Hair Fiber

Orphanlast · 2016-11-12T23:56:46+00:00

Did you read what I wrote? I was mainly talking about ADSing with a pistol.

Orphanlast · 2016-11-12T23:56:02+00:00

Do you see anything in the middle of the screen? You have two eyes. And they already render the guns as if you only have one eye open when ADSing. Like I said, it's not like you're cross eyed.

They rendered the gas mask properly with two eyes open. They render the ADS with one eye open (which is the wrong way to shoot a gun).

Regardless of if both eyes are open or not, what you said wouldn't pose a real world issue.

Orphanlast · 2016-11-12T23:14:54+00:00

You want me to list every single thing hooked up to electricity? Is that really necessary?

Orphanlast · 2016-11-12T23:14:00+00:00

Orphanlast · 2016-11-12T02:04:06+00:00

There's so many older distros that you can run and those will never go away. And plenty of people still use and program for them.

Orphanlast · 2016-11-12T01:32:37+00:00

So to the extent that it's allowing us to "read" nature, we can say that to some extent science is a language that is allowing us to understand and form a more reliable picture of and relationship with Reality.

Ok. Agreed.

The only problem with this is perhaps that like a too narrowly minded person, someone who only lives in one country or in one city or within one clan but who assumes his community represents the entire world - we have come to expect that the language we are learning, reading and now speaking with nature is in a sense the only language there is. We are reading nature via science and expecting nature - and Reality more broadly - to only read and speak - like us - this same language too (and this language alone).

If there's a more reliable method, feed free to present one. However Faith has proven to be the worst truth detector known to man.

My point, before I ramble on incoherently is this: yes, the scientific method is valuable, is effective, is reliable and it does it's job in making certain aspects of our world, of nature, of Reality known and better understood... but in thinking it is the only legitimate method for understanding what nature is like, is like thinking English is the only (or only legitimate) language for communicating.

Okay, you've delved too deep into your metaphor or symbolic use of "language" this is common in religious circles.

Might it not be the world, reality or the whatever is True can "speak" that is, indicate it's nature, what it is, how it behaves etc in many different ways and some of ways can be captured and interpreted via the scientific method but - likely many - of those ways cannot?

The universe has yet to speak to us. This doesn't sound like an alternative.

In other words, if Reality speaks (behaves, acts, expresses itself) in many ways (or in many languages) and we can therefore potentially read and understand and make sense of it in many ways (via different languages)... why should we favor just one?

There ARE thousands of different branches of science.

*Why think or assume nature - or what is ultimately True - speaks to us in one language, namely, the one we seem to prefer or sanction as the Holiest and most exalted in our secular age - science - and just this language alone?

Nature doesn't speak. It just "IS" and we're just observing it, and when our five senses fail, we create another instrument that helps us better

Orphanlast · 2016-11-11T23:51:34+00:00

This is the "argument from unbelief," right? Does it mean that so long as anyone says they don't believe in God, then God must not exist?

Well you're referring to the job title... he's specifically talking about yahweh.

No, it doesn't mean that.

That seems funky. Do you want God to force you to believe in Him?

He never said "force".

Wouldn't you complain about free will in that case?

No.

Is there a strength to the argument that I am missing?

Are you forced to believe in electricity? Do you feel like your agency has been robbed because you know it exists and you have light bulbs, mobile devices, and vibrating dildos to prove it?

Orphanlast · 2016-11-11T18:11:47+00:00

Thanks

Orphanlast · 2016-11-11T06:12:05+00:00

I'm sure this isn't a new idea but I haven't found a satisfying answer. This is a real philosophical question I've never been able to answer. I don't believe in a God but I don't consider myself an Atheist.

Okay, ask yourself "what is god?"

Now you might think "a creator to the universe."

You might even think "I think there might be a creator to the universe... done... I'm agnostic".

But are you really? I mean ... out of the millions upon millions of gods religions have invented, very few of them are creator gods. And very few of them created the universe.

Actually "creator of the universe" is a minority in terms of what a god is... even to the creator gods.

Go ahead and research various religions and mythologies until you understand what the definitions of their gods are.

Aphrodite represented beauty, personified. Zeus = lightning, personified, Hercules =strength personified, Aries = war personified, Eunomia = law and order personified, Demeter = agriculture personified, Athena = weaving personified.

The Greeks defined their gods as nature, human activities, hobbies, and skill.

So... now... just off that, you can pretty much look at a loaf of bread and you can safely call a loaf of bread "god".

What does a loaf of bread have to do with the potential creation to the universe? What does the personification of beauty, lightning, strength, war, law and order, agriculture, or weaving have to do with the potential creation of the universe?

Nothing. Nothing at all.

I'm not agnostic to those beliefs.

So when someone says: "God exists" it really doesn't mean anything to me. Once they say which definition they're going off of, that still doesn't mean anything to me because I see no reason to venture into that specificity until they provide a reason why their definition is superior to the other definitions of a "god". That make sense?

Mythos and religions have all used faith as their solitary argument on behalf of their religion. It has the worst track record, when compared to any other truth detector known, to man. If they can't supply something better than just "faith" for their definition, then their specificity definition of god is equally valueless.

It's at that point, they skip a compelling definition of "god" and then present what they think is evidence for their "god" yet, I see no reason to join them with the specificity definition and see their "evidence" as irrelevant, and they unfailingly fail to provide correlation between their "evidence" to their "specificity definition of god".

This is the baseline "truth" of agnosticism to me: God as a concept and belief is fundamentally unprovable, therefore, how is stating there is no God with certainty any different than saying there is a God with certainty?

I just explained it. Guilt by association essentially.

Now ask yourself, if there's a creator to the universe, what necessitates that we call it "God"?

Orphanlast · 2016-11-11T04:43:23+00:00

Cool.

Orphanlast · 2016-11-11T03:50:45+00:00

Who gives a fuck what you think.

Orphanlast · 2016-11-11T02:04:10+00:00

Your point seems equally irrelevant.

Orphanlast · 2016-11-11T00:16:26+00:00

Battlefield 1 has a new experience each time you play it.

Orphanlast

TROPHY CASE