The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Zampanó
You'll notice that I maintain that Christianity is a set of beliefs that does not accurately portray the universe, which must necessarily be derived by a method of thought that, in my mind, cannot hope to yield results as powerful as a fact-based worldview. I have never said that Christians are bad people, and if I have then I formally retract such sentiment. I think that Christianity is wrong, not malevolent.

Originally posted by Zampanó
It gets better once he is around people his own age and has to deal with stuff at his age level.

Really. As the note says, if you still don't like it by chapter 10, then you can give up.

also, Im not the author.

Ah, good, I was worried I was completely stomping on your work. You seem smart enough to write this kinda thing.

Don't get me wrong, the conversation with the Sorting Hat was interesting enough for me to start reading, even if my eyes almost rolled out of my head with the whole 'your the only one evar to make me sentient' etc. I'll probably keep reading, its pretty interesting, I just wish he'd lay off the Author-insert fantasies.

edit: SEMI-RELEVENT TO THE TOPIC. REVAN IS TOTALLY A GARY STU SHUT UP PEOPLE IN THE THREAD

Gosh, none of those guys seem to actually know what a Gary Stu is. Its almost hilarious.

Are you seriously arguing over Harry Potter?

Harry Potter fanfiction.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Harry Potter fanfiction.

😎

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
What do you define as a fact based worldview? I'm afraid unless you subscribe to the idea of Cartesian knowledge, you don't have much to go on.

I'm pretty certain Red doesn't define truth as specific axioms (unless within a established system such as math) about the universe, but instead views the universe through the scientific lens which operates primarily through observation.

Christianity makes claims about how the universe is (in varying degrees depending on what sect/tradition of Christianity.) Claims that are testable via the scientific method. Red probably views Christianity as wrong because the claims Christianity makes lack evidence and do not hold up in the light of the rational and rigorous gauntlet that is the scientific method.

Originally posted by Lucius
I'm pretty certain Red doesn't define truth as specific axioms (unless within a established system such as math) about the universe, but instead views the universe through the scientific lens which operates primarily through observation.

Christianity makes claims about how the universe is (in varying degrees depending on what sect/tradition of Christianity.) Claims that are testable via the scientific method. Red probably views Christianity as wrong because the claims Christianity makes lack evidence and do not hold up in the light of the rational and rigorous gauntlet that is the scientific method.

I bet I could make a rational argument for the possibility of the existence of God, using the Jewish people as an example. I think we can both agree that you don't need scientific evidence for something to be rational or at least be a good possibility.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I bet I could make a rational argument for the [b]possibility of the existence of God, using the Jewish people as an example. I think we can both agree that you don't need scientific evidence for something to be rational or at least be a good possibility. [/B]

There is always the possibility that god exists; however, the most common a priori arguments are the Ontological Argument, TAG (including Kant's moral variation,) and the Cosmological Argument.

The Cosmological Argument states that because everything has a cause, something must have caused the Universe (I.E God.) TAG states that the very existence of logic and reason presupposes the existence of God because without God, logic and reason are meaningless because then we are nothing more than matter an energy.

The Ontological argument sort of states that if we can conceive of God, God must exist because God is a perfect being. The idea being that the very ability to conceive of a perfect being requires that perfect being to exist.

Yeah the Ontological argument is pretty much the worst thing ever.

Originally posted by Lucius
There is always the possibility that god exists; however, the most common a priori arguments are the Ontological Argument, TAG (including Kant's moral variation,) and the Cosmological Argument.

The Cosmological Argument states that because everything has a cause, something must have caused the Universe (I.E God.) TAG states that the very existence of logic and reason presupposes the existence of God because without God, logic and reason are meaningless because then we are nothing more than matter an energy.

The Ontological argument sort of states that if we can conceive of God, God must exist because God is a perfect being. The idea being that the very ability to conceive of a perfect being requires that perfect being to exist.

I uh wasn't going to use any of those arguments but alright.

Originally posted by Lucius
There is always the possibility that god exists; however, the most common a priori arguments are the Ontological Argument, TAG (including Kant's moral variation,) and the Cosmological Argument.

The Cosmological Argument states that because everything has a cause, something must have caused the Universe (I.E God.) TAG states that the very existence of logic and reason presupposes the existence of God because without God, logic and reason are meaningless because then we are nothing more than matter an energy.

The Ontological argument sort of states that if we can conceive of God, God must exist because God is a perfect being. The idea being that the very ability to conceive of a perfect being requires that perfect being to exist.

'The climax of the Alternate Universe story Star Wars Infinites: A New Hope has Yoda taking control of the Death Star, shooting a ton of Imperial ships with the superlaser before finally having it Colony Drop right on Palpatine's palace.
Yoda: Coming to see you, I am. Now. '

Badassgasm!

Originally posted by Nephthys
'The climax of the Alternate Universe story Star Wars Infinites: A New Hope has Yoda taking control of the Death Star, shooting a ton of Imperial ships with the superlaser before finally having it Colony Drop right on Palpatine's palace.
Yoda: Coming to see you, I am. Now. '

Badassgasm!

But still good news. uhuh

Theres no news thats good news but good news and no news.

A rational argument

Oh God. We did stuff like bias and bias in questionaires in Psychology. Lame.

Interestingly enough that the question on a questionaire was supposedly bias was used a way to avoid answering when I asked my Socialist grandparents questions from that 'Where are you in the Political spectrum' thing. Super-lame.

I'm pretty sure it was a situational 'what would you do if' question anyway, I don't think it even could be biased. Socialists suck!

I really hate my psychology class it is the most gently loving soulsucking fifty minute period of the day.

On the other hand, figuring out why you believe what you believe and whether or not you actually know what you think you know is interesting.

Originally posted by Zampanó
I really hate my psychology class it is the most gently loving soulsucking fifty minute period of the day.

On the other hand, figuring out why you believe what you believe and whether or not you actually know what you think you know is interesting.

There was a God and he created online courses, and it was good.