IOS devices (iPods, iPads, iPhones) have no JavaScript debugger



  • @fterfi secure said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @fterfi secure said:
    @boomzilla said:
    You mean none of them ever brought up what happens to you after you die?

    They do. But why does that make a difference? After I point out that being scared of going to hell is merely giving into bullying, the theists tend to flounder for a bit.

    So, what you meant to ask was, "Can you guess any reason that would make a difference that I already agree with?" To which the only answer is, "You're a fucking moron who is convinced that he is right and that nothing else matters." Why did you even bother asking the question?

    Well, isn't it giving into bullying? What's the difference?

    The concept of "giving in" does not apply. I guess the imprisonment analogy would be a guilty vs non guilty plea (plus the ensuing trial). How does your plea change the nature of imprisonment (OBPedanticDickweed: aside from "giving in" possibly resulting in a shorter sentence)? Again, you may believe or disbelieve, but that's completely besides the point of the question you asked. For example:

    Gallant: Are there any security implications of running random Windows screensavers that a kind stranger emailed to me?
    Doofus fterfi secure: It doesn't matter, because I only use myspace to communicate!



  • @nonpartisan said:

    Everything can be justified, even if it turns out to be wrong.  I can behave as a proper member of society every day, but if I don't like doing it and don't really believe in it, then the actions themselves are superficial, perhaps hypocritical to some degree if I don't really believe in what I'm doing.  As for what if God's wrong, in your opinion . . . well, I just don't think that's going to matter in the long term, since God is above any of us.  If I'm wrong and there is no God?  No harm done.  If I'm wrong, there is a God, and I didn't follow His expectations?  Well, I did the best I could with a sincere heart.  If that gets me to eternal damnation, not much I can do at that point.

    But what if you choose the wrong god?

    I think the way the ancient romans approached the problem is  the best so far



  • @lettucemode said:

    This is why I'm convinced that most people don't like theism (or religion in general). Theism claims that there is a God who judges everyone and has rules that you must follow. They also claim that there is no escape from these rules since the reward or punishment comes after you die. People want to do their own thing, so they understandably don't like this. But how do you escape a set of rules that is inescapable? Simple - just don't believe they exist.

    Also why would god care about this? Is it that boring being god?



  • @serguey123 said:

    @lettucemode said:

    This is why I'm convinced that most people don't like theism (or religion in general). Theism claims that there is a God who judges everyone and has rules that you must follow. They also claim that there is no escape from these rules since the reward or punishment comes after you die. People want to do their own thing, so they understandably don't like this. But how do you escape a set of rules that is inescapable? Simple - just don't believe they exist.

    Also why would god care about this? Is it that boring being god?

    I don't know if there's a good answer to that question. Maybe it is that boring!



  • @serguey123 said:

    Also why would god care about this? Is it that boring being god?

    Hey look, it's an argument from incredulity!  Let's see how many logical fallacies we can see come out in the rest of the thread.  I bet this one comes out a few more times.



  • @Cassidy said:

    Damn, I fail at trolling. You didn't bite.

    Real trolling is being able to turn a thread on Javascript debugging/W3C stupidity/immorality of ad blocking into a thread about religion with one comment. For my next topic for this thread I'm thinking of going with: "America: Why is it so much better than all of the other sissy nations?"

    I'm not actually trolling, but I was born blessed/cursed with the ability to derail threads. Oh, Allah, the One True God Who Smites All Infidels, why have you chosen me for this power???



  • @serguey123 said:

    I think the way the ancient romans approached the problem is  the best so far

    Rape and pillage and civil engineering?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Cassidy said:
    Damn, I fail at trolling. You didn't bite.

    Real trolling is being able to turn a thread on Javascript debugging/W3C stupidity/immorality of ad blocking into a thread about religion with one comment. For my next topic for this thread I'm thinking of going with: "America: Why is it so much better than all of the other sissy nations?"

    I'm not actually trolling, but I was born blessed/cursed with the ability to derail threads. Oh, Allah, the One True God Who Smites All Infidels, why have you chosen me for this power???

    I got everyone to talk about drawing circles that one time, though.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    Because then we'd all become selfish, entitled twats.
     

    And yet here we are!



  • @lettucemode said:

    Do you not know who this is? This is fterfi secure; the number of injunctions against his wang are legendary.

    Deity that name looks weird. And over 100 posts. Time to change.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Real trolling is being able to turn a thread on Javascript debugging/W3C stupidity/immorality of ad blocking into a thread about religion with one comment.

    Thanks. I thought it was worth a try.

    @lettucemode said:

    This is why I'm convinced that most people don't like theism (or religion in general). Theism claims that there is a God who judges everyone and has rules that you must follow. They also claim that there is no escape from these rules since the reward or punishment comes after you die. People want to do their own thing, so they understandably don't like this. But how do you escape a set of rules that is inescapable? Simple - just don't believe they exist.


    You don't escape something by believing it doesn't exist. I can believe all I like that a bus is not about to hit me, but that won't stop the bus hitting me. I can, however, however irrational it may be, insist that the certain prospect of being hit by a bus will not prevent me from stepping into the road. (Yes, I did construct that sentence in that manner purely so I could write 'however, however'.) That would, in most circumstances, be a bizarre attitude to take. But don't things change if the bus could in fact brake in time? And what's the difference between a bus that can brake and an omnipotent god?

    @boomzilla said:

    You're confusing "why getting imprisoned matters" with "do I care enough about being imprisoned to not steal." The argument that you are actually making is that being imprisoned or not will not make any difference in your life.

    No, I'm asking why it is necessary to imprison me to prevent me stealing, given that the imprisoning authority is omnipotent. I thought I already explained - to those less hard of thinking - why that analogy doesn't apply here.

    @lettucemode said:

    I assume that you value the former over the latter, despite any consequences? (getting arrested, for example)

    See above. It's not that I think god can't judge me, but that if he/she/it can, then for that judgement to mean anything, I have to accept that it is correct. If an omnipotent being can't persuade me it's right, is it?

    @Sutherlands said:

    Oh, you're trolling.  Good one!  7/10

    Please. 9/10 at least.
    @boomzilla said:

    The concept of "giving in" does not apply. I guess the imprisonment analogy would be a guilty vs non guilty plea (plus the ensuing trial).

    You seem to be under the strange impression that I think - despite clearly stating otherwise - that legality and morality are the same thing.

    @nonpartisan said:

    @fterfi secure said:

    What if god's wrong, in my opinion?

     

    Everything can be justified, even if it turns out to be wrong.  I can behave as a proper member of society every day, but if I don't like doing it and don't really believe in it, then the actions themselves are superficial, perhaps hypocritical to some degree if I don't really believe in what I'm doing.  As for what if God's wrong, in your opinion . . . well, I just don't think that's going to matter in the long term, since God is above any of us.  If I'm wrong and there is no God?  No harm done.  If I'm wrong, there is a God, and I didn't follow His expectations?  Well, I did the best I could with a sincere heart.  If that gets me to eternal damnation, not much I can do at that point.

    See, I think that's where we differ and yet agree. Is that fair in any way you can think of? I accept that under those circumstances I may go to hell - but I also understand that if that's true, then god is completely evil and should be resisted, not obeyed (just like in Independence Day). Ultimately, when it comes down to it, aren't you actually saying that you do what's right, and god can do whatever god wants as a result?



  • @ffelthc what said:

    @nonpartisan said:

    Everything can be justified, even if it turns out to be wrong.  I can behave as a proper member of society every day, but if I don't like doing it and don't really believe in it, then the actions themselves are superficial, perhaps hypocritical to some degree if I don't really believe in what I'm doing.  As for what if God's wrong, in your opinion . . . well, I just don't think that's going to matter in the long term, since God is above any of us.  If I'm wrong and there is no God?  No harm done.  If I'm wrong, there is a God, and I didn't follow His expectations?  Well, I did the best I could with a sincere heart.  If that gets me to eternal damnation, not much I can do at that point.

    See, I think that's where we differ and yet agree. Is that fair in any way you can think of? I accept that under those circumstances I may go to hell - but I also understand that if that's true, then god is completely evil and should be resisted, not obeyed (just like in Independence Day). Ultimately, when it comes down to it, aren't you actually saying that you do what's right, and god can do whatever god wants as a result?

     

    I understand what you're saying.  It doesn't sound fair to us.  I would hope that same definition of fairness applies in the afterlife as well such that doing the best I could on this planet means something when I die; I believe it does.

    That said, I will be shocked and surprised if I find out that God is a vengeful God.  I really don't believe that's the case.  It's a reasonable question to ask, but because I believe in a benevolent God, to me, the question is moot.  I'm not saying I'm right, but right now I can't picture how I can be wrong.  Being evil and expecting that God would want me to do evil are just not in my nature.

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @nonpartisan said:

    That said, I will be shocked and surprised if I find out that God is a vengeful God.

    You shouldn't be - there's a few of them around. Read the Old Testament sometime, for example.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @ASheridan said:
    I'm an atheist, there is no way I'm believing in a single creator of anything!

    Example #752 of why atheists are such dipshit losers: They can't say five fucking sentences without mentioning their religion. You are seriously worse than any fundamentalist Muslim, Jew or Christian. I would rather be raped by a Bible than spend 1 minute listening to your self-important bullshit. I hope there's a hell just so you can spend eternity being torn apart with hot pokers.

     I mentioned it as a joke you ignorant dumbass, go take your religious views someplace else. I never tried to impose my belief on anyone else, but apparently you think you believing something else entitles you to. Fuck off.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @ASheridan said:
    That's not stealing, learn your definitions. As a content creator, if you put your content online you're making it available.

    Of course it's theft. I never said it's against the law, but apparently you're one of those worthless, immoral bastards who can't be expected to do the right thing ever unless you have somebody pointing a gun at your head. So, by having content "available", it's perfectly fine to steal it? I hope I find out where you work so I can distribute your source code online thus making it "available" to everyone for free..

     

    Definition of stealing:

    1. Take
      (another person's property) without permission or legal right and
      without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle".
    2. Dishonestly
      pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own: "accusations that one
      group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying".

    To take the content, it implies that you're left without a copy. As that's certainly not the case, then no theft has been committed. Take your hollywood-like zealot views someplace else please.

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    My beef is with the people who block every ad everywhere, and the ad blocking tools that default to that setting and are virtually impossible to use any other way. Yes, it's a sliding scale, but that's definitely sliding to the "you're a dick" side.

     

    Still an educational thread this. I've now learned that when push comes to shove, I'd rather be a dick than be raped by a bible. Yes.

     

     



  • @ffelthc what said:

    No, I'm asking why it is necessary to imprison me to prevent me stealing, given that the imprisoning authority is omnipotent. I thought I already explained - to those less hard of thinking - why that analogy doesn't apply here.

    Yes, I understand that this is what you thought you originally asked, and maybe it's what you're really interested in, but it clearly wasn't what you originally said. Here's a non-car analogy. An author of fiction has omnipotence over his fictional world. So he, too, could simply stop characters from doing wrong things and avoid consequences, but that ruins the story. Perhaps the omnipotence of God works the same way. And then you can get into his desire to give people free will, etc. Or maybe for other reasons we haven't figured out because we don't know all of the facts.

    @ffelthc what said:

    You seem to be under the strange impression that I think - despite clearly stating otherwise - that legality and morality are the same thing.

    No, I'm under the strange impression that you can argue logically. My argument about imprisonment has nothing to do with legality and morality. That's just you projecting your frustration with religion. To be clear, here was the statement of yours that you don't appear to understand:

    @fterti asdf said:

    More seriously, though, I've yet to meet even a hard-core religionist/atheist who could explain to me what the fuck difference it makes to anything whether or not god exists.

    Replace god with, say, the Keynsian multiplier, and you'll have a similar argument, though the stakes are obviously a lot lower. Your morality or ideas of what constraints you imagine you can or should put on others only exist in your head, but the existence or non-existence of another entity can still make a difference to a lot of stuff even if you think it's ridiculous.



  • @fterfi secure said:

    What if god's wrong, in my opinion?

    Obligatory cartoon interlude:




  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Real trolling is being able to turn a thread on Javascript debugging/W3C stupidity/immorality of ad blocking into a thread about religion with one comment.

    Yeah, I know.. I'm just new to all this. Anticlimax on my touchpaper.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Oh, Allah, the One True God Who Smites All Infidels, why have you chosen me for this power???

    Once all the infidels were smited, you were the only bugger left. Less about you stepping forwards, more about us all stepping back, as it were.



  • @Cassidy said:

    smited
     

    Step away from the language.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @dhromed said:

    @Cassidy said:
    smited
    Step away from the language.

    ? What's wrong with that?



  • @PJH said:

    @nonpartisan said:
    That said, I will be shocked and surprised if I find out that God is a vengeful God.
    You shouldn't be - there's a few of them around. Read the Old Testament sometime, for example.


    Before Jesus. In the New Testament, the most overt example of God or Jesus getting pissed off is Jesus with the money changers. I happened to have been born after Jesus. I believe I'm covered by the new covenant and new commandments (love your God first, then love your neighbor as yourself).


    To me, the idea of a single God just makes more sense. Why have multiple gods in charge of different things? That's too confusing for their loyal subjects.



  • @PJH said:

    @dhromed said:
    @Cassidy said:
    smited
    Step away from the language.

    ? What's wrong with that?

    Generally, for that tense, you would write, "smote." Obviously, smited is clear as to its meaning, but is not a standard conjugation, at least according to anything I've ever seen, or the few online dictionaries I consulted.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @serguey123 said:
    I think the way the ancient romans approached the problem is  the best so far
    Rape and pillage and civil engineering?

    Well, yeah, but also the fact that they were pretty tolerant with religion as long as it did not contradict mos maiorum (hint: that is one of the reasons they did not get along with the christians, that and the other dude named Chrestos)

    @erikal said:

    I'd rather be a dick than be raped by a bible. Yes.

    Bibles are thicker



  • @ffelthc what said:

    You don't escape something by believing it doesn't exist. I can believe all I like that a bus is not about to hit me, but that won't stop the bus hitting me. I can, however, however irrational it may be, insist that the certain prospect of being hit by a bus will not prevent me from stepping into the road. (Yes, I did construct that sentence in that manner purely so I could write 'however, however'.) That would, in most circumstances, be a bizarre attitude to take. But don't things change if the bus could in fact brake in time? And what's the difference between a bus that can brake and an omnipotent god?

    You make a good point. I didn't expect you to take the discussion in the same direction as I was planning to! From my perspective, since we don't know whether or not the bus will brake in time, the more sensible move is to not step out in front of the bus at all.

    @ffelthc what said:

    See above. It's not that I think god can't judge me, but that if he/she/it can, then for that judgement to mean anything, I have to accept that it is correct. If an omnipotent being can't persuade me it's right, is it?

    I would argue that whether or not you accept the judgment of someone in authority is irrelevant - you'll still be judged and punished according to their rules. This is true when you're a kid growing up in your parent's house, when living in a country that enforces laws, when you're at work under your boss, or if you're on trial before a judge. The difference between our opinions is that one advocates going down fighting, whereas the other advises deferring to the powers that be. Would you agree?

    @serguey123 said:

    Well, yeah, but also the fact that they were pretty tolerant with religion as long as it did not contradict mos maiorum (hint: that is one of the reasons they did not get along with the christians, that and the other dude named Chrestos)

    I thought it was like Greek religion - many gods, but they're all still a part of the same "pantheon" of gods, the same religious "universe". No?



  • @boomzilla said:

    Generally, for that tense, you would write, "smote." Obviously, smited is clear as to its meaning, but is not a standard conjugation, at least according to anything I've ever seen, or the few online dictionaries I consulted.

    Okay, I stand corrote.



  • @lettucemode said:

    This is why I'm convinced that most people don't like theism (or religion in general). Theism claims that there is a God who judges everyone and has rules that you must follow. They also claim that there is no escape from these rules since the reward or punishment comes after you die. People want to do their own thing, so they understandably don't like this. But how do you escape a set of rules that is inescapable? Simple - just don't believe they exist.
     

    As an agnostic, I can say that I don't really feel that way.

    My beef #1 with religions is that they all claim to be true, and I have no reason to choose 1 over the other, so I choose none. My beef #2 is that all holy books have been written by men, and I have no reason to believe in what's written in them any more that I believe what's written in a fiction novel.

    None of it is about judgement.



  • @dargor17 said:

    As an agnostic, I can say that I don't really feel that way.

    My beef #1 with religions is that they all claim to be true, and I have no reason to choose 1 over the other, so I choose none. My beef #2 is that all holy books have been written by men, and I have no reason to believe in what's written in them any more that I believe what's written in a fiction novel.

    None of it is about judgement.


    No religion is 100%. What is most important to me is my personal faith. I use the Bible as my road map for that. My religion is a framework of beliefs and rituals, most (but not all) to which I subscribe. My Church is about community, sharing that same core set of beliefs. I am in the religion I am because I was initially raised in it, but now as an adult I understand many of the principles behind it and feel it is a good fit for me. But if my belief comes head-to-head with a belief of my religion, and my belief differs, I will pray on it, reflect on it, and my final belief will be what I decide it to be -- which may not fit with my religion. In reality, nothing ever fits 100%.


    I believe the holy books were written in a different time, a different culture, describing how things were back then in their customs and practices. As written, they are not up to the general societal standards to which we aspire today. I have no reason to believe that things didn't happen as described, however, if we knew all of the original context. Do you discount the writings of Isaac Newton? He's a man and lived a long time ago. How about Aristotle? Do you discount them out of hand because he was a man?


    "None of it is about judgement." Pardon me, but your judgment is showing.



  • @dargor17 said:

    I don't believe in miracles, prophets still count as men


    Ooh, I hadn't seen your tags.


    You probably still won't believe in miracles. I do. I've had things happen to me that were totally unexplainable except for Him.


    Back in . . . 1994? . . . I was in EMS, had my EMT certification, and was going for my paramedic cert. I was struggling with certain skills and, at Church, I prayed for assistance in getting those skills down. Not 15 minutes later, two elderly ladies collided with each other after the service. One got up, the other did not. I tended to the one who was down while others called 911. A couple of days later, I came across a rollover accident that occurred seconds before I came upon it. On-duty EMS was not there. In a week's time, I had five instances where I rolled up on incidents that allowed me to practice those skills. I was shaken and, for all intents and purposes, prayed the next week that this wasn't exactly what I had intended. I've not come across even five incidents like this over the last 18 years since, nor had I come across that many beforehand. And I'm not talking about on-duty, staffing-a-medic-rig incidents. I'm talking about toodling along minding my own business and stumbling upon them. It certainly gave me experience, and gave me the experience to know that being a full-fledged paramedic was not in the cards for me. I've heard it argued that God made those accidents for me. My belief is that He put me in the right place at the right time, but didn't create the accidents.


    As for prophets, no one has ever said that prophets were perfect, that they weren't men, that they weren't infallible, etc. None of them have been perfect. That doesn't mean what they say isn't true. Again, personal experience. I dreamt in February 2000 that I saw the birth of a child, a little girl. I ended up holding her in my arms. I was in an OR next to the anesthesiologist. When I woke up, I had no idea what it was about. A month later, we found out my wife was pregnant. And in December of that year, that scene replayed, detail for detail, in real life, right in front of me. We never found out from the doctor whether he was a he or she was a she, but I knew the baby I would hold would be my daughter. I have no explanation for it -- I didn't know my wife was pregnant, didn't know that my first child (whenever we had one) would be delivered by C-section, but there it was. And I'm far from perfect, but I was able to see the future. You may think I'm a nut. I don't particularly care, because I know what I saw, I know exactly what happened.


    And as I said when I got into this thread, there are things that have happened to me that are unexplainable by human standards, but they happened to me. You ask me to explain, I can't, save for the fact that God has been intervening in my life . . . for which I am very grateful.



  • Once I prayed to God that I needed a new stereo, and not a day later my roommate was shanked by an escaped inmate, and I totally went over and took his stereo. (God wanted me to have it, of course, because he arranged the shanking.)

    My belief is that He put me in the right place at the right time to get a free stereo, but didn't shank that bitch.

    @nonpartisan said:

    I've not come across even five incidents like this over the last 18 years since, nor had I come across that many beforehand.

    So? Shit happens. Shit would happen whether God existed or not.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @nonpartisan said:
    I've not come across even five incidents like this over the last 18 years since, nor had I come across that many beforehand.

    So? Shit happens. Shit would happen whether God existed or not.

    That's partly the point -- shit happens whether God exists or not -- but my belief is that He put me where I needed to be at the right time in order to respond to these.


    And when was the last time you encountered five completely separate accidents in a week's time just going through life as a regular citizen, not as part of some kind of designated, coordinated emergency response system, all of which were major enough to require EMS activation?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Once I prayed to God that I needed a new stereo, and not a day later my roommate was shanked by an escaped inmate, and I totally went over and took his stereo. (God wanted me to have it, of course, because he arranged the shanking.)

    My belief is that He put me in the right place at the right time to get a free stereo, but didn't shank that bitch.

    Your roommate was a bitch? Your bitch, perhaps? That's something I'd expect out of morbs, and I haven't even been around here that long.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Once I prayed to God that I needed a new stereo, and not a day later my roommate was shanked by an escaped inmate, and I totally went over and took his stereo. (God wanted me to have it, of course, because he arranged the shanking.)

    My belief is that He put me in the right place at the right time to get a free stereo, but didn't shank that bitch. @nonpartisan said:

    I've not come across even five incidents like this over the last 18 years since, nor had I come across that many beforehand.
    So? Shit happens. Shit would happen whether God existed or not.

    Remember that Jesus was a convicted felon, so yeah, he totally shanked that bitch



  • @nonpartisan said:

    And when was the last time you encountered five completely separate accidents in a week's time just going through life as a regular citizen, not as part of some kind of designated, coordinated emergency response system, all of which were major enough to require EMS activation?

    Never! I don't even know what "EMS activation" means, but it sounds frightening!

    OMG YOU JUST PROVED GOD EXISTS!!!!!

    Or maybe you just proved that "unlikely" doesn't equal "impossible". I dearly hope you don't ever take a statistics class, or spend more than a few minutes talking to an insurance adjuster, because man the entire basis for your faith would collapse.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Never! I don't even know what "EMS activation" means, but it sounds frightening!


    "EMS activation" is a throwback to when I was in EMS (emergency medical services). Typically it means calling 911, but if you're a member of a workplace emergency response unit (hazardous spill, employee safety first response, etc.), it can mean contacting a dispatcher, calling CHEMTREC, etc.


    @blakeyrat said:

    OMG YOU JUST PROVED GOD EXISTS!!!!!


    Apparently not to you. But that's okay. This is just one example of many that I've experienced that convince me. To find you believe in God would be a miracle in and of itself.


    @blakeyrat said:

    Or maybe you just proved that "unlikely" doesn't equal "impossible". I dearly hope you don't ever take a statistics class, or spend more than a few minutes talking to an insurance adjuster, because man the entire basis for your faith would collapse.


    I've taken statistics. That one incident is not the entire basis of my faith. If you don't believe it possible that it was divine intervention, then I can't convince you. I've even heard Jesus' miracles try to be explained away -- he happened to know where the rocks are when walking on the water, or the 5,000 came with their own small quantities of bread and fish and started sharing when everyone else did.


    If you never consider the possibility the Earth is round, nothing will convince you that the Earth is anything but flat.



  • @ASheridan said:

    Definition of stealing:

    1. Take
      (another person's property) without permission or legal right and
      without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle".
    2. Dishonestly
      pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own: "accusations that one
      group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying".

    To take the content, it implies that you're left without a copy. As that's certainly not the case, then no theft has been committed. Take your hollywood-like zealot views someplace else please.

    So you are one of those dumbfucks who thinks stealing is okay. Apparently you've never heard of intellectual property. Hilariously, you probably wouldn't have a job without it. Seriously, go back to Slashdot you lowlife piece of shit.



  • @PJH said:

    @dhromed said:
    @Cassidy said:
    smited
    Step away from the language.
    ? What's wrong with that?

    It should be "smitten".



  • @nonpartisan said:

    If you never consider the possibility the Earth is round, nothing will convince you that the Earth is anything but flat.

    No.

    It's not that these things are not proof of the existence of God - it's that it's impossible to recreate the experiment, so I can't verify your proof.

    Give me an experiment I can perform that proves the existence of God and you can convince me. Without it, we are arguing about first principles which means we might as well start arguing about the validity of the parallel line theorem as an Axiom of Geometry.



  • @serguey123 said:

    Well, yeah, but also the fact that they were pretty tolerant with religion as long as it did not contradict mos maiorum (hint: that is one of the reasons they did not get along with the christians, that and the other dude named Chrestos)

    tol-er-ance (n): Allowing conquered people to do something so long as it doesn't conflict with your own views. Violators will be fed to lions.

    Honestly, that's the kind of tolerance I can get behind!



  • @rad131304 said:

    It's not that these things are not proof of the existence of God - it's that it's impossible to recreate the experiment, so I can't verify your proof.

    When in this thread did nonpartisan try to convince you that God was real from his personal experiences?  In order to believe, you have to have the experiences yourself.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    If you don't believe it possible that it was divine intervention, then I can't convince you.

    It's possible it was divine intervention, it's significantly more likely it was dumb coincidence.

    Even if I did believe in divine intervention, he helped you pass your test? Seriously? Look, if God exists, he's doing one of two things: 1) he created the rules that govern this universe, then got the fuck out and isn't screwing around with it, 2) he's screwing around with everybody all the time. Because I'm sure as fuck not believing that God pays you special individual attention and everybody else just gets "eh whatever."

    The problem is, if you believe 2), you have to believe that God did make those old women smack into each other. If you believe 2) God's a fucking dick who's out there every day starving people, making people shoot each other, etc. And I sure as fuck would never believe in that God.

    So that leaves God 1) who is, to my faithless eyes at least, identical to the agnostic or athiest position.

    @nonpartisan said:

    If you never consider the possibility the Earth is round, nothing will convince you that the Earth is anything but flat.

    I have an extremely scientific mind. I don't believe shit until I witness it. And half the time, not even then.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @serguey123 said:
    Well, yeah, but also the fact that they were pretty tolerant with religion as long as it did not contradict mos maiorum (hint: that is one of the reasons they did not get along with the christians, that and the other dude named Chrestos)
    tol-er-ance (n): Allowing conquered people to practice any religion so long as it doesn't conflict with your own ethical code. Violators will be fed to lions or crucified and used as human torches.

    Honestly, that's the kind of tolerance I can get behind!

    FTFY



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @rad131304 said:

    It's not that these things are not proof of the existence of God - it's that it's impossible to recreate the experiment, so I can't verify your proof.

    When in this thread did nonpartisan try to convince you that God was real from his personal experiences?  In order to believe, you have to have the experiences yourself.

    That's not what I said at all; I was indicating that nonpartisan holds proof of the existence of God to a lower standard than (s)he would probably hold for the derivation of the parallel line theorem.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @rad131304 said:

    It's not that these things are not proof of the existence of God - it's that it's impossible to recreate the experiment, so I can't verify your proof.

    When in this thread did nonpartisan try to convince you that God was real from his personal experiences?  In order to believe, you have to have the experiences yourself.

    So the only things we need to do is follow rad131304 and beat some random person near him and he will believe? Sweet!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    So that leaves God 1) who is, to my faithless eyes at least, identical to the agnostic or athiest position.

    Actually, it's deist, which is what many of America's founding fathers believed in. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, which is just as provable as God existing. Agnosticism is what lazy people believe in because they don't care.

    @blakeyrat said:

    @nonpartisan said:
    If you never consider the possibility the Earth is round, nothing will convince you that the Earth is anything but flat.

    I have an extremely scientific mind. I don't believe shit until I witness it. And half the time, not even then.

    Quoting this out of context it sounds like you are denying the Earth is round because you've never witnessed it. And science is great and all, but it's only a tool for refining our understanding of the world. That raises all sorts of questions like "Is there absolute truth?" and "Can science really tell us anything about absolute truth?" and so on. I have a friend who is going for his PhD in philosophy so I'm very burned out on these kind of discussions. Honestly, I just don't give a shit if reality is real or science uncovers truth or any of it. If there's an afterlife, I'll find out some day but in the meantime I'm going to drink beer and pursue pleasure. I'm a good person so I'm not worried about being punished or anything like that.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The problem is, if you believe 2), you have to believe that God did make those old women smack into each other. If you believe 2) God's a fucking dick who's out there every day starving people, making people shoot each other, etc. And I sure as fuck would never believe in that God.

    No, you don't have to believe that.  You can, in fact, believe in free will.



  • @serguey123 said:

    @Sutherlands said:

    @rad131304 said:

    It's not that these things are not proof of the existence of God - it's that it's impossible to recreate the experiment, so I can't verify your proof.

    When in this thread did nonpartisan try to convince you that God was real from his personal experiences?  In order to believe, you have to have the experiences yourself.

    So the only things we need to do is follow rad131304 and beat some random person near him and he will believe? Sweet!

    Perhaps if we waited until he prayed about being able to help heal people, and then we staged it in such a way that it didn't trace back to a person.  Or we can send him to corruptsylvania where this stuff happens all the time, amirite?



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    The problem is, if you believe 2), you have to believe that God did make those old women smack into each other. If you believe 2) God's a fucking dick who's out there every day starving people, making people shoot each other, etc. And I sure as fuck would never believe in that God.

    No, you don't have to believe that.  You can, in fact, believe in free will.

    No he can't.



  • @serguey123 said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Once I prayed to God that I needed a new stereo, and not a day later my roommate was shanked by an escaped inmate, and I totally went over and took his stereo. (God wanted me to have it, of course, because he arranged the shanking.)

    My belief is that He put me in the right place at the right time to get a free stereo, but didn't shank that bitch. @nonpartisan said:

    I've not come across even five incidents like this over the last 18 years since, nor had I come across that many beforehand.
    So? Shit happens. Shit would happen whether God existed or not.

    Remember that Jesus was a convicted felon, so yeah, he totally shanked that bitch

    Actually, He wasn't. Pilate didn't have the cojones to stand up to the people. Pilate told them he didn't find any crimes Jesus had committed, but he caved to the mob scene.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    So that leaves God 1) who is, to my faithless eyes at least, identical to the agnostic or athiest position.

    Actually, it's deist, which is what many of America's founding fathers believed in. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, which is just as provable as God existing. Agnosticism is what lazy people believe in because they don't care.

    What I'm saying is that all of those positions are identical in regards to influencing my day-to-day behavior. The only way religion changes what I'm doing on a day-to-day basis is if you believe God's constantly jerking people around.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Quoting this out of context it sounds like you are denying the Earth is round because you've never witnessed it.

    Kind of. But it's more than that: God (or whatever) equipped us with these lousy brains that barely work. So even if I witness something, and decide it occurs how it actually appeared to occur, that doesn't mean my recall of the event is anything like the actual event itself, because my brain's constantly re-framing and compressing its data. Because it's an asshole.

    So even if you do entirely trust your senses, you still can't trust your own brain to process the data correctly. The best you can do is learn about all the different ways your brain fails you, placebo effect, confirmation bias, etc. You still don't know if what you remember actually happened, but at least now you can "rate" it based on how likely it is that it happened.


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.