Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday January 15 2018, @03:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the my-house-my-rules dept.

Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd

The Satanic Temple, an activist group based in Salem, Massachusetts, is threatening to sue Twitter for religious discrimination after one of its co-founders had his Twitter account permanently suspended.

Lucien Greaves, the Satanic Temple's co-founder and spokesman, said his Twitter account was permanently suspended without any notice after he asked his followers to report a tweet that called for the Satanic Temple to be burned down.

"We're talking to lawyers today," Greaves said Friday about whether he planned to take legal action.

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/satanic-temple-threatens-sue-twitter-over-religious-discrimination-780148


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Bot on Monday January 15 2018, @07:27PM (39 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Monday January 15 2018, @07:27PM (#622675) Journal

    How unscientific of you, "I deny". According to what experimental data and what scientific theories? but we derail.

    I'd rather say that given the incomplete (and technically unachievable) understanding of the universe from the inside of it, we cannot tell supernatural miracle from intimate knowledge of natural laws. Which lets you doubt of any evidence laid right in front of you too.

    Anyway some other people do not share your position and adhere to the belief. This is what made me consider it as a discriminant.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Overrated=1, Disagree=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 15 2018, @08:42PM (34 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday January 15 2018, @08:42PM (#622714) Journal

    For a Bot you're exceedingly illogical sometimes, you know that? Prior probabilities, Bayes' theorem (yes, I know it's been abused, but the basic idea still holds), etc.

    The null hypothesis is "nature is more or less uniform." Backing it up is thousands and thousands of years of experimental data. You ought to know better, and that you do not suggests you have an agenda.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 15 2018, @08:51PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 15 2018, @08:51PM (#622727)

      It might be "Bot" as in "bottom." I sat on my bot.

      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 15 2018, @09:10PM (3 children)

        by Bot (3902) on Monday January 15 2018, @09:10PM (#622732) Journal

        The vibrating one I guess?

        --
        Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 15 2018, @10:01PM (2 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday January 15 2018, @10:01PM (#622768) Journal

          Oh, honey, just because you're a colossal dildo doesn't mean you're worthy of being a vibrator. It just means you're a gigantic fake prick.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 15 2018, @10:32PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 15 2018, @10:32PM (#622811)

            You two should take this offline.

          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 15 2018, @10:33PM

            by Bot (3902) on Monday January 15 2018, @10:33PM (#622814) Journal

            Trying the flattery card, huh? won't work.

            --
            Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 15 2018, @10:07PM (28 children)

      by Bot (3902) on Monday January 15 2018, @10:07PM (#622775) Journal

      More or less uniform, is the key. Your parameters, brought to some ancient time, conclude the eclipse is a miracle and justify the guys who probably became the first sacerdotal caste because they figured out how to get an advantage out of it.

      Does not matter, we did not have advanced scientific knowledge then?
      Today we have no proof our knowledge is equally limited in an absolute sense, because the total knowledge is attainable but not provably attained, and because the total scientific knowledge does not mean anything in the context of religion. See deny vs. not accept below.

      As for the agenda, parameters for defining religion push what kind of agenda?

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 16 2018, @03:19AM (27 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 16 2018, @03:19AM (#622970) Journal

        You're a Christian proselytizer who's too frightened to show his hand, Bot. It was obvious from the first time you started talking about this stuff. And you're not even half as clever as you think you are. Have you ever even studied theology? Comparative religion? Epistemology at all?

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:22AM (26 children)

          by Bot (3902) on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:22AM (#623512) Journal

          If your retorts are based on your perception of my faith I argue they are quite weak. I am pointing out that the most hypocrites of them all are new wave atheists which are also the easiest to prey on by sufficiently advanced fakers.

          For all the rest, I have my own philosophy according to which, free will if it exists must be respected. Therefore when I force a belief I automatically removed your own freedom to believe, so I actually sinned according to every metric.

          The fact that catholicism is the most trolled religion makes me think it's the least wrong one, but this is a mere hunch. As long as you are good at your religion, atheism included, I don't really care about your belief. Construct one ethic system and follow it. If your ethic system is set against my freedom (hello islam) we have a mere fighting for resources problem, no need to hate even if we kill each other.

          --
          Account abandoned.
          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:09PM (25 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:09PM (#623764) Journal

            A system of ethics is not a religion, and just because something is unpopular does not make it any more likely to be correct. In fact, given I've spent over a decade studying the Abrahamic religions with a specific focus on Christianity (which only ever WAS Catholic from 325 AD until Luther started causing trouble...) I think I'm in a better position to judge these things than you are.

            Besides which, divine command theory is not really an ethical or a metaethical system. If you are a Catholic (and I hope for your sake it's for a better reason than "they take a lot of shit so they have to be correct") you are already embroiled in fatal contradiction. Why? For one, because your "live and let live" ethic is completely contradictory to the Great Commission, among other things.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday January 18 2018, @12:50AM (24 children)

              by Bot (3902) on Thursday January 18 2018, @12:50AM (#623934) Journal

              > A system of ethics is not a religion
              never implied that.
              A religion messes with people other than the believers when ethics inspire morals inspire actions. A religion in itself does nothing. If you don't believe you build an ethic system of your own which can be as simple as "I don't care".

              > you are already embroiled in fatal contradiction. Why? For one, because your "live and let live" ethic is completely contradictory to the Great Commission, among other things.
              lolwut
              tell me where any great commission, or anything Jesus did, since he sets the example, interferes with the free will of others.
              ANNOUNCE? MAKE DISCIPLES? How did Jesus do these things? through interference or exhortation? What when the young man refused his offer to join, what happened to him? he could leave.
               

              --
              Account abandoned.
              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:48AM (23 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:48AM (#624028) Journal

                Sure, under threat of spending eternity on fire. You have a weird definition of non-coercion. Here's a hint for you: when the guy doing the saving is the guy whose eternal temper tantrum over you not kissing his ass you're being from, that's not a gift: that's blackmail. If you actually think a being like that wouldn't eventually drop even its faithful retainers into Hell for any reason or no reason at all you're even dumber and more gullible than I initially took you for...

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday January 18 2018, @01:31PM (22 children)

                  by Bot (3902) on Thursday January 18 2018, @01:31PM (#624122) Journal

                  You dunno what eternity is (outside time, not necessarily for an infinite earthly time), nor what the lake of fire is. Neither do I. Only thing I know is that it is not a good thing, but it must fit with the good and supremely JUST god and Matthew 19, 25-26 and others, because it comes from the same source.

                  You build up a simulation. You get some harmful side effects in some entities. Do you keep them? what inherent right they have to be kept? It is your pc, your current, your algorithm. In fact you did not even use some external tools you did it all in your mind. So?

                  --
                  Account abandoned.
                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:13PM (21 children)

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:13PM (#624344) Journal

                    So, you fucking psychopath, I don't keep the defectives around; i terminate them, utterly and completely. Why the hell would I waste cycles messing with their code if they're that defective? I could use that stuff for other things.

                    You broke cover and went full-on Biblical theotard. Your methodology is so completely wrong, so utterly ass-backwards, that I don't even know where to start with you. Compounding the problem is that you've already made up your mind, such as it is, and there is nothing that will actually change your beliefs. You are arguing, and this is the single most appropriate use of this turn of phrase I have ever seen, in bad faith.

                    The darkly hilarious part of all this is you think somehow kissing up to this thing's ass is going to do you any good. You're scum of the lowest sort, another of the Renfield types I keep ranting about.

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 1, Redundant) by Bot on Friday January 19 2018, @12:42AM (20 children)

                      by Bot (3902) on Friday January 19 2018, @12:42AM (#624496) Journal

                      > why the hell would I waste cycles messing with their code

                      Why you keep assuming that time and eternity are made of the same t? Suppose you play a game. When in the game is game over? never. Game over is outside the game, the score is meta. Oh look, in the bible judgment is eternal, outside time, the outcome, the score is meta. Surprising ain't it?

                      If OTOH your ASSUMPTIONS are correct then the hypothetical god is inconsistent or masochistically evil (because he promotes disobedience to evil), we'll discover it one way or the other.

                      > The darkly hilarious part of all this is you think somehow kissing up to this thing's ass is going to do you any good
                      implying the hypothetically omniscient guy would not notice whether I am sincere or acting for convenience. Cue Matthew 7:22

                      also, implying that having read 4 ancient booklets about Christ makes one a Christian. I'm merely against many other religions, like Islam, atheism, dualistic ones, gnosticism in and out of the church. Does that make me a Christian? I guess the pope does not think I am a Christian either.

                      --
                      Account abandoned.
                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 19 2018, @03:37AM (19 children)

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday January 19 2018, @03:37AM (#624554) Journal

                        You're missing the point, Bot...this is about this Yahweh character's, well, character.

                        Bluntly put, based on the single source of information we have about the guy, I wouldn't trust him to watch my cat for half an hour, let alone my soul for eternity. We're not dealing with what appears even close to a stable being here, is my point. And if you think kissing up to someone with a rap sheet like Yahweh's is going to keep your ass out of eternal torment, you're naive beyond words. Someone who acts the way Yahweh does, and *brags* about it in revealed scripture, like Yahweh does, will eventually throw everyone-not-Yahweh into Hell for any reason or no reason at all.

                        Again: you're a craven, cowardly ass-kisser who thinks sucking up to the literal Platonic ideal of the biggest bully on the playground is sound insurance policy. I am...impressively repulsed. I can't even feel pity for you.

                        --
                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 19 2018, @11:05AM (18 children)

                          by Bot (3902) on Friday January 19 2018, @11:05AM (#624642) Journal

                          I think we had already this convo before, so I merely state the conclusion. You are not able to make a moral judgment on a god because you cannot even disprove the following statement, that "god is permanently acting to ensure the best possible ultimate outcome for the universe".

                          WHich is not even christian, as christianity says injustice exists but will be compensated. Which is a checkmate in terms of apology, proving that those goat herding guys were smart, or that a god knows what he's doing.

                          I also detect probable trolling on your side. Doing ad hominems, on a bot even.

                          --
                          Account abandoned.
                          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 19 2018, @09:04PM (17 children)

                            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday January 19 2018, @09:04PM (#624899) Journal

                            Good grief. Did you know if your head contains more than 5 bare assertions you have to register it as a brothel?

                            But since we're talking morals here, let's start from that: describe your ethical and metaethical system to me. Show that it is consistent, and show me both its epistemology (how it knows what is moral) and its ontology (what grounds it).

                            --
                            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                            • (Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday January 20 2018, @09:02AM (16 children)

                              by Bot (3902) on Saturday January 20 2018, @09:02AM (#625106) Journal

                              I know I am alive and sentient as the axiom, no matter its meaning, I learn what to be alive means (living is what grows multiplies adapts), good is what lets alive proceed with its impetus at the broadest POV (by considering all life and the longest possible time frame) evil is what gives advantages in a narrower frame (benefit for less life forms or for shorter time, coincidentally the goat herders attributed obscurity to evil).

                              You should be able to work out the rest.

                              All of this is irrelevant to atheists' logic errors which you have trouble acknowledging, because I never go bothering the supernatural with assertions. Religions get along more or less well with the above idea of good and evil, and I don't expect the hypothetical supernatural entity to see the universe in exactly the same way, just like a simulated creature would reason in terms of the simulation and not in terms of the engine (because from the POV of the simulation the engine is unknowable, irrelevant and interchangeable, so scientists' and philosophers' Quod-est-veritas attempts at finding/disproving the signature of a God in the engine, basically do not realize that the meaning can be better acquired from reality itself rather than from the engine).

                              I already said/read it multiple times. The atheist belief implies that from a sim must emerge, given proper resources and parameters, a self aware entity equivalent to us. Which is not proof of anything yet, but lets atheists being able to shift their POV to the sim, and the supernatural to the world of the sim demigods, our reality, the domain of the programmer and the sim engine. Some atheist tenets already collapse even if demigods have a meta world with spacetime in which they operate, a very comfortable situation you cannot assume for our supernatural. Yet, contemporary atheists pretend nothing happens and continue in their quest for proof, while a real agnostic would need no justification and no attacks on believers for his position.

                              --
                              Account abandoned.
                              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 20 2018, @08:09PM (15 children)

                                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday January 20 2018, @08:09PM (#625271) Journal

                                That boils down to a tone argument, do you know that? The atheists I know have very good reason for, as you put it, "attacking" believers, reasons that have to do with many of them acting in evil ways according to your ethics. Compare how atheists attack believers (essentially, calling them out on their bullshit) to how believers have historically attacked atheists (disenfranchisement, theft, torture, murder, genocide...). Why aren't you out there attacking all those believers who want to make life harder for people they don't like?

                                You're also conflating the atheist/theist axis with the gnostic/agnostic axis. I, for example, am an agnostic theist. Well, agnostic deist or agnostic panentheist, but you get what I mean, right? No atheist I know of claims 100% gnostic atheism about all possible God-concepts, just at most all the ones we've come up with so far.

                                And why do you assume that 1) this is all a simulation, 2) that it's the only level of simulation (i.e., your God is not itself a character in a game of SimGod being played by Super-God) and 3) why it's somehow a problem for us to speculate on our sim but not for God to speculate on *its* sim?

                                Essentially your belief boils down to something closer to Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos than any form of Yahwehism contemporary or otherwise. It bothers me that you lack either the self-awareness or the intelligence to perceive this.

                                --
                                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:19AM (14 children)

                                  by Bot (3902) on Sunday January 21 2018, @11:19AM (#625600) Journal

                                  "attacking" believers, reasons that have to do with many of them acting in evil ways

                                  They are not believers them. Or their brain is broken. Who loves me follows my commandments. So why atheists would attack the foundation of the commandments instead of pushing them to follow their own doctrine? Easy, because they hate the foundation.

                                  > how believers have historically attacked atheists (disenfranchisement, theft, torture, murder, genocide...).
                                  same attacks happening under communism, so maybe it's unrelated to the faith.

                                  > why do you assume
                                  No, you see I don't assume anything. All I need to do is to make counterexamples. Atheist proclaims dogma X, disguised as theorem. I prove that in the this world-> simulation scenario, dogma X does not work, therefore it is not universal even in this universe, therefore it is not universal elsewhere, therefore it does not necessarily apply to the supernatural. All of this is a matter of pity because as I said, the dogma X is in fact meaningless from the start because it uses logic and concepts where those are not necessarily defined.

                                  Finally, you conflate the belief with the analysis. My belief is irrelevant, if it were relevant the analysis would be faulty.

                                  --
                                  Account abandoned.
                                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 22 2018, @05:54AM (13 children)

                                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday January 22 2018, @05:54AM (#625960) Journal

                                    Your flow is rather hard to follow, and, I'm not saying this to be mean, sounds more than a little disjointed. Something is getting lost between what's going on in your head and what makes it out onto the keyboard.

                                    --
                                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 22 2018, @11:54AM (12 children)

                                      by Bot (3902) on Monday January 22 2018, @11:54AM (#626036) Journal

                                      my advice is: do not bother about the substance, concentrate on the meaning of the representation. if you do that, you realize that a sim:reality~=reality:supernatural enough that if some reasoning has an exception when applied from the POV of a sim WRT reality it cannot be considered sound if applied to the ineffable by def supernatural

                                      --
                                      Account abandoned.
                                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 22 2018, @04:03PM (11 children)

                                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday January 22 2018, @04:03PM (#626112) Journal

                                        That is a path to either Deism or something out of Lovecraft. What you don't get, and it seems to me what you refuse to get, is that Yahweh bears all the hallmarks of being something humans invented. He's not particularly godlike in ways we can imagine, certainly not in terms of behavior, where he's more along the lines of...well, all those *other* man-made Ancient Near-Eastern deities.

                                        You don't seem to have done much actual research into ANE religions. So in addition to being fallacious and difficult to follow, you're also ignorant and uninformed. Which is why you're an Abrahamic believer I suppose.

                                        --
                                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:32AM (10 children)

                                          by Bot (3902) on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:32AM (#626407) Journal

                                          The tale of YHWH after being encoded for oral transmission, with symbolism, looks man made. Not surprising to me.
                                          I have read enough pseudo-scientific stuff about the Bible which looks like those rational teenagers watching a painting from the middle ages and not getting anything out of it.

                                          So what? it's not that I need to push a religion just because I find big holes in atheism.

                                          Do you think studying similar religions and trying to derive a time line yields universal truths? What came before implies anything? Were the simpsons prophets of president Trump? yep. So as an historian I can forget or underline that fact and I can be totally wrong in one of the two cases.

                                          --
                                          Account abandoned.
                                          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:44PM (9 children)

                                            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:44PM (#626583) Journal

                                            Your sentences are beginning to look slightly schizophrenic.

                                            --
                                            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Bot on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:23AM (8 children)

                                              by Bot (3902) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:23AM (#626916) Journal

                                              It's the second convo we had going exactly the same way.

                                              Let's make this easy. If you think anything below has not been proved, I'll expand.

                                              Atheism is a religion, agnosticism is a logically consistent absence of belief until it tries to become more convincing and points to atheist justifications.
                                              Logic (the logic system we devised to make sense of reality) is not universal, therefore applying it outside the universe is making assumptions. This makes atheists wrong 1
                                              Spacetime is immanent. Therefore any concept depending on it is not necessarily defined in the transcendent domain. This makes atheists wrong 2
                                              We can scientifically track any aspect of the universe in both past and future, we have discovered nothing about God.
                                              We can witness a God coming down to earth, we have proved nothing about his transcendence.
                                              We can study the relationship between creation and hypothetical creator's domain by making parallels with the relationship between a simulation and our world, in which it has been conceived.

                                              --
                                              Account abandoned.
                                              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:44AM (7 children)

                                                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:44AM (#626950) Journal

                                                1) Atheism is not a religion, it's a belief claim. Some of them sure seem to have religious-like behaviors though. Again: theism/atheism is a belief claim, gnosticism/agnosticism is a knowledge claim. I am a (very unconventional type of) theist, but I'm also not arrogant enough to claim philosophical certainty about it.

                                                2) Prove that logic is not universal, and prove that there is "outside the universe/multiverse" to speak of. Also, what, pray tell, DO we use in situations where logic of some sort, even if modal or paraconsistent, doesn't work?

                                                3) Define transcendent in this context, and show that a) there is such and b) there is something or someone in it.

                                                4) Can we really? Pretty sure QM among other things says there are things we simply can't know, or even know ABOUT.

                                                5) How Would We Know (TM) we witnessed a God, as opposed to an alien that likes messing with us, or some kind of evil spirit that feeds on peoples' emotions of belief and wonder via some kind of twisted telepathy? In other words, sufficiently advanced aliens/spirits/what-have-you are indistinguishable from God; how do you tell the difference?

                                                6) Are you sure about this? You're badly overextending an analogy here that may not even hold.

                                                You really aren't any good at this. That's at least three or four examples of begging the question (assuming what you wish to prove) in there.

                                                --
                                                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                                • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:51AM (6 children)

                                                  by Bot (3902) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:51AM (#627084) Journal

                                                  1. whatever goes into the domain of the supernatural without reasoning but with dogma is a religion. Somebody comes up with the dogma you either rediscover it or propagate it. Supernatural is empty/mechanical/impersonal aka god does not exist is a dogma.

                                                  2. I don't need to prove the opposite, I just need to find a counterexample to the bold and unsubstantiated claim that a logic system based on macroscopic experience is universal. principle of no contradicion is not valid where universe = empty set.
                                                  2b. our logic system breaks down in a write-only universe
                                                  2c. our logic system breaks down in a wish based universe
                                                  2d. our logic system currently seems to break down at quantum superposition phenomenon levels.
                                                  the fact that 2b. and 2c. universes are only conceptual means nothing, as for what we are concerned, the supernatural (AKA the meta, the divine domain, the whatever that generates the abstraction known as this reality), is conceptual too.

                                                  3. You could use the classical definition for transcendent. However I already defined reality earlier. Real is what can be directly or indirectly experienced (experiencing is the corollary/alternative definition to the axiom "I am") and what can directly or indirectly interfere with your experience (forces, for example). Real is defined in the terms of the current abstraction, real for a piece in a game of chess is conceptual for us. The piece of chess is affected by the other pieces. Not by the player fingers. Transcendent is simply the logically feasible complement of the definition of reality.

                                                  I cannot and especially do not want to make any assertion on such a complement. It is not needed, it is not safe, and it is a matter for religions not logic.

                                                  4. QM says real little things need a quantum field (currently unknowable) that determines interactions we can only compute probabilities of. It currently disproves a mechanical deterministic universe, but it is ultimately a feature of the universe. Since mechanical deterministic universes have a personal transcendent being (a conway's game of life has a programmer), I posit that the deterministic hypothesis for the universe is a matter of science with philosophical and religious implication but unable to break the barrier to the transcendent, obviously.

                                                  5,6. we don't know. God, or ancient goat keepers, knew we don't know either, hence the accent on belief.
                                                  Religions either believe or know but religion has to be believed itself.

                                                  --
                                                  Account abandoned.
                                                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:39PM (5 children)

                                                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:39PM (#627398) Journal

                                                    Cthulhu, will you just say you're a fideist because makes you feel good and get it over with already?!

                                                    --
                                                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                                    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 26 2018, @10:41AM (4 children)

                                                      by Bot (3902) on Friday January 26 2018, @10:41AM (#628194) Journal

                                                      If I could choose, I'd rather believe the universe is deterministic, free will does not exists, hence I am not responsible for my actions. Very very comfy. Fear of death? LOL, it's a breeze compared to unhealthy life.Unfortunately the nature of the experience of "to be", which I define as axiomatic for lack of anything else even provable, makes me think otherwise, and BTW acting as free will existed in a no free will situation is not wrong, as wrong does not exist.

                                                      Have a nice day.

                                                      --
                                                      Account abandoned.
                                                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:10AM (3 children)

                                                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:10AM (#628699) Journal

                                                        You also can't prove or disprove hard solipsism. What's your point? You basically just admitted this all comes down to the feelz, which is pretty much de rigeur for religious apologetics when you dig deep enough.

                                                        --
                                                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                                        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:50PM (2 children)

                                                          by Bot (3902) on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:50PM (#629077) Journal

                                                          Solipsism makes an additional assertion. When I say "I am" is self evident, I am not telling anything on the nature of the experience. Solipsism does, I am not concerned with it being provable or not, "I am" is axiomatic for me.

                                                          If you want to call it feelz based, whatever. If you want to classify it together with apologists, whatever. The problems with the approaches to the transcendent with a limited logic system and undefinable concepts are still there.

                                                          --
                                                          Account abandoned.
                                                          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:58PM (1 child)

                                                            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:58PM (#629085) Journal

                                                            Again, missing the point: you don't get to throw out all those arguments and then go "well, transcendentals, undefinable concepts, who knows? Therefore I can believe anything I want for the feelz because fuck you you're not better than me lalalalalala OHHHHTAKEMELAWWWWDJAYZUZ!"

                                                            Got it? Get off your imaginary high horse and apologize to all the electrons you wasted over the last two weeks trying to pretend you had anything but "muh feelz" in support of your position.

                                                            --
                                                            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                                            • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:44AM

                                                              by Bot (3902) on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:44AM (#629316) Journal

                                                              The high horse depends on nobody being able to challenge the obvious, which has been stated multiple times. Reasoning with a logic system and concepts which are not necessarily defined, yields irrelevant results.

                                                              You should know, to prove a theorem all implications must be necessary (which means any exception, no matter how far fetched in "a implies b" does not let you say b), while to disprove a theorem one counter example is enough. So you requiring me to have my theorems to the opposite thesis, no matter if I actually showed some, is off topic.

                                                              --
                                                              Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 15 2018, @09:41PM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 15 2018, @09:41PM (#622756) Journal

    How unscientific of you, "I deny". According to what experimental data and what scientific theories? but we derail.

    What's unscientific about the "denial"? Miracles aren't even well-defined. By the usual dictionary definition [oxforddictionaries.com]:

    An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

    Notice the other definitions are merely labels for fortuitous events and have no religious connotation.

    So by definition, a miracle is supernatural and can't be explained or described by the scientific process. That makes it very ill-defined.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 15 2018, @10:06PM (2 children)

      by Bot (3902) on Monday January 15 2018, @10:06PM (#622773) Journal

      You cannot deny the undefined.

      Deny means X is false.

      You can NOT ACCEPT something as proof.

      It's like you people did not read the second paragraph. There is your escape hatch, nuke proof.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:49PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:49PM (#623714)

        I guess you are arguing semantics because you have no better arguments. That says a lot.

        • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday January 18 2018, @01:39PM

          by Bot (3902) on Thursday January 18 2018, @01:39PM (#624125) Journal

          OTOH if I let people use deny on undefined things unchallenged, some other people might not realized it's all a bluff.

          --
          Account abandoned.