I don't think that's how real religion works either.
Science says: "Here's the evidence, you can check it for yourself. Don't take our word for it."
Religion says: "Reason is your biggest enemy." (Martin Luther's words.)
Well, I'm sure somebody who cared enough could dig up a really screwed up statement by a famous scientist.
Luther's real quote goes somewhat like this btw:
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." Reason makes you doubt (the stuff the he knew/believed was true), that's what he's saying imo.
Lots of religious leaders say stuff like "Try it out for yourself. Do an experiment, and try praying to the Lord. Try if it makes you feel anything." and stuff along those lines. This is my last post on this subject (for now), I'm not in the mood for pointless discussions, I just wanted to point out bias.
Also "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God. ", but whatever. Those quotes are besides the point anyway.
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
Seriously guys, can you stop this discussion now? Rather than bring religious stuff to Bisqwit's doorstep, why not just make a topic elsewhere? The point of this thread has kind of been ruined.
And with that said...
Dear Bisqwit,
Now that the website is mostly(all?) handed over, how are things going for you? Are your plans/goals coming to fruitation or are things not going how you would have hoped?
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
Now that the website is mostly(all?) handed over, how are things going for you? Are your plans/goals coming to fruitation or are things not going how you would have hoped?
Thank you for your question, Raiscan.
Going slowly. Especially due to some unfortunate RL drama that has slowed down my life by a large factor. But I expect the pace to go up again very soon.
Speaking of science, does anyone believe that science can ruin a lot of things or it actually encourages imagination? I don't hate Science and learning how things in the Physical Universe especially Chemistry is awesome but will ever grow so much in knowledge thtat we don't need imagination anymore? I am wrong in this thinking?
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
GMan wrote:
While I don't want to offend you personally, if God were real, and God was your sole motivation, why wouldn't he stop RL drama from happening, so you can continue to pursue his message?
Why do you assume he wouldn't want the drama to happen?
People are built on their experiences.
Guernsey wrote:
Speaking of science, does anyone believe that science can ruin a lot of things or it actually encourages imagination? I don't hate Science and learning how things in the Physical Universe especially Chemistry is awesome but will ever grow so much in knowledge thtat we don't need imagination anymore? I am wrong in this thinking?
If you can do anything you can imagine in science, it will only fuel you to be even more imaginative.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Gman wrote:
While I don't want to offend you personally, if God were real, and God was your sole motivation, why wouldn't he stop RL drama from happening, so you can continue to pursue his message?
As you know our brain is analog for nearly everything. We can't specify exact values for "good" if there's nothing "bad" to compare it to. For example, we can tell if something is warm or cold only because we compare it's temperature with our own bodies'.
Your think your God is awesome if there is something terrible happening to others but you're safe. And vice-versa.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
I also found this interesting quiz I think would be interesting for everyone to take, regardless of your religion. Sorry if it's been mentioned before.
I found myself having problems trying to parse the grammar of the claim "Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything."
The problem hindered me of providing a meaningful answer, so I chose randomly. The same problem occurred in the very next claim, as well.
That claim was: "Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible."
After reading it three times, I understood the grammar in this and the previous question. But now I don't understand what they mean by "in the word". So another random answer.
The rest of the questions were clearer; however, a bit too black-and-white for my tastes. So I had to work with what I was given.
I got my first "hit" in claim 13. I disagree. I had indeed claimed that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs on something not absolutely proven, but I also agreed that it is foolish. Both can be true simultaneously: People have the freedom; they can believe in anything they want. And sometimes, even strong beliefs turn false, or vice versa. For example, in juristical matters -- it has happened that someone's innocence is proven only decades later. But in the same time, people can judge you foolish. If you are tired of trying to refute those claims, you can just accept that people think of you as foolish. As I do.
The same goes with claim 14, which also gave me a "hit".
After that, so did everything else, because I was no longer confident about the parameters of the questionare :)
In the end, "You suffered 3 direct hits and bit 2 bullets."
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
"Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible."
Citation needed.
Why would you assume that?
In fact, since suffering was created, the opposite must in fact be true, that any amount of suffering experienced is desired.
Let me also relate to you a true story I read in a book about a philosopher and one of his students.
The student asked: "Do you believe the creator manages the world as best as possible?", to which the master responded in the affirmative.
The student then asked: "So if you had the ability to see all and make any changes you deemed necessary, as the creator can, what would you change about the world?"
The master responded: "If I had all those same capabilities that the creator had, and had the chance to be the creator and manager of the world and change whatever I saw fit, I would not change a single thing from how the world is currently managed, as I would have the same knowledge as well."
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
"Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible."
Citation needed. Why would you assume that?
For clarity, the quote was from the questionaire I was responding to.
As for my opinion, in my post, I did not either explicitly or implicitly indicate how I answered to that claim.
So I can only assume that your question is not addressed to me.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Nach wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
"Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible."
Citation needed. Why would you assume that?
For clarity, the quote was from the questionaire I was responding to.
As for my opinion, in my post, I did not either explicitly or implicitly indicate how I answered to that claim.
So I can only assume that your question is not addressed to me.
It was not addressed to you.
It is a common misconception that I see.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bag of Magic Food wrote:
Wait, so we're going with the assumption that the creator god and the manager god are the same?
That was the premise of the question.
The student asked: "Do you believe the creator manages the world as best as possible?", to which the master responded in the affirmative.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
Dear Bisqwit,
Do you believe that TASVideos (or NESVideos) has had a particular peak (i.e, where the site was/is at it's prime and everything in the community is well)? If so, when do you believe that was?
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
Do you believe that TASVideos (or NESVideos) has had a particular peak (i.e, where the site was/is at it's prime and everything in the community is well)? If so, when do you believe that was?
Thank you for the question Raiscan.
I used to think that there was a peak in the late 2004 when spectacular NES movies were made for popular games on weekly basis (or so my memory serves). But lately I have come to realize that it is not true. There may have been slower periods, but the reality is that my previous impression was just a case of "good old times" thinking; an artifact of the inevitable fact that some things don't last forever. But as a counterbalance, new things are discovered and developed all the time. Which seems to be keeping the genre alive and well, organically developing. Same goes for the community, too. I'll elaborate no more to not give people ideas. :)
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Is it okay for me to have this miniature image in my signature to compensate for the fact that the 255 letter limit is incredibly imposing on the formatting needed.
I'm not a 256 byte demo programmer dude, I can tell you that. =P
Either way, I am incapable of editing my posts without deleting them now.
Is it okay for me to have this miniature image in my signature to compensate for the fact that the 255 letter limit is incredibly imposing on the formatting needed.
For the record, I hate any 255 character limits as well.
I don't mind your means to circumvent it. However, I consider it a bit too tall for a signature attached to each and every one of your posts.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
