1
Forum Game Archive / Re: Corrupt A Wish 2.0
« on: November 24, 2010, 07:00:30 pm »
Granted, but he forgot all about after swiping your cookie.
Wish for Skynet for humans
Wish for Skynet for humans
Guest Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by a guest. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Forum Game Archive / Re: The ^ < v Game by Appawesome
« on: November 24, 2010, 06:58:40 pm »
^ is wrong about me liking Alice Pooper
< returned after several months of absence
v probably got stuffed by a turkey, just like a turkey
< returned after several months of absence
v probably got stuffed by a turkey, just like a turkey
3
Religion / Re: If you could ask God one question....
« on: November 24, 2010, 06:54:36 pm »
What took you so long to get here FSM? 
4
Religion / Re: Why don't you believe in God(s)?
« on: August 22, 2010, 12:09:57 am »
Born of Buddhist parents (one converted to catholic now), went to catholic school (for better facilities and education), disgusted with their hypocrisy (we had to memorized the entire bible in two languages, and then see the preachers not practice it), went with the Lutherans (whom I believe is probably the only branch of Christianity that I can say I can respect with a straight face) until I emigrated to Canada. From where I became agnostic (closer the atheist spectrum, as in, I don't believe in a God, but if there's a irrefutable evidence, I will review my position). And then shortly got into trouble in school with the son of "fanatical christian parents" (who claimed that he can do anything horrible he wanted cause God will forgive him), where the parents threatened violence (among other things, I still laugh when I remember them telling a kid -me- he's going to hell) and their minister had to get involved when the secretary called the police fearing for our safety. Then some sort of weird reverse-accidental conversion took place when we were debating (invited me and my friend's family for a debate in his church) and ended up with about a third of the church members renouncing their faith/no longer go to church.
I currently claim to be a FSM member to confuse any evangelist "visitors" as it keeps them away better than claiming to be agnostic (quite a few of them don't understand what it means). Speaking of which, happy Ramen-dan to fellow "members"
Just in case no one know what Lutherans are, it's basically christians that believe matters of God and Oneself is between them and does not need an intermediary (ie. church) and minimal guidance (the bible is a guide, with lessons to be learned and shared). Lutheran church tends to have low attendance with large memberships, but known to be the most accepting (even of other faiths) and most charitable regardless of circumstances (at least when I was a kid). AFAIK, the Scandinavians states are Lutheran (I could be wrong xD).
I currently claim to be a FSM member to confuse any evangelist "visitors" as it keeps them away better than claiming to be agnostic (quite a few of them don't understand what it means). Speaking of which, happy Ramen-dan to fellow "members"
Just in case no one know what Lutherans are, it's basically christians that believe matters of God and Oneself is between them and does not need an intermediary (ie. church) and minimal guidance (the bible is a guide, with lessons to be learned and shared). Lutheran church tends to have low attendance with large memberships, but known to be the most accepting (even of other faiths) and most charitable regardless of circumstances (at least when I was a kid). AFAIK, the Scandinavians states are Lutheran (I could be wrong xD).
5
Religion / Re: Is belief in Relgion dangerous?
« on: August 21, 2010, 11:36:39 pm »
It is neither dangerous nor helpful, as religion is merely a tool. As with all tools, it's only as *insert adjective* as the person(s) using it.
But historically speaking, this tool have been use excessively to produce negative results. I guess in modern time, it's still the same.
But historically speaking, this tool have been use excessively to produce negative results. I guess in modern time, it's still the same.
6
Religion / Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design
« on: August 21, 2010, 11:15:35 pm »Ok,Just a quick note, atmospheric oxygen were a lot higher then according to the latest research (otherwise creatures could not maintain their size without the necessary oxygen within their bloodstream to maintain their high metabolism to digest their food intake). This is theorized to be up to 70% at the extreme end (but 40% would be the average). Which caused a lot of wildfire (only need 10-12% atmospheric oxygen to start if I remember correctly), which likely caused the increase in biodiversity and the primary+secondary cause of die-offs. Our cutback in size can be attribute to that.
We shall call the mesozoic era the time of the super reptiles and super dinosaurs. It was warm, there was quite a bit of biodiversity, so it was ok to be big. Lots of animals were also big after all. You could eat those if you had to.
We make a big leap towards present times, just a couple a million years ago. Humans entered the scene, and wiped out the mammoths with some help of an ice age.
...
What is left is the life of today. Only few really large species remain and most are cut back to size. Still, new life evolved after all these extinctions, or life would have been completely wiped out by now!
That's it. Now account for the world using a global flood. Good luck. Remember to account for some extinctions/returns of life. When did the flood happen and what did it kill?
But, according to some ID groups, fossils can't be used as evidence since "they were made up to messed with our mind"
.@BP, the "articles" on that site is highly questionable (to put it politely), I have read better sci-fis and fictions >.<. That would explain why none of the articles has been peer-reviewed. I'm not saying peer-reviewed papers are always superior (there have been some scary exception, like in the medical journal, Lancet, for example), but at least it shows that the researchers are not afraid of scrutiny and can have a forum to advance their research even if their hypothesis is incorrect.
7
Religion / Re: Mathematics of the supernatural
« on: August 21, 2010, 10:54:38 pm »
I think the scientific community dropped the term "supernatural" a decade or so ago and went with the term "natural phenomena" (then again, there are various pockets of the community >.<). And natural/supernatural definition is just all over the place. Natural is the basic state of things (rules, laws, whatever) whereas super-natural (super can be roughly translated to "beyond" or "above") is
"not within the basic state". When we can accommodate "super-natural" events within the "natural" laws, the "super-natural" no longer remain so (I think this is where the misunderstanding occurred between the two of you).
But yes, science has to accommodate all new verifiable occurrence. Hence the search for the Unified theory 8)
Slightly off topic, I think Mathematics of the Supernatural (my translation could have been off) was a parody paper done on the Chaos Theory when it became mainstreamed enough to be discussed in the community without being laughed at.
"not within the basic state". When we can accommodate "super-natural" events within the "natural" laws, the "super-natural" no longer remain so (I think this is where the misunderstanding occurred between the two of you).
But yes, science has to accommodate all new verifiable occurrence. Hence the search for the Unified theory 8)
Slightly off topic, I think Mathematics of the Supernatural (my translation could have been off) was a parody paper done on the Chaos Theory when it became mainstreamed enough to be discussed in the community without being laughed at.
8
Religion / Re: Is the future Atheist?
« on: June 11, 2010, 12:12:29 am »
"On the other you have atheists/agnostics and others who are so embedded in the opposite conclusions that their examination of the church's claims would be almost a foregone conclusion."
^ This statement
I'm not extending your word since you CLEARLY states that they (inclusive of the "umbrella term" agnostic) "are so embedded" that they will oppose the church regardless of evidence.
"I paired the two ONLY in saying they are equally permeated by the conclusions drawn by the academic/scientific community"
"Agnostic" is an umbrella word used to define any person who believes about the existence of a deity simply "I don't know." Of course there are going to be myriads of different kinds of agnostics, but my statement was that very, very many of them have (apart from the question of "god") made their minds up about the conclusions drawn upon scientific evidence, at least to a point.
So wait, you are saying you are using a umbrella term (agnostic), combine it with a definite term (atheist) to present a claim where both party is the same. Then top it off that "very, very many of them have made their minds up about the conclusions drawn upon scientific evidence" based on personal experience ("very, very many" is "opinion", as you rightfully claim on my "probably" on the other thread)?
Right now, you are generalizing and trying to get away with it, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can derive from your statements
A. Agnostic == Atheist when it comes to science and proving the church wrong.
B. Agnostics will not support church claims
This might be what you call "extension" of your word, but you are using implicit language, how can someone NOT extend it? If you do not get my statement about shellfish, let me make you another one in structure similar to yours.
"China/South Korea and others who are so embedded in the opposite conclusions that their examination of US' claims would be almost a foregone conclusion." (ignorant statement, no?)
Upon your clarification, I tend to agree somewhat about Socrates, although you have to remember many of them did tried to proof the existence of god in an empirical fashion and combine the two.
and just for the heck of it
You are reading into my words more than I intended, I did not say which claim(s) the church was claiming, so you are implying that I "claim something about the church's claims", are you not extending my words? Please stop that. /sarcasm
@topic
Another reason future is going to be atheist is because the sciences and math will almost always be more prevalent than philosophy in education.
^ This statement
I'm not extending your word since you CLEARLY states that they (inclusive of the "umbrella term" agnostic) "are so embedded" that they will oppose the church regardless of evidence.
"I paired the two ONLY in saying they are equally permeated by the conclusions drawn by the academic/scientific community"
"Agnostic" is an umbrella word used to define any person who believes about the existence of a deity simply "I don't know." Of course there are going to be myriads of different kinds of agnostics, but my statement was that very, very many of them have (apart from the question of "god") made their minds up about the conclusions drawn upon scientific evidence, at least to a point.
So wait, you are saying you are using a umbrella term (agnostic), combine it with a definite term (atheist) to present a claim where both party is the same. Then top it off that "very, very many of them have made their minds up about the conclusions drawn upon scientific evidence" based on personal experience ("very, very many" is "opinion", as you rightfully claim on my "probably" on the other thread)?
Right now, you are generalizing and trying to get away with it, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can derive from your statements
A. Agnostic == Atheist when it comes to science and proving the church wrong.
B. Agnostics will not support church claims
This might be what you call "extension" of your word, but you are using implicit language, how can someone NOT extend it? If you do not get my statement about shellfish, let me make you another one in structure similar to yours.
"China/South Korea and others who are so embedded in the opposite conclusions that their examination of US' claims would be almost a foregone conclusion." (ignorant statement, no?)
Upon your clarification, I tend to agree somewhat about Socrates, although you have to remember many of them did tried to proof the existence of god in an empirical fashion and combine the two.
and just for the heck of it
You are reading into my words more than I intended, I did not say which claim(s) the church was claiming, so you are implying that I "claim something about the church's claims", are you not extending my words? Please stop that. /sarcasm
@topic
Another reason future is going to be atheist is because the sciences and math will almost always be more prevalent than philosophy in education.
9
Religion / Re: Is homosexuality a sin?
« on: June 10, 2010, 11:19:26 pm »
@johann
And "as usual", you attempt to go through said "library of books" when I'm referring to my chicken and egg question. This is either me not understanding you or vice versa, or just both ways. The BRAIN as you put it does not reflect social complexity as there are multiple competing theories, it (according to the most prevalent theory) affect cognitive, logic and time awareness (does not include reference to culture). The recent research on tradition in chimpanzees, mongoose and other mammals have reflected this (they have variable brain size as well), elephants show characteristics similar to mourning, but as no one can yet speak elephant, the result is up for debate. Various teams (I have no idea how Norwegians do research on bees so far up there
) are in the research phase for the insects (mainly bees, ants and beetles), hypothesis being that cultural identity is separate from biological factors (brains, or the lack of, included).
"Probably", change it to definitely, sects from various religions (Sikh, Christian, Islam and Judaism) declared "homosexuality is an act against nature". Some religion just doesn't care since it's already included in their other area of teaching (that does not consider it a "sin" independently).
As for your "nice" reply (is it sarcasm? no idea), there's still enough information regarding the Xi-ha for views from a Matriarch society (in short, male were slaves >.<), just not the other ones (until someone find a well preserve "silkroad post" anyways).
So sure, the males can try to swoon, better do it right too or you are getting a whipping. /sarcasm
@Seddy
I think we did get off topic a little, but it still does deal with homosexuality. My main tethers throughout are
"Homosexuality is not an act against nature" as apparent in nature and human history.
"Cultural pressure can override biological tendencies" which can be from something as to how to eat something to homosexuality (but what if biological tendencies can in effect produce cultural pressure? Which came first?).
Marriage is related to homosexuality, but I agree it's does not really matter since it only matters for the religious, so it's moot to continue with my line of reasoning.
@topic
Being vague on the question is not helpful. If religion A supports (or is indifferent about) homosexuality, but religion B consider it a sin. Who can say which religion is right? (word against word, god(s) against god(s)). If we are to specific which religion, it would be much easier (and easier to stay out of xD)
And "as usual", you attempt to go through said "library of books" when I'm referring to my chicken and egg question. This is either me not understanding you or vice versa, or just both ways. The BRAIN as you put it does not reflect social complexity as there are multiple competing theories, it (according to the most prevalent theory) affect cognitive, logic and time awareness (does not include reference to culture). The recent research on tradition in chimpanzees, mongoose and other mammals have reflected this (they have variable brain size as well), elephants show characteristics similar to mourning, but as no one can yet speak elephant, the result is up for debate. Various teams (I have no idea how Norwegians do research on bees so far up there
) are in the research phase for the insects (mainly bees, ants and beetles), hypothesis being that cultural identity is separate from biological factors (brains, or the lack of, included)."Probably", change it to definitely, sects from various religions (Sikh, Christian, Islam and Judaism) declared "homosexuality is an act against nature". Some religion just doesn't care since it's already included in their other area of teaching (that does not consider it a "sin" independently).
As for your "nice" reply (is it sarcasm? no idea), there's still enough information regarding the Xi-ha for views from a Matriarch society (in short, male were slaves >.<), just not the other ones (until someone find a well preserve "silkroad post" anyways).
So sure, the males can try to swoon, better do it right too or you are getting a whipping. /sarcasm
@Seddy
I think we did get off topic a little, but it still does deal with homosexuality. My main tethers throughout are
"Homosexuality is not an act against nature" as apparent in nature and human history.
"Cultural pressure can override biological tendencies" which can be from something as to how to eat something to homosexuality (but what if biological tendencies can in effect produce cultural pressure? Which came first?).
Marriage is related to homosexuality, but I agree it's does not really matter since it only matters for the religious, so it's moot to continue with my line of reasoning.
@topic
Being vague on the question is not helpful. If religion A supports (or is indifferent about) homosexuality, but religion B consider it a sin. Who can say which religion is right? (word against word, god(s) against god(s)). If we are to specific which religion, it would be much easier (and easier to stay out of xD)
10
League Archive / Re: Beginners League 2/2010
« on: June 10, 2010, 04:12:07 am »
falcobnane 2
vs
-Hopeless 0
vs
-Hopeless 0
11
Forum Game Archive / Re: Corrupt A Wish!
« on: June 10, 2010, 01:50:46 am »
Granted, but so can vicious cat-hating dogs.
I wish mites would go extinct
I wish mites would go extinct
12
Religion / Re: Is homosexuality a sin?
« on: June 10, 2010, 01:37:06 am »
"I am not sure what you're driving at with this, can you boil it down a little more? Almost looks like stream-of-consciousness. Remember that the brain is part of our biology, and it is our larger and more complex brain that is the root cause of the increased complexities and mysteries in our social structure compared to that of any other species. It's hardly chicken-and-egg, since you can have a species without a social structure (we would all be islands), but not a social structure without a species. Biology and society have built on one another since then, but we know which came first."
The assumption that other animals' social structure cannot be as complex (or more complex) than human is just that, assumption, research is underway on different animals - unfortunately, not enough has completed to be used. This assumption is based another assumption that "humans are special".
What I'm trying to say is the leave biology out of sociology, since you don't normally dive into "what subject A ate for breakfast" when someone talk about "A's action to kick that ball". We agree that traditions are the results of biology, but the ritual called "marriage" is a social behaviour which we can separate from biology (since your argument is based on biological desire). I'm saying, separate the two since biology no longer matters at "this" level. But your point keep insisting on biology.
I think I can understand where you misunderstood my chicken and egg question (since it kinda merge with me wanting to separate the biological and sociological part). So I will clarify.
did societal expectation create the need for "marriage" after completing the courtship ritual? (sociological phenomena based on societal pressure)
Or did marriage was merely come about as the evolution of the tradition of courtship rituals, as an add-on? (sociological phenomena based on "female biological desire")
And there are probably doctrines against about any form of homosexuality (there are enough denominations out there to ensure that, or do what my friend did and go up to a pastor and ask if gay dogs are okay to keep)
Also, the inclusion of animals is mainly because other poster(s) refer to homosexuality as "an act against nature". Hence inclusion of animal is necessary to debunk this point. The second quote was to answer directly to "Each animal is true to its own tendency, so your point is moot. The question isn't if other species show different trends, but what our species shows." I'm showing the trend from history, monogamy wasn't the majority (not sure if it IS majority). Further reinforcing the point of "not an act against nature".
I don't see how the two quotes contradict each other, please clarify. In both case, I'm referring to sociology. The first quote was to say that marriage should not be only be viewed as biological outgrowth for the sake of this topic (homosexuality), since it's more suited to be view in a cultural perspective. Second quote is well, I explained that in the previous paragraph.
The now "extinct" Xi-ha (and derivatives) tribe for one, there were others (Caspian regions had a few, along with the complete annihilated kingdom that compose most of India the regions west of it), but not enough recorded history to be usable to support my point.
The assumption that other animals' social structure cannot be as complex (or more complex) than human is just that, assumption, research is underway on different animals - unfortunately, not enough has completed to be used. This assumption is based another assumption that "humans are special".
What I'm trying to say is the leave biology out of sociology, since you don't normally dive into "what subject A ate for breakfast" when someone talk about "A's action to kick that ball". We agree that traditions are the results of biology, but the ritual called "marriage" is a social behaviour which we can separate from biology (since your argument is based on biological desire). I'm saying, separate the two since biology no longer matters at "this" level. But your point keep insisting on biology.
I think I can understand where you misunderstood my chicken and egg question (since it kinda merge with me wanting to separate the biological and sociological part). So I will clarify.
did societal expectation create the need for "marriage" after completing the courtship ritual? (sociological phenomena based on societal pressure)
Or did marriage was merely come about as the evolution of the tradition of courtship rituals, as an add-on? (sociological phenomena based on "female biological desire")
And there are probably doctrines against about any form of homosexuality (there are enough denominations out there to ensure that
, or do what my friend did and go up to a pastor and ask if gay dogs are okay to keep)Also, the inclusion of animals is mainly because other poster(s) refer to homosexuality as "an act against nature". Hence inclusion of animal is necessary to debunk this point. The second quote was to answer directly to "Each animal is true to its own tendency, so your point is moot. The question isn't if other species show different trends, but what our species shows." I'm showing the trend from history, monogamy wasn't the majority (not sure if it IS majority). Further reinforcing the point of "not an act against nature".
I don't see how the two quotes contradict each other, please clarify. In both case, I'm referring to sociology. The first quote was to say that marriage should not be only be viewed as biological outgrowth for the sake of this topic (homosexuality), since it's more suited to be view in a cultural perspective. Second quote is well, I explained that in the previous paragraph.
The now "extinct" Xi-ha (and derivatives) tribe for one, there were others (Caspian regions had a few, along with the complete annihilated kingdom that compose most of India the regions west of it), but not enough recorded history to be usable to support my point.