrected it Anarch ... oh Voly.
Zyn wrote:Because God knows ERQ has always been a font of sensible and well-supported opinions.

Voly wrote:ASSASSINATE ALL THEM GOT-DAMN NIGGER SYMPATHIZERS


User avatar
Ragdoll Bob
divine
divine
Posts: 4079
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:00 am
Location: Ragdolling through the universe like a, um, ragdoll thing.

Postby Ragdoll Bob » Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:51 am

Now if you didn't know better you'd read his witty response and think he's just stupid. Awesome.

User avatar
Elen Sila
divine
divine
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:10 pm

Postby Elen Sila » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:22 pm

AUG wrote:It's possible...

But really all you have is "rugged" features whereas Schwarzenegger has definition and tone to his face. You look like a wax model of him that never got painted and was left in the microwave for a few seconds on "defrost."


I was referring to the profile of my cheek and jaw. Normally I purposely give myself an overbite so that I don't have that bulldog shape to my face, but I guess I slipped up for that picture.

ERQ wrote:Got me there ... I corrected it Anarch ... oh Voly.


I'm fairly certain I have never once corrected someone on this forum for a single petty mistake. If I've ever pointed out their grammar errors, it's been because they made a lot of them.
DW wrote:anarch is more than slightly mental, he's completely fucking bonkers

Voly wrote:Do you reproduce by budding? Because if so, I'm so selling you to science.




____

User avatar
Guitar_clock
divine
divine
Posts: 11480
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:59 pm
Location: Buffalo, NY
Contact:

Postby Guitar_clock » Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:48 am

Anarch wrote:I'm fairly certain...

THAT'S RIGHT. CAUSE YOU DON'T FUCKIN' KNOW!

User avatar
Elen Sila
divine
divine
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:10 pm

Postby Elen Sila » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:31 pm

GC wrote:
Anarch wrote:I'm fairly certain...


THAT'S RIGHT. CAUSE YOU DON'T FUCKIN' KNOW!


The fuck? Are you trying to make a jab at my atheism, or something?
DW wrote:anarch is more than slightly mental, he's completely fucking bonkers

Voly wrote:Do you reproduce by budding? Because if so, I'm so selling you to science.




____

User avatar
Guitar_clock
divine
divine
Posts: 11480
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:59 pm
Location: Buffalo, NY
Contact:

Postby Guitar_clock » Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:35 pm

No, it's because 1) for all you know you are in the Matrix and your body doesn't exist 2) for all you know you've done that before but just forgot because you've made thousands of posts and there's little chance you remember everything you've stated and 3) cause I was drunk as shit last night

Image

User avatar
Elen Sila
divine
divine
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:10 pm

Postby Elen Sila » Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:32 am

Your first point is dependent on your definition of "know".

It is impossible to "know" anything without first "assuming" things that are necessary in order for the "known" thing to be true. Because I cannot "know" that I am not in the matrix, I have to "assume" it, which allows me to "know" other things which are dependent on my not being in the matrix.
________

********
________

EXTREMELY LONG TANGENT BEGINS
________

********
________

I apply the same principle to god. Just as I cannot "know" I am not in the matrix, I cannot "know" that there is no god. But just as I "assume" that I am not in the matrix, I "assume" that there is no god.

For some people, the assumption that there is no god is far (if not infinitely) more audacious than the assumption that we are not in the matrix. For me, the assumption that there is no god is equally audacious to the assumption that there is no Russel's teapot.

I can only believe in a "deist" god, one who expresses itself through the beauty of the natural laws and existence of a clockwork universe, as opposed to a "theist" god, one who concerns himself intimately with the petty thoughts, words, and deeds of monkey-descended organisms crawling around on a tiny little planet in some random galaxy somewhere in the universe, fucking and killing each other.

A "theist" god would make himself known to us, as has Yahweh according to the abrahamic tradition.* But a "deist" god would never make itself known to us; and therefore any speculation of its existence is entirely that - speculation. It is a fictitious concept, that could only ever be true by sheer luck. It would be like if Christopher Columbus had predicted that he would discover a new continent between Spain and China; he would have had absolutely no basis to say such a thing, and would only have been correct by sheer, astonishing, luck. Even though he would have been correct if he had guessed so, he still would have had no right to, lacking absolutely any reason to even think so. And that is why I feel we have no right to guess that there is a god, even if there's a chance we're right. (I'll get to Pascal's wager in a moment.)

A common argument in favor of the existence of a god, "deist" or "theist", is the argument of Aquinas - the argument of the unmoved mover and of the uncaused cause. Nothing moves without a prior mover; something had to make the first move, and that something we call god. Nothing is caused by itself; every effect has a prior cause; this has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call god. In the words of Richard Dawkins, these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke god to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that god himself (or itself) is immune to the regress. "Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one," says Dawkins, "there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to god - omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts." Ultimately, Aquinas's proofs can only be used to demonstrate the existence of a "deist" god, and even then remain flawed with the idea that a regress must have a terminator.

One of the reasons I cannot believe in a "theist" god before a "deist" god is because, if there is a "theist" god, it is my conviction, because of my fondness for the abrahamic religions (and in particular christianity), that he would probably be Yahweh. (It seems odd to speak of so passionate an atheist as myself being "fond" of any religion, but christianity (or more accurately, the bible, and in particular the book of acts) has always been fascinating to me, and even as an atheist I continue to put forth a number of "If christianity is true, then..." conjectures, using my understanding of scripture to determine what I believe to be christian "canon". For example, I do not believe that scripture supports a trinity; I would consider my understanding of christianity to be either binitarian or unitarian. (I am uncertain as to whether I think christ's cosubstantiality with god to be supported, but the holy spirit is definitely not on equal footing with either of them, and to me is only an expression referring to the power of god as divine inspiration.) I also agree with the Jehovah's witnesses that the bible does not say sinners go to an afterlife in hell; instead they are simply damned to death. (Those who go to heaven are said to have been granted "everlasting life"; so those who do not could not likewise have been granted everlasting life, even in hell.) In my perusing of the great book I also often find highly quotable aphorisms, engrossing stories, or even sound advice (EG Jesus's admonition of oaths in favor of simple affirmations).)

But Yahweh's nature bears a fundamental contradiction: he wants us to have faith, IE to believe without evidence, yet throughout the tanakh, the gospels, the book of acts, and the qur'an, his messengers regularly perform miracles, IE temporary suspensions of the laws of physics, which would themselves constitute evidence of divine power, and render faith both impossible and meaningless, at least for those who had witnessed them. God's existence could no longer be said to be in the realm of religion, for it would have passed into the realm of theory; and belief in him could no longer qualify a supplicant for salvation. (I mean this particular point as a jab against american evangelical "christian scientists" and their bastard child, "creation science". Any attempt to prove god's existence constitutes a direct and heretical affront against faith and the very nature of god.)

But the first and greatest reason why I refuse to give weight to the proposition of the existence of god, why I feel absolutely no threat of damnation against me should I refuse to take Pascal's wager, is because of the issue of the human spirit.

Demonstrate, you believers in spirits, why an organism should have a spirit, but not a rock or a cloud. Demonstrate, still more audaciously, why a human should have a spirit, but not a tree, or a sea slug, or, even more paradoxically, a chimpanzee. And thirdly, finally, and most paramountly importantly, demonstrate to me this: why should a living human have a spirit, but not a dead human?

Secondly, once you have demonstrate all three of these absolutely vital points to me, there yet remains the question of what is the spirit. What does it do? Does it think? Does it discern between right and wrong? How does it do so? What makes you think that my spirit is in any way responsible for my actions, when the psychology of my brain is far more readily accountable? And let's say the spirit is, in some more or less limited capacity, responsible for my decisions. The brain must have at least some involvement in our judgements; neurology and psychology show this indisputably. And if the brain is involved, doesn't that diminish the fundamental responsibility of the spirit? And if the spirit is any increment less than one hundred percent responsible for our actions, can it be held subject to truly just judgement in the afterlife for what we've done? (For I cannot on principle believe in a god that is not totally just.)

To look at this fundamental question from another angle, doesn't the idea of fair judgement in the afterlife hinge on the idea that we have free will to choose to sin or not to sin? Well, what is free will? Free will, to me, is the idea that no outside forces govern our decisions - that we are capable of making decisions entirely based on the predispositions of our character. But if our decisions are based on the predispositions of our character, doesn't that in itself undermine free will? I can only ever do in a given situation what I am predisposed to do, and what I am predisposed to do is determined by the psychology of my brain, which was basically established at birth; even subsequent changes to my character are only made possible by my innate predisposition towards them. (What we actually do is irrelevant: Jesus states that if you look on a woman with lust, you have already committed adultery with her, despite not having actually done it; it's the thought that counts, so to speak. The very fact that you would do it is vastly more important than whether you ever actually do it.)

We were born to be what we are; we do not make ourselves what we are. There is no free will, and any god which judges between the saved and the damned is a fundamentally unjust god. I would not take Pascal's wager and worship such a god, even under threat of damnation. I could not.

(Regardless, I do not think such a god exists, as I explained above.)

* "Allah" simply means "god", and is a cognate of "elohim". When I say "Yahweh", I am referring to the abrahamic god as interpreted by all five of the extant religions which deify him (judaism, christianity, islam, the baha'i faith, and the latter day saints movement), and not by only those of the five which call him by that name.
________

********
________

EXTREMELY LONG TANGENT ENDS
________

********
________
DW wrote:anarch is more than slightly mental, he's completely fucking bonkers

Voly wrote:Do you reproduce by budding? Because if so, I'm so selling you to science.




____

User avatar
pink_lemonade
damaged
damaged
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:24 am
Location: The Moon

Postby pink_lemonade » Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:51 pm

...I scrolled down and all I saw was Yahweh's nature bears.
And I thought of yogi bear.
Now I wish to go on a picnic.

User avatar
evilredqueen
divine
divine
Posts: 7412
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: earth

Postby evilredqueen » Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:58 pm

Anarch wrote: A "theist" god would make himself known to us, as has Yahweh according to the abrahamic tradition.* But a "deist" god would never make itself known to us; and therefore any speculation of its existence is entirely that - speculation.



I believe God is quite present and works around us all the time. You just have to look a bit to see him. It is not like he is going to come beating on your front door " Hi I am God.. what do you need ? " God works in very subtle ways.


IMO !!!
Zyn wrote:Because God knows ERQ has always been a font of sensible and well-supported opinions.

Voly wrote:ASSASSINATE ALL THEM GOT-DAMN NIGGER SYMPATHIZERS


User avatar
Chichevache
divine
divine
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:36 am

Postby Chichevache » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:00 pm

Image
I can't decide which one of us will leave here alive

Your fingers breaking as I place them over mine

The only thing I need is time

To change your mind, I said

Voly
divine
divine
Posts: 8107
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:57 am
Location: Ahead of the curve
Contact:

Postby Voly » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:48 pm

Old, old, old motivational poster.

Don't you have something original or at least fairly new to add to this adult discussion, kiddo?
Astica wrote:That's probably the wankiest thing I've heard all day.

Elen wrote:If they were just bickering about politics, instead of indulging ERQ's passive-aggressive, self-aggrandizing fuckassery, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests