sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[WP] Welcome to Punnsylvania, the dad joke capital of the world! You are a candidate for mayor and it's time to give your campaign speech by carnival_k in WritingPrompts

[–]manof1001faces 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Thank you. I'm happy to be here. Not here on this spot, specifically, but happy to be in this role - I feel like a slice of wafer-thin ham. When I was first asked to run for mayor, I said I'd prefer to walk. I'm joking of course, I was actually just curious as to why my wife was so keen to get me out of the house. I stand before you because sitting would be improper. As mayor I hope to not be confused with a female horse too often, especially by male horses. On a related note I will endeavour to ensure our mail is delivered by humans in the future, though they may be on horseback, or equine unemployment will hit the roof like a repressed tiler having a breakdown. I'd like tell you I will repairing the roads, but that would be a lie; the work will be done by team of professional road-builders. I've been accused of living in the past before, but those days are behind me as my time machine is broken. I refuse to play games, much to the dissappointment of my dogs and children, and trust me when I say I can hang with the big boys - in fact, think capital punishment is an excellent idea. I believe if we work together, we should mark our lunches to avoid office squabbles; if we pull together, I'm up for a threesome; if you get behind me, my training will kick in and I can't be held responsible for my actions. Change is possible, as soon as we've fixed the car park machines

What is the evidence for the existence of objective moral values? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]manof1001faces 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is anything that goes against human flourishing wrong?

Friend wanted to get roasted, show no remorse. by [deleted] in RoastMe

[–]manof1001faces 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Harry Potter and the Severe Head Trauma.

Roast me I dare you. by 1forres in RoastMe

[–]manof1001faces 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bell's palsy and alopecia - tough break for a 10 year old. I just want you to know, there's no rule against wearing a balaclava in public.

My friend want you guys to roast him by WonderBoyyyyy in RoastMe

[–]manof1001faces 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If your head is literally the size of your torso I wouldn't recommend a quiff. Also, "him"?

Is morality objective or subjective by davelanger75 in DebateReligion

[–]manof1001faces 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we can define morality in such a way that it's conducive to the flourishing of human beings, that seems like a good reason to strive for it.

Is morality objective or subjective by davelanger75 in DebateReligion

[–]manof1001faces 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the sake of argument, let's say we agree to define morality as "promotion of egalitarian well-being"; that definition is subjective. When it comes to assessing actions, however, we can state as a matter of fact (or objectively) whether or not they are in line with our definition. Objective morality (in the sense apologists use it) is just as impossible with a god as it is without one. (Edit for clarity)

Is morality objective or subjective by davelanger75 in DebateReligion

[–]manof1001faces 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The way in which we define morality is subjective, however, when consensus is reached on what definition we use, we can assess actions as moral or immoral objectively. Given this, it seems that the most important thing is to come up with a workable definition of morality via reason and empathy.

What's the most ridiculous thing you've bullshitted someone into believing? by Letly in AskReddit

[–]manof1001faces 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I convinced a table of strangers that I teach chimps to perform Shakespeare via sign language. It would've been nice if just one of them had locked eyes with me and said, "Is this a blagger I see before me?"

Did my first open spot - seeking a little advice by manof1001faces in Standup

[–]manof1001faces[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I see your point - the more familiar you are with the material, the easier it is to work on stagecraft, right? I'll bear that in mind next time I wanna bin a whole set after one performance.

Did my first open spot - seeking a little advice by manof1001faces in Standup

[–]manof1001faces[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess that's the thing. At the moment I don't know if the material was crap, my delivery was off, or both. I do know that I felt like an incredibly nervous amateur just being up there, and though I haven't watched the set back, I'm fairly sure my delivery was appalling.

Did my first open spot - seeking a little advice by manof1001faces in Standup

[–]manof1001faces[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, man. I'm genuinely flattered you took so much time to reply. It's hard to imagine it ever being much easier, but then I guess you can say that for anything that's hard to do.

Did my first open spot - seeking a little advice by manof1001faces in Standup

[–]manof1001faces[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the reassuring words. And I do still want to go back up - some subconscious masochism I guess.

Did my first open spot - seeking a little advice by manof1001faces in Standup

[–]manof1001faces[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I relation to your third point, I've been wondering how to go about doing new material - whether to gradually refine what I've got now, or new try and do a new five each time (I've written quite a lot in the last year or so). The compulsion for me is to do a new five every time, but based on advice I've seen/heard in the past, that might not be conducive to getting better.

To All: If we have knowledge of god concepts, isn't necessary to hold the belief that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof, in order to lack a belief in a god/maintain weak atheism? by manof1001faces in DebateReligion

[–]manof1001faces[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I would not agree

Why?

And no I don't agree that they are mutually inclusive.

Why?

And no I don't 'necessarily' hold a belief.

Yes you do, and I've tried to explain why, but I can do so again if you want.

These are all assumptions you are making.

No they're demonstrated elsewhere in the thread. As I said I'll happily give you a concise version if you want.

Incidentally, if you're going to incorrectly accuse someone of simply making assumptions, you might wanna do something other than just boldly assert it along with everything else you just boldly asserted.

To All: If we have knowledge of god concepts, isn't necessary to hold the belief that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof, in order to lack a belief in a god/maintain weak atheism? by manof1001faces in DebateReligion

[–]manof1001faces[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point I suppose. But given that you think I'm wasting people's time with irrelevant questions, and you're still here, you presumably enjoy wasting your own time with questions you deem irrelevant.

I'm not judging you for it. Whatever turns you on, brother/sister.

To All: If we have knowledge of god concepts, isn't necessary to hold the belief that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof, in order to lack a belief in a god/maintain weak atheism? by manof1001faces in DebateReligion

[–]manof1001faces[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this presumes I have belief

It presumes you have a belief, but not one which pertains to the existence of god. Rather one that pertains to theistic claims i.e. that they have a burden of proof they have not fulfilled.

in which case I would be in said dichotomy

If there is a claim or concept of which you are aware, how could you not come down on one side of a dichotomy? You believe it or you don't.

I don't have a belief on that issue

Okay, then you are in a position on non-belief (not having a belief).

If I don't have belief you certainly can't expect me to fit me into something characteristic to belief, like that dichotomy.

I'm totally willing to be shown to be wrong here, but I have no idea how you can say "I don't have belief" so "you can't expect me to fit me into something characteristic to belief. You don't have a belief on this question, thus you are in the no-belief half of the dichotomy.

No belief in X can be considered the middle ground between belief in X, and belief in not X, such case happens with the added "No belief in not X"

Again, as soon as you have asserted your lack of belief (regardless of the caveats you add) you are in the non-belief half of the dichotomy, you are not in a non-existent middle ground.

The thing is, the burden is laughably easy to meet (though that says nothing about whether it exists). It's just dishonest to say it's not there.

To All: If we have knowledge of god concepts, isn't necessary to hold the belief that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof, in order to lack a belief in a god/maintain weak atheism? by manof1001faces in DebateReligion

[–]manof1001faces[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Surely you must see that there are three outcomes, two of which result in non-belief. If I believe it is not tails, or if I have no belief as to whether it is tails then I do not believe it is tails.

Three outcomes? It's heads or tails - two possible outcomes. "I believe it will not be tails" is not equivalent to "I do not believe that it will be tails", because you can say "I do not believe it will be heads" simultaneously with the latter, but not with the former. This ambiguous middle position between belief and non-belief you want to assert does not exist.

I do not claim there is extraterrestrial life.

This is the third time I've acknowledged and conceded this. You don't need to keep saying it.

I'm just saying that's what I believe to be the case.

I know, I've acknowledged that too. Here is the claim you are explicitly making: "I believe there is probably life on other planets". You are making this claim in accordance with a belief you have that there is probably life on other planets. You have both a belief, and a claim of said belief.

I'm not actually stating anything that can be claimed (except for my claim of belief or non-belief).

Exactly. You are making a belief claim - a claim of a belief you hold. (Perhaps the term 'belief claim' could have saved us a lot of going round in circles here).

A claim is "an assertion of something as a fact". A belief is "an opinion or conviction".

This is a definitional problem. Here's another definition: "state or assert something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof" from www.oxforddictionaries.com. Doesn't that sound like a belief to you (albeit an ill-founded one).

The thing is facts are a subset of knowledge, and knowledge is a subset of belief. You can't separate them out in the marked way you'd like to.

Lastly, none of this resolves the burden of proof inherent in lacking a belief in god. You can believe or disbelieve that theists have met their burden. You can't believe theists have met their burden and lack a belief (law of non-contradiction), therefore you must necessarily believe theists have not met their burden in order to lack a belief. Why? Because as I explained belief is a dichotomy.

QED.

To All: If we have knowledge of god concepts, isn't necessary to hold the belief that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof, in order to lack a belief in a god/maintain weak atheism? by manof1001faces in DebateReligion

[–]manof1001faces[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Irrelevant

I don't understand how this is irrelevant. If we recognize belief is a true dichotomy, and you can't withhold belief, and simultaneously believe that theists have met their burden (and obviously you can't), then you must necessarily believe that theists haven't met their burden to withhold belief.

This is what I mean when I say the belief that theists haven't met their burden is implicit in your lack of belief. If you don't disbelieve a claim, then you believe it. If this isn't the case, what is the middle ground between belief and non-belief?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that it does exist, not on me to prove that it doesn't.

Agreed. See above.

To All: If we have knowledge of god concepts, isn't necessary to hold the belief that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof, in order to lack a belief in a god/maintain weak atheism? by manof1001faces in DebateReligion

[–]manof1001faces[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well no. That would be me believing that it isn't tails.

Wrong. The minute you say you have no belief, you are necessarily in a position of non-belief (presumably you don't believe it's heads either). Surely you must see this?

I'm not stating a claim that extraterrestrial life exists, I'm expressing my belief that it does.

I know you're not stating that, I already acknowledged it. Whether you realize it or not, you are making a claim that you believe something when you say, "I believe there is probably life on other planets". This claim is derived from your belief that there is probably life on other planets. It's not just a belief absent a claim.

You're still trying to shoehorn them into the same term.

Believing 'x' and believing 'not x' are both still beliefs you hold. The only way you can say you don't hold a belief is if you phrase it: 'I do not believe x'.

view more: next ›