Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually, i'm quitting KMC as of this post. So no pretending here! 🙂
Why the theatrics?
And, boy, you sure showed me! facepalm
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
.. and I just got back. 😛
I was thinking about you, yesterday, actually. I was wondering how the music was coming along.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why the theatrics?And, boy, you sure showed me! facepalm
It's like I never left. 😆
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was thinking about you, yesterday, actually. I was wondering how the music was coming along.
I am working with the printer to produce my next CD. 😄 I will let you know when it is up on the net.
Battlemages are lame in Elder Scrolls games. Warrior/Ranger all the way.
And today I learned that Kandy and Shakya might be the same person. Hasta luego Kandy!
Also ironic, I popped in one of shakya's CDs into my car CD player today, for the first time in months.
----------
Actually on topic:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/why-republicans-deny-scie_b_1196823.html
It's technically political, but there's a large overlap in subsets of people. It goes into a bit of detail about how people respond to information differently in a way that makes consensus impossible. Which then leads me to my (largely ignored) point of teach evaluative and critical thinking skills about evidence and claims as perhaps the best and only way to bridge any theistic/atheistic divide that exists.
Originally posted by Digi
Battlemages are lame in Elder Scrolls games. Warrior/Ranger all the way.
I like the combination of the healing and destruction abilities that a mage can have (because I like helping people and killing badguys) but I also like to brawl. So I have to be a battle-mage type, mang!
But a ranger works too as long as I get some magical powahs in teh next lief!
Originally posted by Digi
Also ironic, I popped in one of shakya's CDs into my car CD player today, for the first time in months.
So weird...like..wtf? I think Shaky may be a real telepath and he's influencing us to buy his products.
----------
Originally posted by Digi
Actually on topic:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/why-republicans-deny-scie_b_1196823.htmlIt's technically political, but there's a large overlap in subsets of people. It goes into a bit of detail about how people respond to information differently in a way that makes consensus impossible. Which then leads me to my (largely ignored) point of teach evaluative and critical thinking skills about evidence and claims as perhaps the best and only way to bridge any theistic/atheistic divide that exists.
Interesting take. I would posit that the "knee-jerk" types are on both sides. Sometimes, there is no difference in the ways and processes for either of those poles: they seem the same in attitude and approach but hold different truths as sacred. For some, they are doomed to reject everything about their parents: sometimes it's atheism and sometimes it's some sort of theism (in the bible belt, it is much more often Christianity that is rejected). It could be politics, as well. I often wonder if this is what several people around me are doing by being democrats when their parents are staunch republicans?
Regardless, the knee-jerking from both sides is exhausting and irritating. I prefer dialogue with "moderates" or "centers" the best because they don't stick their fingers in their ears and scream like the left and right does.
Nobody has my perspective on Elder Scrolls games. I'm a stalwart since Daggerfall, one before the legit craze began with Morrowind. Playing a mage was essentially ramping the difficulty up to "Legendary" on most RPG's. You had to play a brawler. Magic was the fun stuff that made your life easier, not what killed bad guys.
Same, to an extent, until Skyrim, which is the first where you can truly be a pure caster and get away with it (Oblivion was possible, technically, but also insane). By this point, it just feels wrong to me. If I'm not trolling around with a broadsword and daedric armor, something's wrong. Same with archery. I love playing archers. And it's badass in Skyrim, but still goes out the window when sh*t really starts to go down.
the first character I played was a bash em up warrior, that was fun, but I had to restart at level 22 because I moved back to my apartment from my parent's home and had a different X-Box...
so now I'm a level 9 mage...I got to say...I'm finding clearing out dungeons even easier than before because at this point I'm basically just running through scorching everything with dual flame spells...I've almost burnt Lydia to a crisp ten times now because she walked in the way for a second lol
Originally posted by Digi
Nobody has my perspective on Elder Scrolls games. I'm a stalwart since Daggerfall, one before the legit craze began with Morrowind. Playing a mage was essentially ramping the difficulty up to "Legendary" on most RPG's. You had to play a brawler. Magic was the fun stuff that made your life easier, not what killed bad guys.Same, to an extent, until Skyrim, which is the first where you can truly be a pure caster and get away with it (Oblivion was possible, technically, but also insane). By this point, it just feels wrong to me. If I'm not trolling around with a broadsword and daedric armor, something's wrong. Same with archery. I love playing archers. And it's badass in Skyrim, but still goes out the window when sh*t really starts to go down.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
the first character I played was a bash em up warrior, that was fun, but I had to restart at level 22 because I moved back to my apartment from my parent's home and had a different X-Box...so now I'm a level 9 mage...I got to say...I'm finding clearing out dungeons even easier than before because at this point I'm basically just running through scorching everything with dual flame spells...I've almost burnt Lydia to a crisp ten times now because she walked in the way for a second lol
WTF?!?!?!?
This thread has been officially hijacked. Is this four-chan (spelled wrong because I'm at work)? But, yeah, early on, dual-weilding fire is a very easy way to fight bad guys. It's very strong and effective. As you level up, so do the peeps around you and it becomes far less effective. I find the most effective thing, at the moment, is sneak arrow strikes (sniper). I love clearing entire dungeons with just bow-shots. Feels like..ninja-ness. I haven't gotten this much satisfaction from being stealthy in a game since Goldeye 007 for the N64. Good times.
But, yeah, atheists. Most of them are agnostics because very few of them will rule out the possibility of God.
Can anyone think of a reason why God, by certain definitions, already exists? Meaning, do you think it would be possible to convince an atheist that they actually do believe in some sort of God just by simply moving the bar about "what is God?" I say this because it is possible to say that certain types of theists don't believe in God by moving the bar for "what is God?" So the same should be true of atheists, right?
Originally posted by dadudemon
...Can anyone think of a reason why God, by certain definitions, already exists? Meaning, do you think it would be possible to convince an atheist that they actually do believe in some sort of God just by simply moving the bar about "what is God?" I say this because it is possible to say that certain types of theists don't believe in God by moving the bar for "what is God?" So the same should be true of atheists, right?
By changing the definition of god, can you then change the definition of athiesm?
If atheism is a belief, there is no god, then yes, but if atheism is the lack of a bleif in a god, then no. The reason being, if you lack a beief in a god, then changing the definition of god would have no effect. You cannot change something you do not have.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Can anyone think of a reason why God, by certain definitions, already exists? Meaning, do you think it would be possible to convince an atheist that they actually do believe in some sort of God just by simply moving the bar about "what is God?" I say this because it is possible to say that certain types of theists don't believe in God by moving the bar for "what is God?" So the same should be true of atheists, right?
There is Spinoza's abstract god of natura naturans. The universe is the universe but the activity of the universe is god. Einstein talked about Spinoza's god and has created a lot of debates about his religious affiliation as a result.
You can construct a few sorts of Clarke's god if you want.
Weak Clarke's god: An advanced creature is indistinguishable from a power magical creature (ie various classical gods). Its been claimed things like this have happened but I don't know if it's true.
Strong Clarke's god: A creature that can do anything you can imagine cannot be differentiated from a omnipotent creature. This is conceivable at least and inevitable to Singularitarians.
@Omega, get it for PC if you can. Better experience overall, and you wouldn't have had to start over.
------
Ignoring our earlier discussion on Penn Jillette, even he was using the "normal" definition of atheism as a lack of belief in God (to then say that he was something else). One need not deny the possibility of God to be an atheist, one just has to lack a belief in God. That much shouldn't be up for discussion. Because if you're saying that to be an atheist you NEED to deny the possibility, then we combine that with inamilist's bit earlier about subjective experience, exactly zero atheists exist in the world.
But again, atheist is a label, like agnostic. Some atheists are agnostics without realizing it, some theists are agnostic without realizing it. For example, Dudemon, I don't think you're Christian at all. Whatever you are is theistic, but not a particular doctrine, even if there's some borrowed elements.
Originally posted by Digi
One need not deny the possibility of God to be an atheist, one just has to lack a belief in God. That much shouldn't be up for discussion. Because if you're saying that to be an atheist you NEED to deny the possibility, then we combine that with inimalist's bit earlier about subjective experience, exactly zero atheists exist in the world.
Well, this is sort of what I mean. Just like you could with a theist, you should be able to move the bar/definition to create a situation where an athiest will say something like, "Okay, by that definition, yeah, I believe in god."
Just the same as a theist saying, "Well, yeah, by that definition, I don't believe in god."
What's both funny and frustrating is we may look back at these "god" conversations and think we were so silly. 🙁
Originally posted by Digi
But again, atheist is a label, like agnostic. Some atheists are agnostics without realizing it, some theists are agnostic without realizing it.
Indeed. This is closer to what I mean. They are just labels but everyone seems to be hung up on the labels so much so that they feel it defines them.
Originally posted by Digi
For example, Dudemon, I don't think you're Christian at all. Whatever you are is theistic, but not a particular doctrine, even if there's some borrowed elements.
Well, since I believe in Christ as my Redeemer, God as the "All-Father (Marvel Pun intended and the context intended, too)", and the Holy Ghost as my help and bridge between this world and God's plane (whether it be here or a combination of "here's", I don't know) I would be a Christian. I just feel the scriptures - that most Christians are so hung up about - are not as "rigid and static" as they would believe. That's mostly based on actual fact than something spiritual. But like I said, it is also due to my Mormon-ness where I think we are all supposed to trascend the need for crutches like scriptures. That would be very insulting to many people and family around me, of course, but it is definitely how I feel. At the root of it, most Mormons would agree with me if we discussed it long enough...and maybe many evangelical Christians.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There is Spinoza's abstract god of natura naturans. The universe is the universe but the activity of the universe is god. Einstein talked about Spinoza's god and has created a lot of debates about his religious affiliation as a result.You can construct a few sorts of Clarke's god if you want.
Weak Clarke's god: An advanced creature is indistinguishable from a power magical creature (ie various classical gods). Its been claimed things like this have happened but I don't know if it's true.
Strong Clarke's god: A creature that can do anything you can imagine cannot be differentiated from a omnipotent creature. This is conceivable at least and inevitable to Singularitarians.
Thank you for your input. I believe it is almost inevitable that we will end up with some sort of being between your weak and Strong Clarke Gods. In fact, it may have already happened. It would be human arrogance to think we are the only sentient life in the universe. If another species exists other there with a shred bit more of logic and a shred bit less of violence, they would easily have surpassed humanity after only a few thousand years of existance. We sprung up about 60,000 years ago as a complete" species...and it has taken us this long to discover and start to unfold quantum physics. I would assume with just a slight tweak, another sentient group would have gotten to our point thousands of years sooner if we started our "race" at the same time. I do think that we will be able to tap into some sort of weak form of probabilistic determinism (our brains are very weak forms of that construct, already...depending on how you view it) in just a few decades at the most. So we should be able to create predictive AI. Not necessarily create God-like (capital G) AI that borders on omnipotence…but something that is beyond our biological minds to fully understand (like how you and I can understand each other with conversation, not comprehending…but understanding which I am trying but seemingly failing to distinguish).
But, yes, that was part of what I was talking about. We can adjust the definition of god to include things that make it to where we believe in that god..or at least believe it exists.
I would think that any being that comes into existence that can outlast true heat death, is automatically on par with God...capital G. When we reach that point, no matter the attributes, then God will exist, 100%, for me. Again, it may have happened already...I don't know.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, this is sort of what I mean. Just like you could with a theist, you should be able to move the bar/definition to create a situation where an athiest will say something like, "Okay, by that definition, yeah, I believe in god."
To be fair, I don't think rearranging a definition of God could get an atheist to say that if you're using anything resembling the Western monotheistic deity. Rearranging definitions might get some of them to "We don't actually know" which is an agnostic stance, not a theistic one.
If you're not using the Western monotheistic deity, and ARE using something that an atheist could say "yeah, I believe in God" with, then you're just watering down the term until it has no resemblance to how it is used in society.
Originally posted by Digi
If you're not using the Western monotheistic deity, and ARE using something that an atheist could say "yeah, I believe in God" with, then you're just watering down the term until it has no resemblance to how it is used in society.
My point is: these are just "labels" and pretty much any of us can see or say we would fit the "label" of the other "side". I think too much stock is put into identifying and then forcing the opinion on others. "Believers" are worse about this because there's just so many more of them.
I wish people would just relax. I also hope we progress enough beyond the need to even discuss God (hope He doesn't get mad...or maybe that was his goal all along).
Originally posted by dadudemon
My point is: these are just "labels" and pretty much any of us can see or say we would fit the "label" of the other "side". I think too much stock is put into identifying and then forcing the opinion on others. "Believers" are worse about this because there's just so many more of them.I wish people would just relax. I also hope we progress enough beyond the need to even discuss God (hope He doesn't get mad...or maybe that was his goal all along).
It's easy to dislike labels because they aren't a full description, and I agree to an extent, but they do have functional value in society. I wouldn't do away with them personally, because you can't tell everything about a person's beliefs with a label, but you can tell some things. Like saying "I'm in my 20's" instead of "I'm 22" (which I'm not, just an example). Both have truth, one's just more accurate than another.
Because again, if you alter the definition to the point than an atheist is actually a theist, you're obscuring the normal usage of the word God so entirely that it becomes pointless to use it at all. If you call God "the physical forces of the universe" and nothing else...no "extra" force behind the laws, just the laws themselves, then I am technically a theist. But then that also sacrifices descriptive value, because it's ignoring my beliefs on religion and confusing it with entirely different kinds of belief.
Relaxing is good. We have tendencies, biological and societal (memetic perhaps), to create false dichotomies out of a lot of situations, where no such polarization is needed. I doubt it will go away, politically or religiously. Unfortunate, but what can we do.
Originally posted by dadudemon
He might get wrathful with how much I'm blaspheming him, as of late.That...or just simply not be as nice to meh. (What if wrath was just the absence of God's hand in our lives and he never was wrathful, at all?)
An all knowing god would never get mad, because someone gets mad when things go wrong. Things go wrong when you can't predict the outcome, and if you are an all knowing god then you always know the outcome.