Giving up Cubing for Lent

[~Phoenix Death~]

Well, I find it hard to not see the way I said "No Religion wars". Seriously. The thread with "Bringing people back to life" by giving new blood and stuff didn't have a war. does this thread have some kinda CURSE in it??
Oh and more news. My 4x4 has arrived. GREAT. I told everyone in class what i was giving up and everyone was like ":O WTF"

 

[Innocence]

No matter what you say, if there isn't sufficient interest, it isn't going to happen, and when a thread doesn't happen, it needs a new topic, so people fill it with whatever.

Aronpm: Anchovies ARE too salty for most people. When I was told about it I was like yeah, whatever, but then I tried them. >.<

 

[Ranzha]

What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.

A bit late, but that offends some people. Some people don't think Lent is a "fairy tale". In reality, Lent exists, so how can something that exists be a fairy tale?

The disbelief in something does not give you, nor anyone the right to offend someone.
If there was a right for that, people would have wars about 3x3 methods and flaming and trolls, et cetera.

Don't be a douchebag. Too late.

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

He never said Lent was a fairy tale.

 

[Ranzha]

He never said Lent was a fairy tale.

It Shirley was implied.

 

[~Phoenix Death~]

What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.

A bit late, but that offends some people. Some people don't think Lent is a "fairy tale". In reality, Lent exists, so how can something that exists be a fairy tale?

The disbelief in something does not give you, nor anyone the right to offend someone.
If there was a right for that, people would have wars about 3x3 methods and flaming and trolls, et cetera.

Don't be a douchebag. Too late.

+Infinity minus 1. So that there is a number.

 

[RyanO]

He never said Lent was a fairy tale.

It Shirley was implied.

I think you missed the implication. He was implying that religion is a fairy tale. Also the idea of a right to not be offended is kind of silly. That being said, I agree that intentionally stirring up the pot isn't very productive.

 

[Innocence]

Ya Ranzha, anyway, you may have realized you were too late but the issue had already been dealt with .

anyway. Athiests, there is logically no way there can not be a God. And now please allow me some time to gather my rebuttal.

 

[shelley]

anyway. Athiests, there is logically no way there can not be a God.

Seriously? You're really going to go there?

On topic: I'm giving up giving up things for Lent for Lent. Now what?

 

[aronpm]

anyway. Athiests, there is logically no way there can not be a God. And now please allow me some time to gather my rebuttal.

Please explain.

If I may raise the 'irrelevant authority' problem. Quoting my philosophy textbook:

People often refer to authorities to support their arguments. For example, when trying to prove that the universe is not infinitely old, someone might point out that the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." Would this information be relevant in deciding for yourself what to believe? Philosophers don't think so. Appealing to an irrelevant authority is a fallacious form of reasoning. Look on the Internet and you'll find an "authority" swearing to any number of false claims. [*examples*]. Because it's hard to know which authorities to trust, philosophers turn to reason and evidence to support their arguments.

Therefore, you cannot use the Bible as a source of evidence as it is an irrelevant authority and it begs the question (see below!)

Spoiler

"Begging the question" is another name for circular reasoning. Your opponent commits this fallacy when he uses in his argument the very thing you want him to prove. Suppose you challenge your opponent to provide a good argument for believing in God. He says that you should believe in God because the Bible says that God exists, and that you should believe the Bible because it is the word of God. His proof will only work if you grant that God exists. But that's exactly what he's supposed to prove! So, he has taken you in a circle of reasoning.

Emphasis mine

 

[RyanO]

Ya Ranzha, anyway, you may have realized you were too late but the issue had already been dealt with .

anyway. Athiests, there is logically no way there can not be a God. And now please allow me some time to gather my rebuttal.

You can't prove/disprove the existance of a higher power. I believe that there is a God, but I'm pretty skeptical of religious atempts at understanding God. I think if God wanted us to understand his will he would give us something better to go off of than a book written by humans. I find it more satisfying to follow my own personal beliefs rather than blindly follow what organized religion preachs.

I'm not trying to assert that my beliefs are more valid than anyone else's, infact I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about some aspects of God and his intentions for the human race. I find it far more likely that everyone is wrong about God than one group having it right.

While I personally don't see the need for religion, I do see the benefit of religon for some people regardless of it's correctness/incorrectness. However, I'm not sure that outways the negative side effects of religion such as manipulation, discouragement of independent thought, and misguided justification for intolerance.

 

[Dene]

anyway. Athiests, there is logically no way there can not be a God. And now please allow me some time to gather my rebuttal.

Please explain.

If I may raise the 'irrelevant authority' problem. Quoting my philosophy textbook:

People often refer to authorities to support their arguments. For example, when trying to prove that the universe is not infinitely old, someone might point out that the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." Would this information be relevant in deciding for yourself what to believe? Philosophers don't think so. Appealing to an irrelevant authority is a fallacious form of reasoning. Look on the Internet and you'll find an "authority" swearing to any number of false claims. [*examples*]. Because it's hard to know which authorities to trust, philosophers turn to reason and evidence to support their arguments.

Therefore, you cannot use the Bible as a source of evidence as it is an irrelevant authority and it begs the question (see below!)

How is God an irrelevant authority in a debate about God himself?
Don't try to argue bad philosophy with me please. Yes it does beg the question, though.

 

[Tim Major]

Atheist means you don't believe in anything. I'm not atheist, but I don't believe in any God. I'm completely unsure what to believe in. Evolution has it's arguments, and they are quite strong, but I don't believe that there was "a big bang". What existed before that? It can't just suddenly appear. Using this logic, the universe has been here for ever, or there was at least something else, before the "big bang".

 

[RyanO]

Therefore, you cannot use the Bible as a source of evidence as it is an irrelevant authority and it begs the question (see below!)

How is God an irrelevant authority in a debate about God himself?
Don't try to argue bad philosophy with me please. Yes it does beg the question, though.

God may not be an irrelevant autority in a debate about God, but the Bible certainly is.

 

[qqwref]

Atheist means you don't believe in anything. I'm not atheist, but I don't believe in any God.

Atheist means you don't believe in any deities (a- [without] + theos [God(s)] + -ist). So it sounds like you in fact are an atheist.

I'm completely unsure what to believe in. Evolution has it's arguments, and they are quite strong, but I don't believe that there was "a big bang". What existed before that? It can't just suddenly appear. Using this logic, the universe has been here for ever, or there was at least something else, before the "big bang".

1) Evolution (as understood by scientists, of course) has absolutely nothing to do with the big bang (or abiogenesis, for that matter). The current theories of abiogenesis and the big bang could both be completely wrong and it wouldn't even be any evidence against evolution.
2) We can't detect what happened before the big bang, so it's not possible (so far?) to provide any evidence for/against any particular theory. Some 'possibilities' I've heard are: there was a universe before ours that ended in a "big crunch" and then started expanding again; the universe is part of some larger system, which creates or contains the seeds that develop into universes; the big bang was somehow a singularity and our universe is contained in a black hole; and (most counter-intuitive of all) time only exists in our universe, with the big bang just being the boundary at one end in the time dimension, and thus the concept of "before the big bang" is meaningless.

 

[Zubon]

Atheist means you don't believe in anything. I'm not atheist, but I don't believe in any God. I'm completely unsure what to believe in. Evolution has it's arguments, and they are quite strong, but I don't believe that there was "a big bang". What existed before that? It can't just suddenly appear. Using this logic, the universe has been here for ever, or there was at least something else, before the "big bang".

Sorry, but this whole statement is quite wrong on many levels. What do you mean when you say Atheists don't believe in anything? The word atheist simply means that you reject the idea of a supernatural deity. Being an Atheist is just like being an 'a-flat-eathist' (rejecting the idea that the earth is flat) or an 'a-astrologist' (rejecting the idea that you can predict the future depending on the position of the stars when that person was born). Labeling someone as an Atheist doesn't say anything about that person's moral or scientific beliefs. Many Atheists don't believe in evolution and many theists believe in it.

The big bang, like 'flat earth theory' is hard for humans to understand. The earth doesn't look spherical. Big bang theory exists in the realm of mathematics. Do you believe in Einstein's theories? I think they are a lot harder to comprehend than the big bang.

By the way, it is a little off topic but asking what was before the big bang is like asking what is more north than the north pole. The big bang was an expansion of space-time. There is no 'before'.

 

[irontwig]

Atheist means you don't believe in anything. I'm not atheist, but I don't believe in any God.

If you don't believe in any god, or I assume, any higher power for that matter then you're an atheist. You should still have morals, etc.

I'm completely unsure what to believe in. Evolution has it's arguments, and they are quite strong, but I don't believe that there was "a big bang". What existed before that? It can't just suddenly appear. Using this logic, the universe has been here for ever, or there was at least something else, before the "big bang".

Trying to apply taste and philosophy onto empirical science doesn't seem to make too much sense to me. Evolution through natural selection and the Big Bang theory are explanations that currently seem to match our observations. Sure, these theories might just be wrong, but one the of basic principles of science is to try to prove your current theories wrong.

 

[Tim Major]

I'll just shut up now. Remind me to punch my humanities teacher.

We had a big discussion today, and she said atheism meant not believing in anything to do with the creation of the universe/Earth, for example, someone believing in the big bang theory would be not atheism, but ____(I forget what word she said)

We were talking about medieval times. Maybe I didn't hear it right.

:fp to me and the teacher.

 

[Zane_C]

I don't believe in a God, afterlife, or anything spiritual. That makes me an athiest right?

 

[Thomas09]

What am I giving up for Lent? Nothing, because I don't believe in fairy tales.

Why are people flaming him for this? That's his beliefs and you have yours.