407 replies to this topic

[SquigPie]

Logic is the greatest enemy of freedom, logically, there can only be one correct answer to 2+2, and a single correct choice is anti-freedom. Freedom is to destroy the logical boundaries, break them down, freedom is to... well not to be a /b/-tard, but freedom is to do the impossible, see the invisible, to fight the power. Even if there is no hope of victory, fight it to have a purpose, we can never truly be free, since there always is logic, and we can never truly be logical, since there always will be freedom. Only when the ultimate symbol of logic (2+2) is broken down can we achieve true freedom. Only when 2+2 can give every freakin number can mankind truly be free. But that will never happen, I might tell myself to think so, but I can never truly believe.

Test completed?

[Golan]

SquigPie, on 8 Jun 2009, 10:35, said:

Logic is the greatest enemy of freedom, logically, there can only be one correct answer to 2+2, and a single correct choice is anti-freedom. Freedom is to destroy the logical boundaries, break them down, freedom is to... well not to be a /b/-tard, but freedom is to do the impossible, see the invisible, to fight the power. Even if there is no hope of victory, fight it to have a purpose, we can never truly be free, since there always is logic, and we can never truly be logical, since there always will be freedom. Only when the ultimate symbol of logic (2+2) is broken down can we achieve true freedom. Only when 2+2 can give every freakin number can mankind truly be free. But that will never happen, I might tell myself to think so, but I can never truly believe.

Naturally, we are always limited by reality. One might contest what reality actually is, but it will still limit us, no? Whether we know our limits or not doesn't hinder them from limiting us in not being limited by them. Like you will always have a non-zero chance to tunnel through a wall when you run into it, irregardless whether you ever heard about quantum mechanics or not. Denying the inherent rules of reality (which isn't equivalent to contesting them with a better description) doesn't result in more freedom as it cannot get rid of the limiting factors but has a high chance of creating even MORE limiting factors. Like denying that Train-driving-at-200mph+You-standing-in-its-way=unhealthy can limit your lifespan. Drastically.

SquigPie, on 8 Jun 2009, 10:35, said:

Test completed?

Zis is djust ze beginnin'! *dun-dunn-dun*

[SquigPie]

My post didn't try to tell us how to be free, it stated that we never can be truly free. Since, as you yourself stated, there will always be reality to hold us down.

[NOPE]

Lilith is what she considers to be fallibilist - it is a theory of knowledge rather than a religion, but Lil wasn't keen on putting herself in a category such as "atheist", as it's different.
Simply put, she believes that any information we may have about our world could possibly be false, and that we have know way of knowing anything for sure. She often wonders, for instance, whether her entire life is a dream, or if she's actually a being in an alternate dimension whose dreaming world consists of this.
Perhaps she is the only thing that exists, everything around her imagined or dreamed of.
Perhaps her every move is being influenced by someone or something else - a "god", if you will.
But she'll never know, will she? Everything she does know may be false.

[Ixonoclast]

I tagged Other out of protest. Atheism isn't an religion. Lack of belief isn't a belief, just like lack of oranges isn't an orange.

Otherwise I'd be eating oranges now.

[CodeCat]

Religion and belief aren't the same thing. Atheism is a belief, but it's not a religion; it is a belief characterised by the rejection of religion.

[Ixonoclast]

CodeCat, on 19 Jul 2009, 14:42, said:

Religion and belief aren't the same thing. Atheism is a belief, but it's not a religion; it is a belief characterised by the rejection of religion.

Same logic applies here.

Lack of belief isn't a belief.

It's a lack of belief. It's nothing, void, zero, negative.

[Dauth]

I am an atheist, I believe that we are the result of evolution, that the universe was formed in the big bang (which was neither big nor loud). I believe that the laws of science describe the world we live in and on. I do not need faith, I have no faith.

[Ixonoclast]

Dauth, on 19 Jul 2009, 15:50, said:

I am an atheist, I believe that we are the result of evolution, that the universe was formed in the big bang (which was neither big nor loud). I believe that the laws of science describe the world we live in and on. I do not need faith, I have no faith.

And what about the Blood God then?

Oh, shit! Time to go to church. WITH MY CHAINAXE! xD

[CodeCat]

Ixonoclast, on 19 Jul 2009, 16:47, said:

CodeCat, on 19 Jul 2009, 14:42, said:

Religion and belief aren't the same thing. Atheism is a belief, but it's not a religion; it is a belief characterised by the rejection of religion.

Same logic applies here.

Lack of belief isn't a belief.

It's a lack of belief. It's nothing, void, zero, negative.

But Atheism ISN'T a lack of belief. Lack of belief and trust that anything at all is true, is called 'Skepticism'. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods, so it is nonetheless a belief.

[TehKiller]

Ixonoclast, on 19 Jul 2009, 15:47, said:

CodeCat, on 19 Jul 2009, 14:42, said:

Religion and belief aren't the same thing. Atheism is a belief, but it's not a religion; it is a belief characterised by the rejection of religion.

Same logic applies here.

Lack of belief isn't a belief.

It's a lack of belief. It's nothing, void, zero, negative.

Atheism isnt lack of belief its negating the existence of a God hence still a belief system. Logic.

EDIT: Damn ninjas

Edited by TehKiller, 19 July 2009 - 15:12.

[Dauth]

Ixonoclast, on 19 Jul 2009, 16:02, said:

Dauth, on 19 Jul 2009, 15:50, said:

I am an atheist, I believe that we are the result of evolution, that the universe was formed in the big bang (which was neither big nor loud). I believe that the laws of science describe the world we live in and on. I do not need faith, I have no faith.

And what about the Blood God then?

Oh, shit! Time to go to church. WITH MY CHAINAXE! xD

I play as Chaos in Dow and have been known to spam Berzerkers before, however that's not the subject of this thread.

[SquigPie]

I see myself as a Squigist, I believe in Squigism, a sub-category of Christianity.

[Futschki]

Well I'm born Muslim since my dad is and my mom is christian. However I believe that what you believe in, is true, for you.
So if you believe in God, he exists for you and if you don't He doesn't.

As for my religion, well I don't think it's listed there because I'm non-religious but my way of thinking have some things in common sometimes, with Hinduism and Buddhism, and some other times with other religions ...

[deltaepsilon]

http://en.wikipedia....aghetti_Monster

[BeefJeRKy]

deltaepsilon, on 22 Jul 2009, 7:41, said:

http://en.wikipedia....aghetti_Monster

Can't you have made a better contribution than simply posting a link? You know summarize your personal view?

[deltaepsilon]

Scope, on 23 Jul 2009, 0:00, said:

deltaepsilon, on 22 Jul 2009, 7:41, said:

http://en.wikipedia....aghetti_Monster

Can't you have made a better contribution than simply posting a link? You know summarize your personal view?

Nope, I simply did it just to prove to Ion Cannon that I am indeed incapable of making productive/constructive posts.

In all seriousness though, I'd consider myself an Agnostic overall. I'm generally inclined towards Atheism, but I can't say I'd completely shut out Christianity, even though I don't practice it. I still would like to believe in some sort of afterlife, though reincarnation seems like a possibility too.

I was raised with a Buddhist background (I'm Asian - you heard it here first) though my family were never really active practitioners of it. I think they simply used Buddha's teachings as a convenient excuse to keep me in line.

[Ixonoclast]

deltaepsilon, on 24 Jul 2009, 8:29, said:

I think they simply used Buddha's teachings as a convenient excuse to keep me in line.

Welcome to the 1st foundation of religion.

The 2nd is a bit weirder. Copious amounts of psychedelic herbs. I'm dead serious. And so are anthropology scientists.

[BeefJeRKy]

deltaepsilon, on 24 Jul 2009, 10:29, said:

Scope, on 23 Jul 2009, 0:00, said:

deltaepsilon, on 22 Jul 2009, 7:41, said:

http://en.wikipedia....aghetti_Monster

Can't you have made a better contribution than simply posting a link? You know summarize your personal view?

Nope, I simply did it just to prove to Ion Cannon that I am indeed incapable of making productive/constructive posts.

In all seriousness though, I'd consider myself an Agnostic overall. I'm generally inclined towards Atheism, but I can't say I'd completely shut out Christianity, even though I don't practice it. I still would like to believe in some sort of afterlife, though reincarnation seems like a possibility too.

I was raised with a Buddhist background (I'm Asian - you heard it here first) though my family were never really active practitioners of it. I think they simply used Buddha's teachings as a convenient excuse to keep me in line.

I hope you can keep making posts like this

[D.K.]

As for me, I already said I'm Catholic. But...

I don't live by rules, and of 10 commandments I haven't crossed over only the 9th. I swear, I rarely go to the church on Sundays, and similar stuff. Yet, on a more important side, I cannot live without faith and hope. I believe that He has started the "Big Bang" and evolution of universe, and left signs of His will. People found them and started to worship His work. I also believe that God is still amongst us, but does not interfere with social and general processes.

I had a situation, since I go to the Catholic Gymnasium, when our priest/religions teacher asked us to express our view on our faith. I said that I support scientific theories in every single aspect concerning the evolution of world and man, so long science does NOT exclude the religious aspect out of it. Science gives answers to material questions pertaining our existence, whereas religion answers questions about our "human being".
On the other hand, I refuse to accept religious dogmas that straightforwardly deny human research, where I directly go against my religion. If whatever science finds is "against God", and science is branch of human work, why then that same Christian "authority" believes that man was made by God himself as his "picture" (I don't know much phrases from Bible on english). And then, God's will made manifest, as human being, is directly wrong for his way of understanding himself, therefore understanding the God is wrong? We have to cling to His will, yet we are not allowed to understand it? Now, that is one epic historical paradox.

I do not have to mention I almost got expelled from the school.

So my belief/religion (Not sure what is it now) is basically a Catholicism based on scientific humanistic theories, with semi-agnostic view on God's presence. But I had to press the Christian.

[Admiral Wesley]

I don't believe that anyone who is too religious would be on this forum.

I voted atheist, but then when I checked out the wikipedia article on Agnosticism, I was like "Oh Shit! That's me!"

I think that we need some solid proof first.

[CodeCat]

If you believe that we need proof that doesn't necessarily make you an agnostic. Whether you an atheist or an agnostic is only determined by how likely you think it is that gods exist. So if you are like me, and say 'I need to see proof, but I don't think we'll ever find any' then you are an atheist. If you say 'I need proof, but we'll probably find some some day' then you're an agnostic.

[Admiral Wesley]

The latter, I guess.

Anyone here a Satanist? Just Curious.

[Golan]

CodeCat, on 7 Aug 2009, 11:17, said:

If you believe that we need proof that doesn't necessarily make you an agnostic. Whether you an atheist or an agnostic is only determined by how likely you think it is that gods exist. So if you are like me, and say 'I need to see proof, but I don't think we'll ever find any' then you are an atheist. If you say 'I need proof, but we'll probably find some some day' then you're an agnostic.

That's actually not exactly true. Many an agnostic would say 'I need to see proof, but I don't think we'll ever find any' simply because he believes that the existence of God can neither be proven or disproven.
An atheist is not required to long for "proof" for the existence (or non-existence) of God, but simply to believe that God doesn't exist. An agnosticist is not required to disbelieve in God, but simply to disbelieve in the relevance of this question.

[The Wandering Jew]

General Wesley, on 8 Aug 2009, 2:16, said:

The latter, I guess.

Anyone here a Satanist? Just Curious.

Well, if I'm going to follow my context:

Satanist=Belief in evil

And all religious sects (not cult, mind you) may argue on the existence of One Supreme Being until the end of time, but one thing's for sure, those religions believe good over evil.


And I have a theory on religion: Religion was based on cultural inferences.