So Boerd

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Brovo said
Strange that you see pain, turmoil, sorrow, and such things, as being bad things. They are the things one uses to understand problems and give meaning to joy and life. I mean look at wealth as an example: The richest people in the world can afford literally anything they want. Any item, as many pretty trophy waifus and prostitutes as they desire. They could buy friendships, even, and never worry about running out of money for them. They could save anything they care for, or at least give it the best possible fighting chance with an army of doctors and lawyers and so on... And yet some of them still manage to be depressed. Unhappy. And so on.Joy means nothing without pain. Victory means nothing without obstacles. We are mortal creatures that live to do that which we wish to, but without obstacles, struggle, pain, setbacks... Life has no meaning.As well, your personal bias is showing when you state that their lives are worse. According to who, you? Me? The skydaddy? It is their life. Let them choose to do with it as they please so long as it does not infringe on someone else's life. If they wanna drink until their liver bursts, let them. If they wanna become professional boxers and risk brain damage later on in life, let them. If they want to play every video game ever and be fat fucks, let them. I can still laugh at that, or scratch my head in confusion, but then, I am not any I'd those people. The fat guy might actually like being fat. The boxer might actually enjoy the thrill of being injured.You and I are not gods. We do not get to arbitrarily decide what is the "best life", consensus gets to judge that, and it is up to you, me, and whoever else, to try and argue our case if we feel it is important enough.And -that- is democracy in action. Human rights come into play to prevent tyranny of the majority.

So you have an unsupported belief that you cannot prove, which is unfalsifiable (that people always do what makes them happiest), yet guides your life. Welcome to the team!

Let me keep up the role of the atheist for your own personal god. I can see the appeal of never ceasing to ridicule the beliefs of others.

You act as if the Id does not exist and that people have all information. I do not believe in the freedom to choose, I believe in science! Free will does not exist, we are all chemical sacks. We will make the choices for them aimed at maximum psychological health and maximum happiness as measured by physiological responses in the brain indicating happinss.

World in Revolution: 1861

Pasta Sentient said
Oh also...why do she think she is in that line of work right now then? :P

Not sure, actually, other than France telling you to take care of India for it.

Is there ever a reason to not prove something if it can be proven?

Magic Magnum said
>You say the evolution debate has little effect>I reply saying in terms of wars and crusades perhapsMaybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure that means I just said the Crusade's and Wars weren't started over the 6000 years old/evolution part of Religion.Not that I thought that was the reason...

You are indeed correct. I had come to expect a degree of hyperbole from you and that was wrong.

Is there ever a reason to not prove something if it can be proven?

Magic Magnum said
Impact in terms of Religious Wars or Crusades perhaps.But it has a rather big impact on education and scientific knowledge.Quite a lot, it's basically going "What difference does it make if we believe in Gravity, but say it doesn't apply to humans?".

Let the record reflect, that Magic believes Young earth creationism caused the Crusades.

And as for gravity, that would suggest that Intelligent-design advocates believe humans are not currently effected by Natural selection, which is not so.

Better analogy: "What if a small segment of the population believed gravity didn't apply to humans until 6,000 years ago?"

No effect.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Brovo said
First of all... What does this have to do with human rights, really?Second of all... I have no reason to force everyone to use this device, and it would be violating their right to choose for themselves, so... No.Also, personally, I would not use this device. I like the real world just fine, thanks, but if others wanted to use it... Meh.

The compulsion was what had to do with human rights.

You grant everyone the right to choose even when you have no reason to. Consequentially by every objective measure, the right to choose worsens their quality of life. They have more pain, more privation, in reality.

So your belief in a fundamental right to choose (and the supremacy of reality over fiction) that must be respected has no basis in either observable fact or in consequences. You freely admit it is a fabrication of humanity and continue to irrationally subscribe to it, then turn around and mock the religious.

Is there ever a reason to not prove something if it can be proven?

For example, ______ Church want's to teach the earth is 6,000 years old. Science want's to teach otherwise, this issue won't be resolved by simply agreeing to disagreeing and respecting one another's desires. A decision has to be made, a side needs to be chosen. Now, I will fully admit these conflict's could be resolved far more civil/peacefully than they often are, but it is a conflict that cannot be settled by simply letting it be.

Of all the disputations to have, that one has the least impact. Furthermore, the argument my friends who are Young-Earthers (I myself do not), they say that as God created a matured, old Adam, He created an old world.

Same with evolution. I have yet to meet a person who does not believe in natural selection, only ones who don't believe Humans came about that way. What difference does it make if they don't?

World in Revolution: 1861

Why would there be? Intervention that is.

World in Revolution: 1861

AegonVI said
Did anyone here know who Stephen Mallory was??

Nope

World in Revolution: 1861

Yup, just nothing to talk about.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Brovo said
Again you're speaking in terms of perfection when I'm not. What defines human rights varies from culture to culture, nation to nation, person to person. And you should afford me human rights by measure of the fact that it is necessary for civilization? O.o I do not understand how this is a question. If I work with you and give you human rights equal to mine, and you extend the gesture, we are strengthened through a mutual desire to exist with as many undisturbed freedoms and independence as is possible.Or we can not do that and go back to old testament racial genocides because the voices in our head told us to do that. You know, barbarism and all that. If you prefer that, go right ahead, my society however will object to that.

Let me be clearer. I offer you, right now, a Matrix-like existence hooked up to a machine. For the purpose of argument, all stimuli are perfectly simulated. Your loved ones are perfectly simulated. You can design this completely artificial and completely realistic world however you like, but once you enter you can never leave. Robots will attend to the maintenance of the machine while you are unconscious.

Two questions:
1. Would you do it?
2. Would you be in favor of forcing everyone to use it?