unreality

I sent in mine ;D

Ploper: lol @ the vid CP: Ah I see... I believe in the chaotic nature of the universe and our own part in it. I guess that's a 'belief structure' by that defintion, though it's not 'beliefs', more like... I don't know. I don't act the way I do based on blind faith, in other words... by what I know and what I can learn and see and feel, like all of us, except I do this unbiasedly, as I wasn't raised on either side of the scale (religious or atheist), and instead formed my own opinions which were later hardened and resolved... but they're not beliefs. They're like axioms, I guess. Facts about the universe, etc. I don't know... the rules we all live by, the ones we don't consciously learn until we take Physics class. So if all of that is a 'belief system', than an appreciation of our existence is mine Dusty: Yeah, if such a god or 'presence' exists, any current religion is way off mark. I respect your idea of a higher power, but do you have any insight into its nature? Is it some sort of conscious entity? An infinitely-permeated presence, kind of like an energy field, that affects everything? (like the Force lol). I mean, what kind of higher power are we talking here? The term is so vague. And of course the big question is 'Is it conscious?' and 'What is it made of? / How does it work? / etc'

I firmly believe that there is no God as well, but it's impossible to know FOR SURE in our direction, while it is possible to know for sure in the other direction if there's any empirical evidence (there isn't) One thing that I think, is that if there was a god, everyone would know. It wouldn't be disputable, it wouldn't be a cause of fighting or war, it wouldn't be a minority opinion (each religion is a minority of the total), it would be kind of like a fact. At least, a mystical truth backed by real-world evidence. The world would be vastly different than it is today. But then of course what is the god? What are they like, what's their mind made of, are they part of a higher-layered universe? The existence of a god brings up so many unanswered problems that are conveniently ignored on the premise of "He is Omnipotent and Omnibeneficial" or something lol, and leave it at that anyway, anyone have some answers for my post #7?

As an atheist, one thing I can't wrap my head around are laws of physics/chemistry/etc, specifically the numerical constants in them. Why? Why is it this way? Are humans BSing this, and would be a different way in relation to different units if we used different units, number systems, etc? I know that everything is relative to each other and not constant-numerical, so I can see how relative relationships between things grew, but not how exact numbers are assigned. Of course, this doesn't add plausibility to the god-hypothesis, because on top of the "why" questions of nature there are also "why" questions about the nature of the deity and how THAT works without being an emergent system of a physical structure, etc. So it doesn't change what I believe, but it does irk me and my boundless curiosity ;D

hmmm, maybe it's the title "War Club!!!" and the angry-face topic icon ;D hehe

awesome vimil! though if we're still sticking to the OP, what about "start" and "end"? Nobody's program has replicated those yet, and if they're required on the first and they're required on the copies, right? I have a hunch that it's impossible to include those two lines, or any other lines (ie, the actual virus part of a virus), though I could be wrong if we can make up our own functions, how about printline(n), where n is the program line? 1: start 2: for x = 1 to 5 3: printline(x) 4: next x 5: end hehe ;D

naturalism: http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/descriptions.htm I have to say I disagree with some of their principles. Obviously everything is effected by the previous state of things and affects the subsequent state of things, but Naturalism seems pretty deterministic to me, seemingly ignoring discoveries in quantum physics, Heinberg's uncertainty principle, etc - that shows us that stuff is probabilistic not deterministic, so if something 'rewound' and happened again, it could be different. Right, or am I misunderstanding the physics? Though I do like the part about "being one with the universe", since we do make up the universe too, though one statement bugs me: "Seeing that we are fully caused creatures - not self-caused - we can no longer take or assign ultimate credit or blame for what we do." This seems like kind of a scapegoat to me, lol. "Blame the universe, not me! I was caused!" Not delving into free will, but we do seem capable of making decisions in our minds - our thoughts are made up of chemical and neurological reactions and whatnot, so in a way you could say we're just the self-awareness created by the emergent system, but this still gives us control over the thought processes - or at least apparent control. Whether or not "previous causes" made you think that way, it still means you think that way.... hmm, I'm not sure if anyone is gonna get this, it's kind of jarbled, but you know what I mean, hopefully, lol

but the Cultists can be cancelled out by the Masons if the Mason Leader picks a Cultist at night or if the Cult Leader dies in a lynching, duh ;D

good add, dusty ;D * Atheism or Agnosticism? How "sure" can you be? * Naturalism vs Humanism vs Others? * Takes on the origin of the universe, if any such origin * Buddhism and Atheism * collective intelligence * positives and negatives of religion * non-religious spiritualism CP: exactly, most atheists are pretty confident there is no god, and know if that there is a god, it wouldn't be one of the many proposed gods seen in today's religons. Agnostics are more on the "not-sure" side, though as AD Parker says there are two kinds of agnostics: * Agnostic Agnostic - just unsure about whether or not there is a god * Gnostic Agnostic - do not know whether there is a god and believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know whether a god exists or not on the topic of Humanism and stuff, here are some interesting links http://www.secularhumanism.org/ http://www.geocities.com/rodtamney/humanists.html In the second link, it says this, with my comments in blue/red: Ten Core Beliefs of Humanists 1. Humanists believe that the human species has evolved as - and remains as - a part of nature. Agree. Of course - we are just a species ;D 2. Human consciousness is a function of the activity of the human brain. Definitely 3. Human beings require (to some extent) a system of belief in order to function. Disagree - I don't have a system of belief and I get along fine 4. Humanists believe that in all its forms the supernatural is a myth. Yep 5. The human species is capable of achieving a great deal using its resources of collaboration and creativity. The results of these endeavours often benefit our species and planet, but we are also capable of using the same abilities in acts of destruction and cruelty. Pretty obvious, yeah; Agreed 6. Humanists do not believe that the range of human behaviour has been pre-ordained, or that the rules of human conduct have been set by any deity of external intelligence. Agree 100% ;D 7. Humanists believe that individuals who are aware of the consequences of their actions on other individuals, on the community and on the species are likely to behave in a more considerate, more reasonable and more ethical way. Yes 8. Humanists believe that equality of opportunity is a fundamental principle on which humankind can base its behaviour. Maybe not, I'm kind of in the middle on this one. I think "equal opportunity" is a bit of dream and also has bad things at its roots - ie, life is not fair and nor would that be a good thing. So it depends how they define "equality of opportunity" and in what cases, I guess 9. Humanists believe that human life on earth is relatively fragile and requires care and attention to continue. Possibly, possibly not. I don't think "fragile" is the right word though, maybe "overly strong", "arrogant" (not individual-wise but species-wise) and "inconsiderate", ie of our other species that share the earth. 10. Humankind's destiny is not predetermined or preordained - much of it lies on our own control. Of coure later (not sure when) I'll look up some stuff on naturalism edit: Frost, I agree. Atheism is the way to go

You know nothing about me; I've read almost the entire OT (not much of the NT however)!!!! And I agree with you - this God did protect one single race from other races... Why?? Why aren't they all of the same importance? What makes the Israelites more important? Why can't they all be important? edit: the other tribes have lives, and feelings, too. They have families and emotions and desires

This is for us Brainden atheists to discuss... stuff ;D And I mean it when I say that we don't want a theist coming on here, making remarks, etc. This discussion is only for people who would stand up and proudly call themselves an Atheist or Agnostic or similar philosophy. If any theist comes on her saying stuff I'll ask to have their posts deleted (not ALL their posts of course, I meant the ones in this topic ) Anyway... some of the stuff I was interested in discussing with you guys is: * Atheism or Agnosticism? How "sure" can you be? * Naturalism vs Humanism vs Others? * Takes on the origin of the universe, if any such origin * Buddhism and Atheism * collective intelligence * positives and negatives of religion * anything else we want to discuss

nobody does PG: Whoa - all I said is that religion needs to go for there to be world peace! Where did you pull that other stuff from? I see how you associated "evil" with "calling for war" from my words, but I didn't mean them as a consequence of the other, ie, your god would be both of those, separately. Like I've said multiple times, I believe necessary war is necessary, not so for unnecessary war. It seems like you snapped and went all pity-card on me, when I didn't imply any of the stuff you said... NM_EJL: so if this god exists, why am I judging him/her/it/them? But I see your point... slaughter and sacrifice must be an okay thing to do then!!!! lol Enough of this religious discussion please, it's not getting us anywhere. And PG is starting to flip out or something...

did you hear of the corruption scandal she was involved in? Though she is hot so that cancels it out lol jk PG: Just clearing up a point, I was speaking hypothetically. I can tell from your cyber-smug tone that you think you beat me somehow because I talked about your chosen personalized deity as if they were real (which they aren't), but I assure you it was hypothetical. I was showing that "if the Bible tells the truth, then your god is not a good one, and calls for war", but anyway, all that is a moot point since I think everyone in this topic now agrees that religion needs to go for world peace to happen

tempting, but sorry I gotta pass I won't have the time

I've read enough to know the kinds of acts they commit in God's name, whether God is actually involved or not. In many cases God is indeed involved. cya Hehe who has the last word now? Bwahahahaha!!! Muahahahahaha!!!! ;D hehe. Back to war discussion

I've analyzed the Mimic role in M4F14, and as me and Frost (and probably others) warned, it was a failure, IMO. The Mimic cannot possibly win unless an extremely lucky event occurs for each kill. AND they have to kill the right person the next night too! * Mafia - impossible unless it's X of Mafia, 1 M4F14, X other independents, and exactly 1 Innocent, which the Mimic must know the identity of. Basically the Mimic can't live long enough anyway or get lucky enough to carry out the one chance they would have to win with the Mafia, and then they have to kill a Mafioso the night before too and hope the Innocent is still alive the next night. Basically, the Mimic winning with the Mafia's objective is impossible * GR - if the Mimic kills the GR, they cannot possibly kill both the Defender and Ninja in the same night. Therefore, if they end up killing the GR, they better hope that the Defender is already dead but the Ninja is alive. What are the chances? What are the chances of happening to kill the GR at the perfect moment and then have the Def dead but Ninja live until the Mimic can kill them? * QA - the Mimic would have to kill the Phoenix after killing a QA - one of the only possible ways to win, but this still is hard enough as it is to know a QA and know a Phoenix... and in M4F14 there was a "Phoenix protector" role which protected the Phoenix against QAs only, which Ysan ruled as also applying to the Mimic if the Mimic killed a QA and "mimicked them". This was a good call by Ysan, as it follows the Mimic's rules IMO, however the Mimic's rules are already skewed enough - it just turns the QA situation into the GR situation, except with Phoenix-Protector and Phoenix instead of Defender and Ninja * Furthermore - saving roles, lynchings the next day, other factions killing, etc - all of these lower the Mimic's chances of success to a much lower value * Conclusion - the Mimic is based on scant chances (we're talking 1% chances here, or lower ) and seems to be impossible unless you get extremely lucky and certain events happen in certain orders, ie, the Mimic's success is out of their own hands. The best they can do is try to learn roles and plan a strike, but they have no way of gathering information, and it's tough enough to discern roles and try to help the unluckiness of the role. I know this is your baby Ysan, but it needs work No offense or anything, I really like the general concept, but tweaking is required This isn't meant to be demeaning toward Ysan, LIS, or their M4F14 game, which I'm sure is a great game, but it's a specific analysis of the Mimic role, which is a great concept IMO (see the last sentence of the 'Conclusion' bullet point ;D) but needs work ~ from unreality

IMO, both were legit excuses. They weren't "excuses". 'Excuse' implies that it's covering for an ulterior reason. I think "Reason" is the word he searched for. Squirrels bit through her LAN cable - if she was telling the truth, it was a reason, not an excuse. TC was banned from BD - this was his reason for not playing. Derr ;D hehe

I iz a 16 ;D lol Joe's Student: Iraq, Afghanistan... and now Pakistan! yikes! Did you see the news? PG: the point is that the Bible, especially the OT, essentially condones wars... but, oh wait! Quoting your own exact words, it's against unjust people! Against "sinners"! Against people with other religions, or of other kingdoms. Against people that don't believe in that particular magical sky fairy. So that makes it okay, right????? God says "Okay, the <insert tribe here> doesn't worship me, so let's go Israelites! Let's go kick some @ss and kill their men and rape their woman and burn their cities down!" And if your OT is accurate, they do that, and God is pleased. According to the OT, all of god's enemies are met with often cruel ends. So this isn't off-topic at all, it's very much related to war, since the Bible calls for the killing of homosexuals, etc. Do you follow that particular rule (ie, kill gay people), or choose to ignore it, PG? You ignore it, right? Exactly! Because you follow a different moral compass than the Bible. You know that war is wrong, rightfully, especially unncessary war, though your holy book may say differently, you pass it off as a metaphor or whatever So NOW we can drop all the religion-conflict stuff, since we've arrived at the point where we agree that WAR WILL HAPPEN, AND IS A PART OF NATURE, BUT UNNECESSARY CONFLICT IS BAD So we're seeing eye-to-eye now PG, so please don't reply back to this or I'll have to re-reply to that, and it will continue ;D We are on the same page now I think, so we can drop this edit @ NM_EJL: I agree, and I would consider WWII a necessary war. A necessary conflict. Though I'm sure specific events, battles, decisions, etc, within the war weren't necessary and only negative for both sides, the overall concept was necessary

I'm stumped, and not so sure that this is possible without some sort of infinite loop ;D

How about, laying down and resting your head on a scale?????? lol

Oh I know - we both agree "There will be wars", it's a given. I was just pointing out that there already has been wars, and thus that has been 'fulfilled' and there isn't any war slot to fill anymore by your Biblical call that wars will happen, is what I was getting at it. It really doesn't matter, I was debating a minor point I agree that there will be more wars in the future exactly! we're definitely speaking about the same OT the OT god is evil check this out too Definitely, religion is used as an excuse. But also, more often than you'd like to admit, as a reason in itself. ;D

welcome Kat, Rilili and Blade

and it has happened. War has indeed happened. As your Bible predicted (lol, anyone can make that prediction, btw, especially since by the time the people that wrote many parts of the Bible were writing it, countless wars had already happened), there will be war. And there was war! Many wars! Since that "prophecy" ( ) has already been fulfilled, why do we need MORE wars? We don't, and we definitely don't need wars just because your deity of choice says we do ;D I wasn't saying you were like that, I said that some people do in fact believe that a nuclear war will bring about Jesus' return lol so is Buddha. Oh and Allah. They all claim to be, but very few gods actually stand up to a statement like that. One quick read of the Old Testament shows you that this just isn't the case, especially for Yahweh. Face it Puzzlegirl, war is a big factor of religion. And still is today. For the amount of war to decrease, people need to come to terms with people of differing religions... more on topic, I believe that world peace is technically possible, but very hard to achieve, because of human and animal nature. Conflict is a necessary part of survival. HOWEVER, unnecessary confict is not!!! We must do all we can to promote peace where there is unnecessary conflict

I'm a relatively peaceful person, just cuz there is a disagreement does not mean there is a war. Two people may disagree over their favorite movie... does that mean a war will erupt? lol

I agree about how conflict is necessary in nature But to accept war because of "what God said" in the Bible is ludicrous... it's one step closer to those people that want a nuclear holocaust so that it will be the apocalypse and thus Jesus will return But it is true that conflict is part of nature, however by promoting peace we mean to reduce the unnecessary conflicts