I like Dante's interpretation of God.
So God lives in our eyeballs? I can deal with that.
I like Dante's interpretation of God.
So God lives in our eyeballs? I can deal with that.
@OnePunch:
Cite at least one trustworthy study to back up this claim, otherwise it is pseudo-science - like the sort of quantum quackery that Deepak Chopra and other quantum mystics were spreading.
All you have to know is vague understanding of Quantum Physics, which is a bit difficult to explain, so go do your own research, I'm not having conversations about sources, I was talking to Guetaminute about his beliefs.
So God lives in our eyeballs? I can deal with that.
Well, it would certainly explain God's omniscience…
That also explains why all blind people go to hell.
That also explains why all blind people go to hell.
I know you were just making a joke at the expense of blind folks, but…
It leads to a potentially interesting discussion:
Do you believe that people's "ailments" are "cured" when they go to Heaven (or whichever Afterlife you believe in)?
@Foxy:
All you have to know is vague understanding of Quantum Physics, which is a bit difficult to explain, so go do your own research, I'm not having conversations about sources, I was talking to Guetaminute about his beliefs.
A vague understanding is more dangerous than non-understanding. It is hilarious that many people base their worldviews on such a vague understanding of the grand working of the world. Are you aware of how many different interpretations of quantum physics there are? To name a few, the many-worlds interpretation, the de Broglie–Bohm theory, the Ensemble interpretation, Popper's interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation, etc. Quantum physics is currently the most controversial field in science, with countless unsettled disputes, especially due to its incompatibility with leading theories regarding the macrocosmic world such as Einstein's General Relativity Theory. To this day there has been no tested Grand Unified Theory. To simply cite the word 'quantum physics' as a ground is almost no difference from not citing at all. But most laymen, whose knowledge is limited to pop-scientific junks, are unaware of those debates and easily fall prey to the sugar-coated words of New Age gurus, most of whom choose the Copenhagen Interpretation to be their armor, due to Werner Heisenberg's own infatuation with Eastern Metaphysics. I major in philosophy and study scientific methodology professionally, so you would need more than an arbitrary reference to quantum physics to convince me.
Regarding the nature of religious belief, even though I am nowhere as aggressive as Richard Dawkins or Chrisopher Hitchens, I contend that being a non-believer is the only healthy, rational and honest position to take. To settle with a particular belief-system just because you are born with it, or because of whatever reason not supported by sufficient scientific evidence and logical proofs, is to gamble with your life. Are you sure that you are not worshiping a false God, and that you know the consequence of doing so? Religious belief can, indeed, in many circumstances, impede progress and hinder free inquiry, which requires nothing less than a fearless attitude. It is important to construct your worldview on rational ground; to be open to new knowledge; to make decision based on your own values and reasonings instead of on the words of dead men; to stand on your own two feet and seek strength in your own heart and reason instead of seeking comfort from some beyond.
@OnePunch:
A vague understanding is more dangerous than non-understanding. It is hilarious that many people base their worldviews on such a vague understanding of the grand working of the world. Are you aware of how many different interpretations of quantum physics there are? To name a few, the many-worlds interpretation, the de Broglie–Bohm theory, the Ensemble interpretation, Popper's interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation, etc. Quantum physics is currently the most controversial field in science, with countless unsettled disputes, especially due to its incompatibility with leading theories regarding the macrocosmic world such as Einstein's General Relativity Theory. To this day there has been no tested Grand Unified Theory. To simply cite the word 'quantum physics' as a ground is almost no difference from not citing at all. But most laymen, whose knowledge is limited to pop-scientific junks, are unaware of those debates and easily fall prey to the sugar-coated words of New Age gurus, most of whom choose the Copenhagen Interpretation to be their armor, due to Werner Heisenberg's own infatuation with Eastern Metaphysics. I major in philosophy and study scientific methodology professionally, so you would need more than an arbitrary reference to quantum physics to convince me.
Regarding the nature of religious belief, even though I am nowhere as aggressive as Richard Dawkins or Chrisopher Hitchen, I contend that being a non-believer is the only healthy, rational and honest position to take. To settle with a particular belief-system just because you are born with it, or because of whatever reason not supported by sufficient scientific evidence and logical proofs, is to gamble with your life. Are you sure that you are not worshiping a false God, and that you know the consequence of doing so? Religious belief can, indeed, in many circumstances, impede progress and hinder free inquiry, which requires nothing less than a fearless attitude. It is important to construct your worldview on rational ground; to be open to new knowledge; to make decision based on your own values and reasonings instead of on the worlds of dead men; to stand on your own two feet and seek strength in your own heart and reason instead of seeking comfort from some beyond.
Nice copy and paste response. But first of all I don't worship any God, so I don't know where you got that from.
The point I'm making is that "God" is a universal force that holds the universe together and ensures the laws of physics work, there is nothing crazy about that.
@Foxy:
Nice copy and paste response. But first of all I don't worship any God, so I don't know where you got that from.
In the second passage, I was referring to the topic of religious belief in general that was discussed earlier in this thread, not you in particular. And yes, everything I post aside from the hyperlinks are typed by me hot and new.
@OnePunch:
Regarding the nature of religious belief, even though I am nowhere as aggressive as Richard Dawkins or Chrisopher Hitchens, I contend that being a non-believer is the only healthy, rational and honest position to take. To settle with a particular belief-system just because you are born with it, or because of whatever reason not supported by sufficient scientific evidence and logical proofs, is to gamble with your life.
What does that even mean.
Are you sure that you are not worshiping a false God, and that you know the consequence of doing so?
This sounds nothing like a non-religious issue with religion, and exactly like a specific religious issue with other religions.
You're phrasing it as if there's another correct god in your view, and bringing up something non-existant, aka, a consequence.
An atheistic stance would not have any consequences lol, no afterlife and all that.
Religious belief can, indeed, in many circumstances, impede progress and hinder free inquiry,
So can any number of secular philosophies and ideologies.
It's not the game, it's the playing style you should be railing against here.
Also you're confusing the heck outta yourself here, this sentence begins talking in an individual sense, and ends talking in what sounds like a societal sense.
Ain't nobody here going to support having Theocratic or otherwise fundamentally socially right-wing states, what any individual decides to believe or not isn't going to harm progress and free inquiry of a whole society. And hell it's arguable as all hell in the first place that this is true even on the individual level.
It is important to construct your worldview on rational ground; to be open to new knowledge; to make decision based on your own values and reasonings instead of on the words of dead men;
I agree, this is my problem with the infamous religious zealots known as Communists.
to stand on your own two feet and seek strength in your own heart and reason instead of seeking comfort from some beyond.
Inquiry in any given field that doesn't involve a hell of a lot of humility and willingness to investigate dead people's findings to build from and learn, is a child's idea of inquiry that has zero experience to it's name.
@OnePunch:
Regarding the nature of religious belief, even though I am nowhere as aggressive as Richard Dawkins or Chrisopher Hitchens, I contend that being a non-believer is the only healthy, rational and honest position to take. To settle with a particular belief-system just because you are born with it, or because of whatever reason not supported by sufficient scientific evidence and logical proofs, is to gamble with your life. Are you sure that you are not worshiping a false God, and that you know the consequence of doing so? Religious belief can, indeed, in many circumstances, impede progress and hinder free inquiry, which requires nothing less than a fearless attitude. It is important to construct your worldview on rational ground; to be open to new knowledge; to make decision based on your own values and reasonings instead of on the words of dead men; to stand on your own two feet and seek strength in your own heart and reason instead of seeking comfort from some beyond.
That's not what believing in God or being Christian (in my case) is about, though. I base my values and reasonings on what I've experienced and what I have witnessed, the fact that my faith in some part influences them doesn't mean they're directly derived from it. Also, my belief pretty much covers the basic values such as not to kill or not to steal or not to covet your neighbor's wife, etc. I learned a lot from that retreat I went through and part of what I learned is that we ARE encouraged to stand on our own two feet and seek strength in our own hearts but to follow God in doing so. It's not about seeking comfort from Him, rather, His guidance and presence in our lives. It doesn't mean our lives will be easier. Hell one of the points they emphasized was that being Christian isn't easy at all. It's full of challenges by the world and by ourselves, and it means a lot more than just saying you believe in God and praying only in times of need and not in times of happiness.
@Monkey:
I agree, this is my problem with the infamous religious zealots known as Communists.
Ehhh? Maybe you were being facetious, but the main thing I've been seeing on the recent topic of religion and now politics, are generalizations. OnePunch Man's "religious folk are sheeple who need to free their minds, maaan", and all that. I think that we should step back and remember that there is no universal Christian or universal Communist or universal science whyzard who wants to destroy spirituality forever.
@Monkey:
What does that even mean.
It is a reference to Pascal's wager. What I meant is, considering that there are so many religions, to choose to worship a particular God is a more dangerous gamble than being a non-believer.
An atheistic stance would not have any consequences lol, no afterlife and all that.
If by 'atheistic stance' you mean the explicit denial of afterlife, the belief that God doesn't exist. Being a non-believer is quite different from that. I don't claim to know whether there is afterlife, or whether there is some Being that punishes people for not believing in his existence, since I cannot provide irrefutable proof to affirm or deny those beliefs.
(Most) communists aren't true non-believers, as they are dogmatic in their own way. I am not advocating any particular belief-system, dogma or organized ideology, but intellectual honesty and strict adherence to rigorous logic and factual evidence. I am ready to believe in afterlife if valid evidence of it is discovered and successfully defended.
So can any number of secular philosophies and ideologies.
There are some ideologies that are more in tune with progress and free inquiry than some other. Among the secular philosophies and ideologies there are certainly some quite bad ones (which I certainly don't advocate, because much of their beliefs are not based on solid evidence), but most religious beliefs can strike the inquirer with fear and prevent further inquiries as well as the courage to uphold new worldview more supported by new evidences. This is relevant on both individual level and societal level. Many people cannot overcome their religious fear to push their mind one step further to a new level of intellectual mastery and inquiry.
EDIT: I explained what I mean by intellectual mastery in later posts.
Inquiry in any given field that doesn't involve a hell of a lot of humility and willingness to investigate dead people's findings to build from and learn, is a child's idea of inquiry that has zero experience to it's name.
Seeking comfort, i.e emotional and spiritual comfort, or consolation, is different from studying dead people's findings. In that last clause I was speaking about emotional and spiritual independence, not intellectual enterprise. To (most of) the believers it is more comfortable to believe there is a transcendental force outside them and beyond them that provides a universal value, an objective meaning of life. Without this belief they easily fall into existential angst and despair, lose sight of purpose and balance, as they have not created their own meaning and value for their lives. As such they are likely to lack sufficient mental preparation to live a strong life in the face of God's non-existence, if that is ever proved.
@OnePunch:
There are some ideologies that are more in tune with progress and free inquiry than some other. Among the secular philosophies and ideologies there are some quite bad ones, but most religious beliefs can strike the inquirer with fear and prevent further inquiries. This is relevant on both individual level and societal level. Many people cannot overcome their religious fear to push their mind one step further to a new level of intellectual mastery and inquiry.
So are you suggesting that most religiously minded individuals are "incapable" of achieving this "new level of intellectual mastery and inquiry" simply because they adhere to a particular belief? Just because one does not have affinity to an idea (since it might conflict with their own beliefs and supposedly cause "fear") doesn't mean they are incapable of grasping it. They still might not agree with it, but it doesn't mean they are automatically unable to grasp a new idea. Whether they believe in this "new idea" or not is a completely different question.
This isn't the dark ages where the church has a monopoly over information. The internet is pretty much readily available to provide information as much as one pleases. Maybe you are referring to 3rd world countries where information is not readily available, but in the modern era, I find this idea pretty ludicrous. It's like trying to hide porn from kids. They'll figure out what sex is eventually even if their parents make a legitimate effort to keep it from them.
So are you suggesting that most religiously minded individuals are "incapable" of achieving this "new level of intellectual mastery and inquiry" simply because they adhere to a particular belief? Just because one does not have affinity to an idea (since it might conflict with their own beliefs and supposedly cause "fear") doesn't mean they are incapable of grasping it. They still might not agree with it, but it doesn't mean they are automatically unable to grasp a new idea. Whether they believe in this "new idea" or not is a completely different question.
Intellectual mastery involves accepting (and even defending) new beliefs that are reasonably supported by new, reliable evidences and abandoning old ones that are incompatible with new evidences.
As far as i can remember i've never met a proclaimed atheist who wasn't a complete dick about it
@OnePunch:
Intellectual mastery involves accepting (and even defending) new beliefs that are reasonably supported by new, reliable evidences and abandoning old ones that are incompatible with new evidences.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm curious as to what makes you so sure there is no God?
@OnePunch:
Intellectual mastery involves accepting (and even defending) new beliefs that are reasonably supported by new, reliable evidences and abandoning old ones that are incompatible with new evidences.
Define "accepting": do you mean "accepting" as "take it to heart?" or "accepting" as "recognizing it as a legitimate idea." One can still recognize a good idea, but still not take it to heart (as in believing it). One can still defend an idea they do not truly believe in (lawyers do it all the time).
Also why would they need to completely abandon old ones? Is it not possible to simply modify it to suit a new idea and make them compatible?
I think your notion of Intellectual mastery is too simple. One can be a complete master of a subject and not take it to heart. For example, there are probably thousands of historians out there that are masters of Nazi history. Does that necessarily make them Nazis? No. Does that mean they HAVE to be Nazis in order to demonstrate mastery over Nazi history/philosophy/etc…? Obviously not. If they wrote several dissertations published multiple historical texts on the subject, studied it extensively and discussed it at an intellectual level with equally competent collegues (probably participating in debates on legitimizing the actions of the Nazis. Still that automatically doesn't mean they actually take it to heart.)...then yes, they should be considered masters of the subject. BUT...does that automatically make you a Nazi? Probably not.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm curious as to what makes you so sure there is no God?
To quote myself:@OnePunch:
If by 'atheistic stance' you mean the explicit denial of afterlife, the belief that God doesn't exist. Being a non-believer is quite different from that. I don't claim to know whether there is afterlife, or whether there is some Being that punishes people for not believing in his existence, since I cannot provide irrefutable proof to affirm or deny those beliefs.
So, no, I am not an atheist, or, at least, not a strong atheist, even though I see more evidences against his existence than evidences that support it. I am just a non-believer, a seeker of knowledge, a future scientist and thinker. God is just a scientific-philosophic hypothesis as any other. And intellectual mastery and honesty require the 'readiness' to abandon belief in God once a valid objective disproof of his existence is acquired. And spiritual mastery involves the strength to go on living vigorously even without an objective meaning provided by God.
@Monkey:
Blair lol? Late 90's? Dude you were WELL and globalized by then haha.
You seriously talk about England like you guys are an uncontacted tribe or something whose eco-system will fall apart with contact with the outside world.
The kind of cultural things you have aren't going to drop dead because of a bunch of Pakis and Polacks.
Christ my English blood has been over here for maybe 300 years and we still take tea-times at my grandparents house with quaint cookies and sugar cubes and shit.
Our culture and traditions won't die out, neither will theirs. But by flooding the country to this extent over such a small period of time means it has created a divide. the riots we had last year proved this perfectly, and that wasn't just down to the racism issue between police and the Tottenham county, but part of a much bigger issue that is beyond the point where we can turn away and act like this won't become a trend in the future. That said the current pm has and is currently tackling this meaning it won't reach a breaking point as it would have if the labour government stayed in power.
Wat you need to concede on is that you can't rush these things and that it needs to be done gradually over a long period of time if any real success can be drawn out of it. Like a few months ago you and me were joking about our main capitals diversity, while completely ignoring how well each one had actually done in motion.
I've experienced a FAR more old world, FAR less westernized, FAR more "exotic" nation within the European sphere. I even witnessed an even more exotic culture by seeing the Turkish side. A Turkish side where I saw a guy driving around in a hummer, and saw Christmas tree decorations on a roundabout green right in front of a mosque lol.
i wouldn't really be able to draw much positive points from the east. Personally I've done a large chunk of Europe and beyond, and it's proven to work much better when religion, flooding or finances don't get in the way. Spain and Portugal were a good example a few years back. Now it's pretty much left to the north to lead by example.
And you're going to try and say to me that in spite of all the globalized imprint and totally not "AGHH WERE GONNA CULTURALLY COLLAPSE" preserved tradition there, that England is somehow different and not way lighter level than that in every conceivable way?
forget culturally collapse, it will just become a shadow of its former self. With mass divide amongst the people, a financially bankrupt government, no jobs, no development and no future. but this isn't just England, I'm referring to Europe as a whole.
In fact I'd like to point out that originally I was referring mainly to Europe and the world secondly, England is just a tiny potion of the argument. Maybe you don't spend a lot of time watching the news regarding Europe and its close neighbours, so let me make it clear that the forecast is pretty horrific, with no chance of sunshine or rainbows for at least a ten to twenty year period. I've lived and seen how England has gone from being prosperous to a complete empty future less shithole.
And that right there pains me, So much so I had to leave…I want kids one day, and to be able to offer them a future. I think Chrissie and you have discovered this already, hence why the US is the obvious choice of the two.
Hell son, the Cypriots had a ton of YOUR country's imprint on them from their ideas of certain foods, modern music, words, to the side of the road they drive on and they didn't complain too much about something that they had no choice over till later.
Far more culturally traditional countries have endured empires like yours forcing cultural change, than the trickle of minorities into your cities on the behest of your democratically elected representatives.
the people have spoken.
Smudger, honey. I study this stuff damn near professionally . Don't try and turn that into "this". I've read a ton of different "Happiness" indexes, I've read various sources on human development, I study human geography and the reasons places turn out as they do in both those categories. And NEVER has diversity come up.
When it does do damage it's in countries that are only diverse statistically, but NOT geographically. African countries like Mali where there are different ethnic groups sure. But they live in completely different ecosystems, lifestyles, economies, regions, and almost never interact with eachother over vast spaces.
In other words they aren't mixed societies, they're basically different countries within a country.
so then England's going to become countries within a country…..lol that's already started happening, with areas made up of only one people, friction and violence spurned from it. This isn't positive in any way.
Anyway if you want to really argue this with any impact then please, post two stats you are happy with and point out why I'm wrong, and I mean a landslide victory and not just pointing at the few places that broke the mould.
And the countries that have problems with this are backwards, inexperienced, politically unstable, shaky nations full of fear and struggling with modernization. Like the Balkans, Middle East, Africa, etc.
As in, NOT Western Europe, let alone you, the mother nation of Australian, Canada, New Zealand and the US. The cradle of the Enlightenment and Renaissance and modern social movements.
you can't really says 'its been fine for hundreds of years…so whatever' as its only just become a wave of people fleeing the African, Asian, middle eastern and Western European countries in the hope of finding a better life.
You can't just magically create that many jobs for that many people in a financial climate of this calibre.
This is fucking pathetic old man, you're MORE than capable of transforming, you're already post-national. Shape up!!! Fuck, England?? Bitching and moaning like it's goddamned Myanmar?? Most countries are fucked up Smudger, real fucked up. Yours isn't, not even close. By some barometer's, modern stablity came from YOU. And this complaining??
i can't just 'shape up' when I see my country slowly fall apart. The only good thing that has come from it is the sheer unlikelyhood of ever having a world war again simply due tot he fact we are all so mixed up.
The English Americans are in me, they ruled this country for eons, ESPECIALLY the Northeast. Of course they did. We were a transplanted carbon copy of you when we started out weren't we? Haven't you ever thought about that? We were a bunch of English people, give or take a few Germans and Dutch.
Canada was the same excepting the French.
We were you in miniature. Trade the Celts for the Germanic mainlanders, even less culture clash abuse of the Irish.
90% of the settlements where I'm at are named after English towns and cities, we have VILLAGE GREENS in damn near every single town, we have older houses with your architecture circa those times, with little stone walls set up alongside the main roads. Within spitting distance from the surging urban tendrils of New York City and all that is so un-english about it. England is DEEP in the roots where I live.
You think America's so special and impossible for others to be alike, but we were identical to you. You wanna play Dr. Nation Assessment? Riddle me what's up with that.
Also why would they need to completely abandon old ones? Is it not possible to simply modify it to suit a new idea and make them compatible?
When I say Intellectual mastery it involves intellectual HONESTY, and acceptance of logic and factual evidence as the only valid authority. If the new evidence completely negates the old one, the only honest way is to completely abandon it. If one is not mentally prepared to abandon one's old beliefs for new, more rational ones, one cannot be said to have acquired intellectual mastery. Modifying old beliefs is what Christians have been doing for centuries. How the Bible is still accepted as an eternal authority is beyond me.
As far as i can remember i've never met a proclaimed atheist who wasn't a complete dick about it
Confirmation bias perhaps? Like, the people who are most vocal about something are often bound to be assholes, while the ones who aren't just tend to keep to themselves and not bother anyone else or even announce whatever it is to the world except when explicitly asked. That minority is, of course, doing everyone a disservice while the majority stays silent and suffers stereotyping.
…I'm a non-believer because I can't rationalize the existence of supernatural things, personally. I'm fine with no afterlife and no greater meaning to life other than our own experiences. But I have no beef with religious people if their beliefs simply help them to be better people and lead happier lives without imposing on others, just as I use my personal morals to guide me. And in the end, that does describe the silent majority, on both sides. Scripture-thumping extremists and condescending atheists do exist, but the frequent use of them as strawmen exaggerates their presence by an unfortunate amount.
Of course i realize the irony of not staying silent about my own beliefs in this very post, but it seems like we're all still capable of, in this space, stating our views and having a civil conversation about this.
I think that Smudger is really describing a segregated culture, rather than an integrated one…
@CCC:
Confirmation bias perhaps? Like, the people who are most vocal about something are often bound to be assholes, while the ones who aren't just tend to keep to themselves and not bother anyone else or even announce whatever it is to the world except when explicitly asked. Ironically, of course, that minority is doing everyone a disservice while the majority stays silent and suffers stereotyping.
Sounds perfectly reasonable
I think that Smudger is really describing a segregated culture, rather than an integrated one…
To me it seems that most of western Europe is heavily segregated
It's certainly true for my home country
I think that Smudger is really describing a segregated culture, rather than an integrated one…
segregation spawned from the lack of integration. This can only be achieved through time, effort and in a country where it is physically or financially viable.
I consider myself someone who believes in a kind of god (or maybe more), but doesn't belong to any Church. The latter is partly because my whole family is indifferent to religion as whole (except for my dad whom I don't keep contact with), or at least, I think so.
Interestingly enough, I don't see God or gods as humans, or anything, nor do I think they communicate with us by speech. It's hard to explain. I've experienced some strange things over my life which made me believe there's actually someone "up there" or more like around everything (living creatures, objects and so on). I don't yet know if it's really one "person"(for the lack of a better word) or more entities connected to each other; or maybe it's just our ancestors who "walk" beside us. This is getting way too vague, but maybe when I have the time and inspiration, I can collect my thoughts and write down my whole "belief-system".
As for Christianity as a whole, well, I have a confession: not sure if it makes sense, but… I'm sort of afraid of it. Not the people, but the "thing" itself. How should I explain....
Whenever I enter a temple or hear about this religion (in school etc.) I have this strange, unnerving feeling in my guts. I don't have any memories that could cause a fear like this.
As far as i can remember i've never met a proclaimed atheist who wasn't a complete dick about it
We have a separate word for atheists who are not dicks. They are called agnostics.
Nothing to do with the current topic.
! [h=5]The last year I've been pretty egoistic.
I prioritized my own problems and made them bigger than they were. I only saw myself and cared for myself for the most parts. I wasn't there for others. I always had to be the one with the biggest issues. I looked back too much. I let my past decide my actions and moods. And it was wrong.
I apologize to everyone who I've hurt in the progress. I want to be someone again that her friends can come to. I will not prioritize myself anymore but will look out for my friends instead. I will stop my constant whining and appreciate what I have left instead.
I feel bad and ashamed of many actions and all I can do now, is make it better and I hope that I get a second chance. I'm truly sorry.[/h]
Please continue.
segregation spawned from the lack of integration. This can only be achieved through time, effort and in a country where it is physically or financially viable.
I've always thought that Britain was pretty good about integration honestly… Like being Indian I have expat family pretty much all around the world. And my cousins who live in the UK are very, very British (complete with that incomprehensible accent and everything), kinda like those I have that live in Australia, The US or here in Canada. And then there are those who live in Dubai or Kenya or Indonesia who don't identify with their resident countries at all.
Nothing to do with the current topic.
! [h=5]The last year I've been pretty egoistic.
I prioritized my own problems and made them bigger than they were. I only saw myself and cared for myself for the most parts. I wasn't there for others. I always had to be the one with the biggest issues. I looked back too much. I let my past decide my actions and moods. And it was wrong.
I apologize to everyone who I've hurt in the progress. I want to be someone again that her friends can come to. I will not prioritize myself anymore but will look out for my friends instead. I will stop my constant whining and appreciate what I have left instead.
I feel bad and ashamed of many actions and all I can do now, is make it better and I hope that I get a second chance. I'm truly sorry.[/h]Please continue.
you have no idea how happy I am to hear this. So yeah I'm drunk and stuff…..the usual here, but you gave me some hope with that. either way it's good to hear you've recognised the stuff you don't like and throw a new you into the new year 2013.
Blegh I make no sense as usual, but one things for sure I can't wait to see you and get you back into the group. We all miss you here, especially me. ;)!
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
I've always thought that Britain was pretty good about integration honestly… Like being Indian I have expat family pretty much all around the world. And my cousins who live in the UK are very, very British (complete with that incomprehensible accent and everything), kinda like those I have that live in Australia, The US or here in Canada. And then there are those who live in Dubai or Kenya or Indonesia who don't identify with their resident countries at all.
true enough, we've always been pretty damn good with immersing everyone into a feeling of one big happy crowd. It's only been the last ten years that has been unbalanced and messed it up. If the government made drastic changes to account for the excess and then returned it to how we once had it then we wouldn't have any issues. England is still capable of healing.
@OnePunch:
When I say Intellectual mastery it involves intellectual HONESTY, and acceptance of logic and factual evidence as the only valid authority. If the new evidence completely negates the old one, the only honest way is to completely abandon it. If one is not mentally prepared to abandon one's old beliefs for new, more rational ones, one cannot be said to have acquired intellectual mastery. Modifying old beliefs is what Christians have been doing for centuries. How the Bible is still accepted as an eternal authority is beyond me.
It is clear you have no idea how religions work so allow me to explain. Modern religions survive because they are essentially capable of change to suit the ever changing world and its residents. It is not only the Christians that make modifications to their behavior based on societal and political development, but nearly all modern religions. That is one of the major methods for keeping a religion alive rather than having it fixed in a state of archaic stagnation. The Bible and other religious texts still are perceived as an authoritative text because the readers managed to attribute some relevance to their daily lives. The messages, values, and ideas (in spite of the archaic stories) are broad enough so they are able apply to their contemporary situation.
Also the fact that one simply has to "toss out" and old idea for a completely new one is too simplistic. In order to toss an idea out, the idea has to be "completely wrong" and "negates the old one". However, what if it cannot be completely proven. The idea of religion and the theology behind it cannot be strictly prove "true" or "false" due to its ambiguity. This narrow reasoning only really works on a scientific basis (and even then, that reasoning is still too simplistic and juvenile for the scientific realm).
This "intellectual mastery" concept sounds ludicrous since it relies strictly on logic and factual evidence as the "only" valid authority when the world and the experiences it invokes is much more complicated than that. The notion of emotions goes beyond logic and factual evidence, but should they be discarded as something that doesn't have any valid authority? Of course not because humans (well most of them) react to things that cannot be logically explained. Humans and their interaction to the stimulants within the world are too varied to be placed neatly into a database.
@OnePunch:
It is a reference to Pascal's wager. What I meant is, considering that there are so many religions, to choose to worship a particular God is a more dangerous gamble than being a non-believer.
A person taking Pascal's Wager seriously would NEVER choose non-belief lol.
If by 'atheistic stance' you mean the explicit denial of afterlife, the belief that God doesn't exist. Being a non-believer is quite different from that. I don't claim to know whether there is afterlife, or whether there is some Being that punishes people for not believing in his existence, since I cannot provide irrefutable proof to affirm or deny those beliefs.
(Most) communists aren't true non-believers, as they are dogmatic in their own way. I am not advocating any particular belief-system, dogma or organized ideology, but intellectual honesty and strict adherence to rigorous logic and factual evidence. I am ready to believe in afterlife if valid evidence of it is discovered and successfully defended.
Oh so you're already carting out No True Scotsmans to try and protect your made-up distinction "non-believer".
How very logical of you.
There are some ideologies that are more in tune with progress and free inquiry than some other.
If progress is your game you would languish in Maoist China, and thrive in Abbasid Persia/Arabia. Guess which one was religious and which was "non believing".
Among the secular philosophies and ideologies there are certainly some quite bad ones (which I certainly don't advocate, because much of their beliefs are not based on solid evidence), but most religious beliefs can strike the inquirer with fear and prevent further inquiries as well as the courage to uphold new worldview more supported by new evidences.
Do you imagine that mankind didn't progress a day until….when exactly?
Seeking comfort, i.e emotional and spiritual comfort, or consolation, is different from studying dead people's findings.
Oh alright, so emotions make us weak, thanks Ayn Rand.
To (most of) the believers it is more comfortable to believe there is a transcendental force outside them and beyond them that provides a universal value, an objective meaning of life. Without this belief they easily fall into existential angst and despair, lose sight of purpose and balance, as they have not created their own meaning and value for their lives. As such they are likely to lack sufficient mental preparation to live a strong life in the face of God's non-existence, if that is ever proved.
So this never-ever-going-to-happened hypothetical is why you're so "concerned".
Never you goddamn mind how people cope, everyone has to do it, whatever floats the boat.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Our culture and traditions won't die out, neither will theirs.
lol, yes their's will. Give or take a little food or something getting nationally popular.
But by flooding the country to this extent over such a small period of time means it has created a divide. the riots we had last year proved this perfectly, and that wasn't just down to the racism issue between police and the Tottenham county, but part of a much bigger issue that is beyond the point where we can turn away and act like this won't become a trend in the future. That said the current pm has and is currently tackling this meaning it won't reach a breaking point as it would have if the labour government stayed in power.
So you're literally saying the riots against cops or whatever, something I imagine you think America has never ever had, was because of….too many immigrants? And NOT about mistreatment imagined or otherwise?
Wat you need to concede on is that you can't rush these things and that it needs to be done gradually over a long period of time if any real success can be drawn out of it.
That's not what we did lol. What you even exactly mean by "long period of time" is baffling to me.
As if you think that's what we've done forever.
forget culturally collapse, it will just become a shadow of its former self. With mass divide amongst the people,
THAT.DOES.NOT.LAST. lol
Actually the ones who stay in the mud longest won't be the urban immigrant's children, it will be the rural white children who hear about scary cities. Trust us on this one.
a financially bankrupt government, no jobs, no development and no future. but this isn't just England, I'm referring to Europe as a whole.
If your economy goes south or more so, the immigrants won't just keep coming in the same amount. Duh. Why the heck do you think they're coming in the first place?
Do you have any idea how much the flow of Mexican illegals (and legals) has slowed in the recent years since 2008 over here?
In fact I'd like to point out that originally I was referring mainly to Europe and the world secondly, England is just a tiny potion of the argument. Maybe you don't spend a lot of time watching the news regarding Europe and its close neighbours, so let me make it clear that the forecast is pretty horrific, with no chance of sunshine or rainbows for at least a ten to twenty year period. I've lived and seen how England has gone from being prosperous to a complete empty future less shithole.
North Africa is on the cusp of dramatic political and economic opening that might actually lead to the reunification of the Medd after….1500 years. What a calamity! Paired with a rapidly economically growing Turkey, and increasingly Putin tired Russia, the forecast couldn't be darker!
The problem in Europe I'm aware of has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with your own sorry finances, and fundamental issues in the EU experiment.
And that right there pains me, So much so I had to leave…I want kids one day, and to be able to offer them a future. I think Chrissie and you have discovered this already, hence why the US is the obvious choice of the two.
Her leaving Cyprus had nothing to do with immigrants lolll. Cyprus is suffering from the EU crap but it's not economics either.
Yes, Chrissie wanted to run away from immigrants, to the New York metro area to escape immigrants!
And yeah, America! No economic problems here! Nor do we have a vast unnatural land border with a teetering chaotic far poorer country torn with horrific drug wars and political instability!
so then England's going to become countries within a country…..lol that's already started happening,
Yeah, the Scots have decided your beloved Torries are shit, and that the problem with England is England lolll.
with areas made up of only one people, friction and violence spurned from it. This isn't positive in any way.
yaaaawwwn, normal, been there done that. Still doing it.
You have to pick your argument here.
1. America is unique! Britain is different!
2. We're not fundamentally different, and wahhhh i dont wanna it's too hard.
Because which is it.
Anyway if you want to really argue this with any impact then please, post two stats you are happy with and point out why I'm wrong, and I mean a landslide victory and not just pointing at the few places that broke the mould.
Actually Smudge, that's a bit of the problem here isn't it. You haven't ever even once posted this Happiness index you've been talking about this whole time! Why don't you do that and let myself have a gander at it. I think Crystal Ship may already have suggested why you're actually completely wrong, but I wanna see it myself. Show me.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm curious as to what makes you so sure there is no God?
Just because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean we should lend any credit to it. It's a waste of time. We could say that we are currently living in the matrix, and you're not really tempted to believe that, are you? The leaps in logic and faith people take in order to protect the so-called belief in this book called the bible, for example, baffles me, and after all the harm this scripture has done.. this scripture written by theologists that is an attempt to give meaning to life and the world around them through the narrow minded viewpoint that can ONLY be said for someone living in the 1st century.
This "intellectual mastery" concept sounds ludicrous since it relies strictly on logic and factual evidence as the "only" valid authority when the world and the experiences it invokes is much more complicated than that. The notion of emotions goes beyond logic and factual evidence, but should they be discarded as something that doesn't have any valid authority? Of course not because humans (well most of them) react to things that cannot be logically explained. Humans and their interaction to the stimulants within the world are too varied to be placed neatly into a database.
This post. Well said.
I don't believe in logic. It's fishy - you can't tell what the truth is basing on it. It isn't rational, it's just a part of network humans created in order to describe a world. Of course it's very useful in communication and resolving various problems so I'm not going to abandon it either. Abandoning logic, due to it's flaws, would be as stupid as abandoning sight basing on the fact that I'm subdue to optical illusions
But just look at logic it's just a system based on axioms. Choosing different axioms creates different systems, Now a days people actually choose different systems to resolve different problems - it's needed because every system has it's limitations. Even in the past logic wasn't unified. As far as I know in India evolve system different from classic logic without laws of double negation elimination and law of noncontradiction.
Choosing axioms depends on irrational views (it depends partly on culture) and is often matter of belief.
Either way I don't see humans actually being too rational. Every rational (or claiming to be such) systems of believes about the world is highly artificial and doesn't match common experience.
Religious and spiritual beliefs are extremely personal. I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't really understand why there's a need to prompt OnePunch Man to elaborate on his views to then argue against them.
Even if he were to decide to be dickishly condescending in expressing his beliefs, they're very much his beliefs, and as far as I see they're personal enough that he's not hurting anyone or trying to convert anyone.
this is my point, no country has any obligation to make itself more diverse or even carry the financial burden of taking on people around them, especially during an era when countries are on the brink of collapsing.
As for England, the north is still pretty mixed up. But as I said why would you even point the finger and act like its not stepping up to the plate because the south has a slightly higher ratio of ethnicities and whatnot.
Wasn't I talking about wealth? lol. And the idea that we don't have obligations to help each other … yeah, let's have flat-rate taxes, let's NOT break our biggest trading partners out of financial catastrophe, let's scrap the welfare state sompletely, let's, um, be America, but without trade. Oh wait, that would suck, and be morally repugnant.
first off let me stop you there before you carry on this charade that England has no culture before the wave of immigration in the Blair era. We have culture.
But what irks me most is you already are 100% sure of England when you've never really experienced it.
We have culture? :S I dunno about that. We sure have a pretty strong national identity, if that counts. But that's got nothing to do with where your daddy came from., or where you fly over to see your grandma in the summer. This mythic 'English culture', if indeed it exists, is a lot less distinctive than those of many other countries.
@Monkey:
I've experienced a FAR more old world, FAR less westernized, FAR more "exotic" nation within the European sphere. I even witnessed an even more exotic culture by seeing the Turkish side. A Turkish side where I saw a guy driving around in a hummer, and saw Christmas tree decorations on a roundabout green right in front of a mosque lol.
And you're going to try and say to me that in spite of all the globalized imprint and totally not "AGHH WERE GONNA CULTURALLY COLLAPSE" preserved tradition there, that England is somehow different and not way lighter level than that in every conceivable way?
Hell son, the Cypriots had a ton of YOUR country's imprint on them from their ideas of certain foods, modern music, words, to the side of the road they drive on and they didn't complain too much about something that they had no choice over till later.
Far more culturally traditional countries have endured empires like yours forcing cultural change, than the trickle of minorities into your cities on the behest of your democratically elected representatives.
^like this stuff about cyprus and turkey etc.
Blair lol? Late 90's? Dude you were WELL and globalized by then haha.
You seriously talk about England like you guys are an uncontacted tribe or something whose eco-system will fall apart with contact with the outside world.
The kind of cultural things you have aren't going to drop dead because of a bunch of Pakis and Polacks.
Christ my English blood has been over here for maybe 300 years and we still take tea-times at my grandparents house with quaint cookies and sugar cubes and shit.
If you knew your 'English roots' you'd call them biscuits ;)
The English Americans are in me, they ruled this country for eons, ESPECIALLY the Northeast. Of course they did. We were a transplanted carbon copy of you when we started out weren't we? Haven't you ever thought about that? We were a bunch of English people, give or take a few Germans and Dutch.
Surely, a lot of Germans, and a lot of Scots too.
Our culture and traditions won't die out, neither will theirs. But by flooding the country to this extent over such a small period of time means it has created a divide. the riots we had last year proved this perfectly, and that wasn't just down to the racism issue between police and the Tottenham county, but part of a much bigger issue that is beyond the point where we can turn away and act like this won't become a trend in the future. That said the current pm has and is currently tackling this meaning it won't reach a breaking point as it would have if the labour government stayed in power.
The riots really had nothing to do with racism. Sure, it started out to be about mistrust of the police and alleged police misconduct, but it escalated because we have much wider social issues that have little to do with either race or age, as if often alleged.
forget culturally collapse, it will just become a shadow of its former self. With mass divide amongst the people, a financially bankrupt government, no jobs, no development and no future. but this isn't just England, I'm referring to Europe as a whole.
lol finances and racial issues are broadly independent. Even if the national debt turns people like you into racists, and creates a so-called mass divide (despite the relatively small percentage of the population who are non white-British), the economy would still recover (assuming it will recover :p).
In fact I'd like to point out that originally I was referring mainly to Europe and the world secondly, England is just a tiny potion of the argument. Maybe you don't spend a lot of time watching the news regarding Europe and its close neighbours, so let me make it clear that the forecast is pretty horrific, with no chance of sunshine or rainbows for at least a ten to twenty year period. I've lived and seen how England has gone from being prosperous to a complete empty future less shithole.
And that right there pains me, So much so I had to leave…I want kids one day, and to be able to offer them a future. I think Chrissie and you have discovered this already, hence why the US is the obvious choice of the two.
Huh. If you think you have no future here, go to the US, or China. But haven't we shifted from showing some correlation between misery and diversity to showing some correlation between misery and economics?
the people have spoken.
so then England's going to become countries within a country…..lol that's already started happening, with areas made up of only one people, friction and violence spurned from it. This isn't positive in any way.
Anyway if you want to really argue this with any impact then please, post two stats you are happy with and point out why I'm wrong, and I mean a landslide victory and not just pointing at the few places that broke the mould.
you can't really says 'its been fine for hundreds of years...so whatever' as its only just become a wave of people fleeing the African, Asian, middle eastern and Western European countries in the hope of finding a better life.
You can't just magically create that many jobs for that many people in a financial climate of this calibre.
i can't just 'shape up' when I see my country slowly fall apart. The only good thing that has come from it is the sheer unlikelyhood of ever having a world war again simply due tot he fact we are all so mixed up.
I agree, to an extent. The level of immigration - and the government's lack of control - is problematic, if the government continues to fail to make provisions - for example, ensure there's enough housing, stimulate growth and jobs, etc. But, you see, that's entirely a problem created by a huge number of factors in the present, and not indicative of problems caused by diversity.
I've always thought that Britain was pretty good about integration honestly… Like being Indian I have expat family pretty much all around the world. And my cousins who live in the UK are very, very British (complete with that incomprehensible accent and everything), kinda like those I have that live in Australia, The US or here in Canada. And then there are those who live in Dubai or Kenya or Indonesia who don't identify with their resident countries at all.
This.
true enough, we've always been pretty damn good with immersing everyone into a feeling of one big happy crowd. It's only been the last ten years that has been unbalanced and messed it up. If the government made drastic changes to account for the excess and then returned it to how we once had it then we wouldn't have any issues. England is still capable of healing.
Closet racist, much? I live in a pretty diverse part of the country, and it's not cancerous at all.
–-
@Monkey:
Yeah, the Scots have decided your beloved Torries are shit, and that the problem with England is England lolll.
Uh, Scotland has decided it would be richer for a while without having to pay for shit like a nuclear deterrent and without having to share its oil and gas wealth. And for some reason, people feel like independence relinquished over 300 years ago is still relevant. Of course, people begin to realise that breaking a country apart is pretty complicated - they won't automatically be in the EU, and if they are, will have to deal with all sorts of stuff like the Euro, which they probably don't want.
–-
Just because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean we should lend any credit to it. It's a waste of time. We could say that we are currently living in the matrix, and you're not really tempted to believe that, are you? The leaps in logic and faith people take in order to protect the so-called belief in this book called the bible, for example, baffles me, and after all the harm this scripture has done.. this scripture written by theologists that is an attempt to give meaning to life and the world around them through the narrow minded viewpoint that can ONLY be said for someone living in the 1st century.
If I am convinced we are living in a cave that we think is the whole world - that is, that we are living in the matrix - your argument that one isn't tempted to believe in that does not convince me.
we only have a load of white people sadly, like 99%
I'd probably support the Scots leaving the union, for people in Wales, Scotland and NI there's a growing resentment how everything is always about the English.
IE, we have been rioting because our Union Jack was taken down from the City Hall for over a month now and almost 50 police have been injured, over 40 petrol bombs and court cases and charges, death threats, arson, attempted murder and Cameron hasn't said a single thing - keeping in mind this is a country he's PM of, yet he can talk about Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance, or can easily borrow our water cannons for London's 4 day riots (which caused the world to stand still, yet we have riots every month or so and bomb scares all the time and nobody cares then.
If I am convinced we are living in a cave that we think is the whole world - that is, that we are living in the matrix - your argument that one isn't tempted to believe in that does not convince me.
Well, if you wanted to believe that, without any evidence or justification, then I couldn't be bothered to argue with you about it. You're more than welcome to believe that, but don't expect anyone else to. Plus, that wasn't the main point. Nice cherry-picking.
Religious and spiritual beliefs are extremely personal. I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't really understand why there's a need to prompt OnePunch Man to elaborate on his views to then argue against them.
Even if he were to decide to be dickishly condescending in expressing his beliefs, they're very much his beliefs, and as far as I see they're personal enough that he's not hurting anyone or trying to convert anyone.
lol, what twilight zone did you crawl out of where OneInchPunch is the innocent set upon guy here.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
we only have a load of white people sadly, like 99%
And yet you're the most divided dangerous part of the UK!
Actually it's kind of surreal seeing Smudge complain about the UK "recently" having ethnic strife with Northern Ireland you know, existing.
I'd probably support the Scots leaving the union, for people in Wales, Scotland and NI there's a growing resentment how everything is always about the English.
NO NO, SHUT UP, IT"S THE FORIEGNERS, BACK IN THE BOX CELTS
IE, we have been rioting because our Union Jack was taken down from the City Hall for over a month now and almost 50 police have been injured, over 40 petrol bombs and court cases and charges, death threats, arson, attempted murder and Cameron hasn't said a single thing - keeping in mind this is a country he's PM of, yet he can talk about Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance, or can easily borrow our water cannons for London's 4 day riots (which caused the world to stand still, yet we have riots every month or so and bomb scares all the time and nobody cares then.
If anything you guys could use some Muslims, Orthodox Christians, and Hindus and stuff just to maybe shake everyone out of their Protestant/Catholic haze a bit lol.
Well, if you wanted to believe that, without any evidence or justification,(…)
doesn't believe imply doing it without any evidence or justification?
we only have a load of white people sadly, like 99%
I'd probably support the Scots leaving the union, for people in Wales, Scotland and NI there's a growing resentment how everything is always about the English.
IE, we have been rioting because our Union Jack was taken down from the City Hall for over a month now and almost 50 police have been injured, over 40 petrol bombs and court cases and charges, death threats, arson, attempted murder and Cameron hasn't said a single thing - keeping in mind this is a country he's PM of, yet he can talk about Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance, or can easily borrow our water cannons for London's 4 day riots (which caused the world to stand still, yet we have riots every month or so and bomb scares all the time and nobody cares then.
England is most of the UK, so it's hardly surprising. Devolution means the other constituent countries have a say over things locally. Scotland's reasons for leaving are only a little to do with the disparity between current Scottish voting trends and the Westminster government. It is, both in terms of political opinion and financial concerns, a very short sighted thing.
Annnd, tax avoidance is a huge issue in the whole country right now. The riots in England were of a completely unexpected scale, and it was surrounded by issues of police misconduct and so on. I would also say I was sure that Cameron had said something about the Belfast flag dispute, but I can't find any way to substantiate this. Either way, the broadly England-based British press certainly gave it - and I presume, is giving it - due attention.
Well, if you wanted to believe that, without any evidence or justification, then I couldn't be bothered to argue with you about it. You're more than welcome to believe that, but don't expect anyone else to. Plus, that wasn't the main point. Nice cherry-picking.
Your idea that you can reject out of hand things which are 'unfalsifiable' is unappealing. For example, taking the idea of the matrix, one person might scoff and reject it as something we can never prove. Another might believe it because it has been presented convincingly to them. And yet another might assess it to be perfectly plausible, but since it will literally have no effect on them whatsoever, and they are not interested in finding a 'way out', they will ignore it. Similarly, with religion, one might take the view that God's existence cannot be proven, so we shall reject it, and therefore all the logic of the New Testament cannot possibly stand up to the scrutiny of our superior, atheistic mindset, because it was written by people from a time of religion some two millennia past.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Monkey:
And yet you're the most divided dangerous part of the UK!
Actually it's kind of surreal seeing Smudge complain about the UK "recently" having ethnic strife with Northern Ireland you know, existing.
Sort of not ethnic.
I grew up on a stretch of road where a gang of people drove around in a rented taxi and pulled Cath people into it in the middles of the nights and slit their throats and dumped them in allies.
My best friend's uncle was the director of military operations for a particular terrorist group.
Sort of not ethnic.
It is though. The Catholics are Irish, the Protestants are descendents of English and Scottish (mostly) settlers brought in by England to tame the land hundreds of years ago.
They tried doing this to all of Ireland, but it only really worked out for them in Ulster.
Not to make Emp Time feel awkward or anything, it's rough fuckin' history in Ireland.
@Monkey:
It is though. The Catholics are Irish, the Protestants are descendents of English and Scottish (mostly) settlers brought in by England to tame the land hundreds of years ago.
They tried doing this to all of Ireland, but it only really worked out for them in Ulster.Not to make Emp Time feel awkward or anything, it's rough fuckin' history in Ireland.
I wonder if Ulster will ever get reclaimed by Ireland. Not that I expect the Communist I.R.A. to do it.
@Foxy:
I wonder if Ulster will ever get reclaimed by Ireland. Not that I expect the Communist I.R.A. to do it.
I will fuck you up.
@Monkey:
It is though. The Catholics are Irish, the Protestants are descendents of English and Scottish (mostly) settlers brought in by England to tame the land hundreds of years ago.
They tried doing this to all of Ireland, but it only really worked out for them in Ulster.Not to make Emp Time feel awkward or anything, it's rough fuckin' history in Ireland.
Huh. I suppose. I've never really thought about it like that though.
@Foxy:
I wonder if Ulster will ever get reclaimed by Ireland.
Yeah, fuck a peace process. Ireland should ignore the Protestants just like the Protestants historically ignored the Catholics, that will settle things not.
(the Republic of Ireland fought a civil war over the issue right after independence and the pro-treaty side won, at the cost of Michael Collins and my Irish blood immigrating the fuck out of there)
I'm a working class protestant.
Though I do long to get out of this area, it's not cultured enough for me.
@Foxy:
I wonder if Ulster will ever get reclaimed by Ireland. Not that I expect the Communist I.R.A. to do it.
What is this Communist IRA you speak of :S
I'm a working class protestant.
Though I do long to get out of this area, it's not cultured enough for me.
Oh dear. Cultured.