unreality

because I'm interested in what made you change your mind (assuming you weren't religious before?)

yes! more than you know

if you'd feel more comfortable you can PM it to me or something. But most people here on Brainden are respectful of others' personal stories even if it led the person to conclusions we may not have made I as an atheist understand and accept that people go through experiences that convince them (probably falsely, but again, no way to be sure) of the existence of 1 or more gods

I hope your faith isn't so weak that you're searching the internet to find reasons to believe in god Cmon, why do you really believe? Why did you start believing in the first place? Were you raised into a religious family? edit: oh if it's a personal story then i'd very much like to hear it

Oh I absolutely realize that. I was just stepping in to show that the facts can be interpreted in two different ways, both equally valid, hence such facts are not sufficient to prove either way. The idea was to get you to stop posting these things about how everything seems fine-tuned. Just like how earlier I posted about how the creation and complexity arguments cannot prove anything either way either and are both equally valid in two different directions (actually those are in favor of the atheistic side but I won't get into that because you wouldn't believe me, and still aren't 100% proof of atheism either though). My point is that these are NOT the reasons you believe because I see them and marvel at the awesomeness of the universe and reason and logic and you see them and marvel at God. Therefore what I'm trying to say is please stop posting these facts because I can post the same facts too to support me. In other words they are not the true reason either of us lean the way we lean. So get down to it: they only "make my belief stronger" as you say because you already have the bias. So humor me. See the quote above? Why did you "start believing in God and His Son"? Were you raised into a religious family?

here are some more facts for you: * there are certain constants of physics (N, epsilon, omega, lambda, Q, D (according to Martin Rees) but "The standard model of particle physics has about 26 freely adjustable parameters. ") that, if they were slightly different, would not even allow basic chemistry to exist (let alone organic chemistry that powers the carbon-based life we have here on Earth) * the earth is in the "goldilocks zone", aka a zone perfect for life - at the right temperature for all the ingredients necessary for life on earth to exist * " If the universe were one tenth as old as its present age, there would not have been sufficient time to build up appreciable levels of metallicity (levels of elements besides hydrogen and helium) especially carbon, by nucleosynthesis. Small rocky planets did not yet exist. If the universe were 10 times older than it actually is, most stars would be too old to remain on the main sequence and would have turned into white dwarfs, aside from the dimmest red dwarfs, and stable planetary systems would have already come to an end." * "The observed values of the dimensionless physical constants (such as the fine-structure constant) governing the four fundamental interactions are balanced as if fine-tuned to permit the formation of commonly found matter and subsequently the emergence of life. A slight increase in the strong nuclear force would bind the dineutron and the diproton, and nuclear fusion would have converted all hydrogen in the early universe to helium. Water and the long-lived stable stars essential for the emergence of life would not exist. More generally, small changes in the relative strengths of the four fundamental interactions can greatly affect the universe's age, structure, and capacity for life." * However, many of the fundamental constants describe the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons which seem to play little part in the universe or the structure of matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe * "Carter) WAP = “We must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers.” (Carter) SAP = “The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. To paraphrase Descartes, cogito ergo mundus talis est. [i think, therefore the world is such as it is.]”" (http://machineslikeus.com/news/anthropic-principle) ~~~~~~~~~ hambone, we could go on all day and list facts about how the universe seems fine-tuned to support life. The problems is we interpret these same facts differently. Read this again: * the earth is in the "goldilocks zone", aka a zone perfect for life - at the right temperature for all the ingredients necessary for life on earth to exist Don't you see the anthropic principle here? The necessary conditions are perfect on Earth for life... so, no surprise, there's life on Earth. Say that the odds are 1 to a bazillion that the conditions would be so perfect to support life let alone advanced thinking creatures like Homo Sapiens. Therefore about 1 in a bazillion planets will have thinking creatures like homo sapiens. All other planets won't so nobody will be there to think about how likely it was that they didn't exist. Everyone on a planet with life will think "huh WHAT ARE THE ODDS" like you are doing. For example, say you get randomly assigned a number between 1 and a billion. You get assigned 438164. You immediately shout: "WHOA! WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT I WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE NUMBER 438164?" Someone replies: "1 in a BILLION!" You shout back: "NO WAY! HOW UNLIKELY! THE UNIVERSE/NUMBERCONTEST MUST HAVE BEEN FINE TUNED TO GIVE ME THE NUMBER 438164!" Of course maybe it was such fine-tuned. The point is that it's impossible to know. There could be millions of independent dimensionless physics constants and all of them are spot on to lead to life as it is. There's no way to know whether it happened by random chance and we are only thinking about it because it happened (in other words, obviously everything is perfect at this moment of spacetime because otherwise we wouldn't be alive to think about it) because there is some mulitude of universes and in 999999999999....99999 out of a bazillion of them, there is no life nor even basic chemistry, therefore nobody in them to think, with the occasional 1 out a bazillion universe in which the people are alive to think about how well it turned out for them. Another possibility is that life arises out of complex systems no matter initial constants, it's just the form of life that changes. For example non-carbon non-water based life forms, etc. So the more facts you list about how perfect the universe seems for life (our type of life that arose BECAUSE of those random 'perfections') you're digging a hole deeper and deeper. You need to realize that the facts you are using fit perfectly into my own conception of the universe. Without faith, but reason. My own mind plus my experiences and consistent senses of the world

klose will return Friday Joe's Student will return Saturday MissKitten will return Sunday should we wait until then or possibly put our backups (zerep & onetruth) to early use?

you will have more information when the game actually starts lol. By the way I'm leaving friday morning for a couple days

and deists don't "reject" holy books, they just consider them human-made interpretations, not god-written tomes. That doesn't mean you can't whip out the Kama Sutra or the Tripitaka or the Old Testament now and again

I would say you are almost definitely a deist, if you subtract the non-interventionalism. Deists say that the "greatest miracle is that there are no miracles", ie, some creator set in motion the beginning of the universe and then (metaphorically) 'sat back and watched' on a grand universal scale, where humans are just evolved animals on a tiny planet. I also think there's a lot of wisdom (but also a lot of misdirection) to the NT, and I think Jesus was a real person, but I don't think he's the son of god and I don't think you can either without threatening otehr beliefs you said you have (ie you believed that physics explained it and that there were no "super"natural miracles per se). But I think you could still incorporate that in and be a Deist with slight "interventionist" leanings, as far as coming to earth in the form of Jesus goes.

sweet! Hosts: Unreality & Frost 1) Filly 2) Golfjunkie 3) Framm 4) Molly Mae 5) Blablah 6) Izzy 7) yuiop 8) MissKitten 9) JarZe (unconfirmed) 10) Klose 11) JS 12) Kat 13) GMaster479 14) dawh 15) nashville 1998 Backups: 1) Zerep 2) onetruth I actually will be gone myself friday and saturday, but we have two hosts so it should be fine

we cannot just put this aside and move to a new topic - clearly there is a fundamental difference in the idea of what a government should be. Use the Force is essentially an anarchist while the rest of you are essentially scattered along the spectrums of what you want out of a government. There is a fundamental separation there that can't be breached.

(1) I think I might be a libertarian socialist (2) I think Use the Force puts too much (almost objectivistic) stake in the value of money, probably above even the value of lives The truth is that most people don't want to pay their taxes, at least how they are exorbitantly. That's why my philosophy is to cut that as much as possible (again see my post a while back about minimalizing the government and laws as much as possible) but still taxes are necessary for some things that collectively we need but individually we may not think to support. But I agree that we shouldn't use force to take someone's money from them if they are unhappy about their money going back into the government and its programs - these people can leave if they'd like, if another country accepts them. That doesn't mean they can steal land from the USA or from their neighbors to start their own fractured countries though. I mean they can leave to a country that owns its own land and has a government with rules that person likes better and that accept said person. Personally I want to leave the USA. I want to live in Europe. I agree with the laws there more. Yes many EU nations have high taxes, but they really turn them around and put the money to good use. And they are more socially liberal (libertarian/freedom) in other areas. So when/if I get a chance, my goal is to potentially leave. It of course depends on where I can get a job but the point is that we do have the freedom to not pay taxes if we don't agree with the laws of the US - we can leave. Your system already exists, to an extent - there are many countries all over the world. Some are in states of anarchy, others are highly structured. It's all a tradeoff of Freedoms and Government Assistance/Infrastructure. You have to find the balance that works for you

yeah earlier I think izzy recommended scrabble rules (english, no proper nouns, etc). But anyway points are: unreality +10 (S, Y) t8t8t8 +5 (K) PVRoot +15 (R, L, finished word) blahblah99 +28 (if I counted right) Unreality - 274 Izzy - 212 t8t8t8 - 163 Framm - 157 Plainglazed - 109 Glycereine - 73 Dawh - 66 blahblah99 - 28 woon - 20 Abhisk - 20 PVRoot - 15 Prince Marth - 15 DudleyDude - 15 yuiop - 5 PVRoot do you want to take the next one?

second letter is Y (which we knew already because otherwise all would be consonants except first, but anyway) the logic is that C is taken by CROSS, TS taken by already-claimed SK, and middle S taken by GASSY

are you sure that all of the words have been graded correctly so far? (ie, DEISM is the main one i'm looking at)

MURDER MYSTERY II: The Shifting Sands of Shyzoth In ancient times the desert city of Shyzoth was a shining jewel, an oasis of prosperity amid the bronze and white crystalline sands of the vast desert. A thousand years before it was the seat of the greatest and largest empire of this planet, an empire spanning multiple continents. Now the empire has long since fallen into disarray, a multitude of competing city-states. Of these regions, however, Shyzoth is perhaps the oldest and most powerful. It is a city webbed by canals, aqueducts and irrigation systems where water == life in such a harsh location. Its buildings are ancient and sandy and majestic, topped with colorful minarets and the dominant religion, Hanshin, supplies many towers as Pinnacles reaching toward the exalted land in the sky. The city is also a city of intrigue. A shady organization known as Tal'vrak runs the underground. Black markets thrive using secret signs and smoke symbols, integrated into the bustling street markets. Amid the trading of ancient empire artifacts and array of useful items is the trading of illegal weapons, drugs (Shyzoth is the capital of the world for an addicting desert flower called psyflora) and even slaves. There are certain streets that even the stalwart City Enforcers hesitate to visit. Streets that you can go to hire dark-robed monk assassins and slimy cutthroats, but only if you accept the risk of dying in the process. The politics of Shyzoth are as complex and twisting as its high-walled streets and network of dusty canals. A figure known as the Mazoth rules the city as sort of a mayor, but the Mazoth does not have absolute control, far from it. The Mazoth must answer to his puppet masters, the Shyzoth Chancellors, a group of 5 ex-Mazoths that supposedly have lots of wisdom and charisma but really just have pockets full of gifts and bribes from various organizations, companies and individuals. Many potential Mazoths run for office on the idea of bringing justice and accountability to the halls of leadership, but they have to balance this initial desire with the possible future of becoming a Chancellor themselves after their 5 year term is up. It's a public election to be a Mazoth but when a Chancellor dies, the remaining Chancellors hold a private meeting to choose the replacement from ex-Mazoths, hence all the @ss-kissing that goes on. That's not all though. It is often said that Shyzoth has two different avenues of leadership. After the empire fell due to its connection to a violent religion called Zamoa (which is now outlawed everywhere and hated and feared), all city-states are ideally supposed to be secular. However the religion Hanshin, which has been around for a very long time as the religion of the desert nomads, has taken root in Shyzoth in the past few hundred years and come to dominate the spiritual scene. The church is led by women only and the position of Theocrata goes to the most esteemed of these women. It is a position of dictatorship and extreme fundamentalism. Hanshin is a religion that attempts to integrate itself with every possible aspect of daily life and make its presence known. Now that we have some background, let's introduce the scenario. A small number of people have gathered in a public square to hear the speech of a man known as Cabuul. Cabuul entered the city a couple weeks ago with a small troupe of followers, admirers and "disciples" that he collects in his wanderings. Many different types of people come to these kind of speeches. Many have crazy theories about codes within what he speaks. He has called himself a Martyr for Truth even though he was still alive. He's an enigma and a troublemaker. Medical personalities have diagnosed him with mild schizophrenia and extreme narcissism. Social personalities have described his voice as fluid and delicious and captivating. Now he's dead. More details to come later, but basically the City Enforcers have quarantined off the square and everyone that was listening to Cabuul's speech for one reason or another must remain inside until the killer has been brought to justice. However city law states that a quarantine can only be under effect for a certain time limit. If the killer has not been arrested by < *** >, the quarantine lifts and everyone can go home - including the killer, and this will become a cold case. (There are no intermediate "hours" or anything like that, it's a straight shot). Now the City Enforcers have supplied two of their best people to be the official handlers of the case, and unlike the two the detectives from the previous MM, the City Enforcers have actual authority here. They can make arrests and prevent BTSC with the arrested person while they question them under influence of truth serums. However after the third (or maybe fourth?) false arrest they will be taken off the case and then the killer can only be caught my a majority vote citizen's arrest. Ordinary citizens cannot make arrests or accusations on their own, they must present their case to the City Enforcers who have agreed to hear out any cases reasonably before deciding to arrest. If the arrest was correct, the credit will go to the citizen that suggested it (or to the City Enforcers if they did it of their own volition). There are also other things that need figuring out. There will be a list of questions that citizens want to find the answers to in addition to snooping out the killer. There are more crimes than just murder. If the citizens deliver correct answers to the City Enforcers they will be rewarded; punished for wrong answers. Also the killer may or may not have a secret agenda in progress during the events. All of the characters will have more personality and more secret information than last time and the events around the murder will be more fleshed out… it's a good idea to not give away all your info at once though, not if you want to survive and possibly win. There will be multiple layers of intrigue. There will also be "items", tangible objects (possibly evidence-related) that can change hands and be used to provide various information, abilities, etc. Don't let yourself be covered by the shifting sands of Shyzoth… Public Knowledge: > not having a list of "questions" to answer > an arrest involves the City Enforcers arresting a specific person for a specific crime. The truth serum is good for 1 question - to determine if they did that specific crime or not. Then the enforcers can hold that person in individual quarantine (no BTSC except with the enforcers) as long as they want, but only one person can be arrested at a time > 3 incorrect arrests before it becomes a situation of majority voting. We'll explain that if/when it comes to it > list of people in the square: (with some personality traits in brackets) Businessman [hotheaded, big ego, likes to get in scuffles] Disciple [always getting caught up on/fascinated by tiny details] Chancellor [prudish and germophobic] Hot Dog Vendor Dude [outgoing, people person] Hobo/Beggar [sloppy, sometimes drunk] Hanshin Priestess (Identical Twin Sister to Scientist) [devoutly religious] Outsider [foreign accent] City Enforcer I [aggressive] City Enforcer II [obsessed with the law, nitpicky] Man Eating Sandwich [talks with a full mouth; observant though] Coroner [nervous wreck] Well-Known Tal'Vrak Mob Boss [mob boss attitude] Hippie [hippyish] Pregnant Animal Trainer Lady [good at manipulating men] Scientist (Identical Twin Sister to Hanshin Priestess) [intellectual] when you claim a role, also give him/her a name! And of course you always act as your role would, and always remain in character on the thread and in game-related PMs Hosts: Unreality & Frost 1) Filly 2) Golfjunkie 3) Framm 4) Molly Mae 5) Blablah 6) Izzy 7) yuiop 8) MissKitten 9) JarZe (unconfirmed) 10) Klose 11) JS 12) Kat 13) GMaster479 14) dawh 15) nashville 1998

you have fallen directly into the paradox I just talked about. I'm not trying to change your mind just open it a little bit so follow this very carefully: (1) in terms of complexity, the Universe is very complex. But God is even more complex (infinitely so perhaps?) (2) you argue that the Universe is too complex to "just exist" (3) you argue that God "just exists" PARADOX. No matter how you look at it. If the universe warrants creation (it doesn't) then so does god. You can't escape. The only thing you can do is concede that god just somehow "just exists". Allowing also the possibility for the universe (a simpler thing than god) to also "just exist", an altogether simpler conclusion. So no matter what you cannot rationally say that God can just exist and the Universe _must_ have been created. The strongest position you can hold with your beliefs is that God just is and the universe just as easily is. Any argument against the continual existence and/or initial existence of the Universe can be applied in a stronger manner to a god or any other entity that is a level above the universe in complexity. In other words you have to accept one of three conclusions: (1) god is simpler than the universe, life, etc. (2) the universe cannot 'just be', it requires creation by something (god) which thus also requires creation, etc. an infinite ladder (3) god 'just is' OR the universe 'just is', both entirely plausible edit: the above is how far logic can take us. Assuming we both agree on point #3, the rest of the way is all faith. For different reasons we choose different forks of #3. In other words arguing about the creation/initial existence of universe and/or god can only lead to the conclusions above hence i just have proved it's not worth arguing about because it leads to a fork in faith. Therefore problems of creation/genesis are not enough to cause one to believe or not believe. They are not the source of argument here. Arguing EITHER DIRECTION will end up in a trap (unless one uses occam's razor with point #3 toward the agnostic/atheistic side but sometimes occam's razor can be wrong so that's not valid). Just clearing that up - ie, that no more time should be wasted arguing about the initial creation or existence of complex entities

the book 'snow crash' by neal stephenson actually describes exactly the hyper-fractured capitalist state that UtF is describing. Nations have become "franchised" and 'burbclaves' have sprung up everywhere. Border laws and alliances are complex and shifting. That's just the backdrop though. It's a really interesting read

Neal Stephenson Isaac Asimov Dan Brown JD Salinger Philip K Dick Philip Pullman Martin Gardner DJ MacHale

MENSA

well that gets rid of any vowel in the middle letter Except maybe something like: TRYST

UtF, I don't think you are libertarian+socialist. I think are you pure libertarian who has a generous heart/outlook. There's a huge difference. Socialists basically believe in taxing the people to fund the necessity of the government to do things that we individually would not do but collectively need. To me the previous sentence makes sense. To you it doesn't. That's okay but it means you're not a socialist. If you think everything should be privatized and we put our money where we want it (which ideally is _AWESOME_ but as dawh and gvg have pointed out, not entirely feasible given human nature), then at core you're a libertarian who is just giving - not a libertarian who also believes in socialist government programs. There's a difference between forcing people to be a certain religion (extreme of socialism) and giving them the freedom to choose their religion or lack thereof (libertarianism, what you and I prefer). Say you want the right to choose and then choose to be a Catholic. That doesn't make you a libertarian-socialist, it just makes you a libertarian who exercised his right to choose. The same concept applies to giving money to, say, charities. Socialists will have the government take your money and then distribute it (hopefully to something charitable or collectively useful). Libertarians would give you the choice of donating. Now say you want the right of choice, and do so decide to donate. In fact you give _90%_ of your income away to soup kitchen organizations. Good for you! But, you're still not a libertarian+socialist, you're a libertarian who exercised his right of choice. It's really just a technicality of linguistics, I only pointed it out because you called yourself part socialist but I didn't see any socialistic tendencies in anything you said; we can go back to the actual discussion now, sorry Anyway I am torn between two extremes here. Use the Force, on one side, emblemizes the kind of freedom I really want the individuals of a great nation to have. GVG, on the other hand, displays the reality of the situation that makes it necessary for a governing body to uphold certain collective desires that individually we might not think about or are not passionate enough aviyt or don't feel we have enough impact (or whatever) to support (financially).

you seem to not be understanding that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis

PRUNE