Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Religion AGNOSTICISM WOO

Professor Fa-
lken

Avatar: 81434 2009-10-14 08:47:28 -0400
8

[team awesome face]

Level 69 Hacker

“Trojan Horse Magnum”

(I doubt any of the anti-religious nuts (which are just as bad as religious nuts) will take note of this, but it’s still worth a try.)

You can not objectively prove or disprove the existence of “God” or a “soul” AS A CONCEPT IN GENERAL. This is why:

You can not clearly and objectively define what these terms even mean. That’s a fact – just look at the sheer amount of religions, sects and interpretations. You’d be lucky if you get a matching definition from two people of the same religion.

If a theory can not be worded exactly, it can not be disproved (or proved, but you can’t prove a theory anyway). That’s a fact, too: How would you try to (dis)prove “X + Y = SOMETHING”? And if the theory you’re trying to prove is not objective… it’s the same with the data you find. If the basic underlining theory can be disputed and is open to interpretation… so is the evidence you can find. A “fuzzy” theory cannot be validated… or falsified. Boolean logic simply doesn’t WORK here.

We have no idea what “God” even is + We cannot do anything with an unclear defined theory -> Religious discussion from a rational point of view is ultimately futile.

QED.

Inertia

Avatar: 60995 Fri Apr 03 12:59:05 -0400 2009
34

[Shii is gay]

Level 35 Troll

also wow i have no male reproductive organ

Professor Falken Posted:

QED.

The Irony..

Professor Fa-
lken

Avatar: 81434 2009-10-14 08:47:28 -0400
8

[team awesome face]

Level 69 Hacker

“Trojan Horse Magnum”

Yeah. Awesome, isn’t it?

Theo de Raadt

Avatar: 72133 Fri Jan 02 12:04:19 -0500 2009
6

[Late Yak Sectarian]

Level 31 Hacker

My brain is so full of **** that I have to spew it on Flamebate so I don't have to suffer a lobotomy

“Relativity must replace absolutism in the realm of morals as well as in the spheres of physics and biology.”

OverclockedJ-
esus

Avatar: 16071 2010-02-06 15:55:38 -0500
17

Level 69 Troll

“Human Yeast Infection”

Professor Falken Posted:

(I doubt any of the anti-religious nuts (which are just as bad as religious nuts) will take note of this, but it’s still worth a try.)

You can not objectively prove or disprove the existence of “God” or a “soul” AS A CONCEPT IN GENERAL.

Yes you can.

Stop trying to create a mystery where there isn’t one. That’s childish.

Professor Fa-
lken

Avatar: 81434 2009-10-14 08:47:28 -0400
8

[team awesome face]

Level 69 Hacker

“Trojan Horse Magnum”

Maybe you should bother reading the explanation. Agnosticism doesn’t create a mystery where there’s none. You cannot logically disprove the existence of “God” or whatever, since you can’t really know what “God” is. Full stop.

OverclockedJ-
esus

Avatar: 16071 2010-02-06 15:55:38 -0500
17

Level 69 Troll

“Human Yeast Infection”

Professor Falken Posted:

Maybe you should bother reading the explanation.

I did.

Professor Falken Posted:

Agnosticism doesn’t create a mystery where there’s none.

It does.

Professor Falken Posted:

You cannot logically disprove the existence of “God” or whatever, since you can’t really know what “God” is.

Ipse dixit.

ArtificialFl-
avour

Avatar: Sad Face
5

Level 41 Emo Kid

“Sad-Ass”

I was told once that ignostism > agnostism, but I’m atheist because I don’t like thinking too hard.

elenaratelim-
it

Avatar: 24791 2010-03-21 18:12:06 -0400
17

[Team Shortbus]

Level 44 Troll

chica bonita

Professor Falken Posted:

(I doubt any of the anti-religious nuts (which are just as bad as religious nuts) will take note of this, but it’s still worth a try.)

You can not objectively prove or disprove the existence of “God” or a “soul” AS A CONCEPT IN GENERAL. This is why:

You can not clearly and objectively define what these terms even mean. That’s a fact – just look at the sheer amount of religions, sects and interpretations. You’d be lucky if you get a matching definition from two people of the same religion.

If a theory can not be worded exactly, it can not be disproved (or proved, but you can’t prove a theory anyway). That’s a fact, too: How would you try to (dis)prove “X + Y = SOMETHING”? And if the theory you’re trying to prove is not objective… it’s the same with the data you find. If the basic underlining theory can be disputed and is open to interpretation… so is the evidence you can find. A “fuzzy” theory cannot be validated… or falsified. Boolean logic simply doesn’t WORK here.

We have no idea what “God” even is + We cannot do anything with an unclear defined theory -> Religious discussion from a rational point of view is ultimately futile.

QED.

wooooo!!!

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

Professor Falken Posted:

(I doubt any of the anti-religious nuts (which are just as bad as religious nuts) will take note of this, but it’s still worth a try.)

You can not objectively prove or disprove the existence of “God” or a “soul” AS A CONCEPT IN GENERAL. This is why:

You can not clearly and objectively define what these terms even mean. That’s a fact – just look at the sheer amount of religions, sects and interpretations. You’d be lucky if you get a matching definition from two people of the same religion.

If a theory can not be worded exactly, it can not be disproved (or proved, but you can’t prove a theory anyway). That’s a fact, too: How would you try to (dis)prove “X + Y = SOMETHING”? And if the theory you’re trying to prove is not objective… it’s the same with the data you find. If the basic underlining theory can be disputed and is open to interpretation… so is the evidence you can find. A “fuzzy” theory cannot be validated… or falsified. Boolean logic simply doesn’t WORK here.

We have no idea what “God” even is + We cannot do anything with an unclear defined theory -> Religious discussion from a rational point of view is ultimately futile.

QED.

You could probably disprove certain ridiculous definitions such as those that include omnipotence or omniscience.

Big Brother

Avatar: 45759 Fri Oct 17 23:44:23 -0400 2008

Level 66 Troll

woman's genitals

I can easily prove that you have a soul.

Do you actually have some sort of “feeling” in your body right now? You have a desire to be an agnostic. You detect that and think about it. You decide that that is best. If you had none, than you wouldn’t have thought. Your brain cells would have decided. You would have no “point of view”, there would be no you or point of view. I know it. You know it. Stating that there are no souls is sneaky because one can only prove that oneself has a soul, and then only to oneself. Thus if you ignore my arguments, there is no way for it to be proven.

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

Big Brother Posted:

I can easily prove that you have a soul.

Do you actually have some sort of “feeling” in your body right now? You have a desire to be an agnostic. You detect that and think about it. You decide that that is best. If you had none, than you wouldn’t have thought. Your brain cells would have decided. You would have no “point of view”, there would be no you or point of view. I know it. You know it. Stating that there are no souls is sneaky because one can only prove that oneself has a soul, and then only to oneself. Thus if you ignore my arguments, there is no way for it to be proven.

What the hell? Our decisions are simply patterns of neurons firing. Nothing more, nothing less. A soul is an intangible, nonexistent entity. The burden of proof is on the individual who claims one exists. A sensation of self is well-dogreat timesented scientifically and required for such things as advanced social interaction. Complexity does not entail impossibility.

Your brain creates the “illusion” of consciousness.

EDIT: Also, explain the logical steps that led to that conclusion.

DarkDespair5 edited this message on 12/09/2008 11:54PM

Big Brother

Avatar: 45759 Fri Oct 17 23:44:23 -0400 2008

Level 66 Troll

woman's genitals

Ugh. The idea that a conscious being- and I know you’re conscious, because I’m conscious and in the end we’re pretty much both humans- would not know that he was conscious is beyond retardation.

Adapt

Avatar: 58104 2011-10-31 21:36:25 -0400
16

[Grey Goose Mafiosi]

Level 48 Camwhore

Celerysteve Changed Adapt's Custom Title

Big Brother Posted:

Ugh. The idea that a conscious being- and I know you’re conscious, because I’m conscious and in the end we’re pretty much both humans- would not know that he was conscious is beyond retardation.

In an mri scan people can be asked to view an object and the areas of the brain that light up are recorded. Then the person is asked to picture the object in their mind and the same areas will light up. So to the brain there is no difference.

What is consciousness?

Big Brother

Avatar: 45759 Fri Oct 17 23:44:23 -0400 2008

Level 66 Troll

woman's genitals

Consciousness is the fact that you are YOU, and not some sort of nothing that makes decisions with neurons. You can feel that. I can feel that clearly. It’s obviously not fake because that cannot be faked. If that can be faked than the world might as well be made of lollipops and cotton candy, because noone would observe it for a fact.

Professor Fa-
lken

Avatar: 81434 2009-10-14 08:47:28 -0400
8

[team awesome face]

Level 69 Hacker

“Trojan Horse Magnum”

You’re partially right there. There has to be something all those thoughts originate from – cogito ergo sum, as they say. And if you define “soul” as “where the thoughts originate from”, you do have a “proof” of sorts… for that definition. If you, however, give the “soul” any more attributes (a common one would be “immortal” ), all the quarrel starts again… whether or not we’re actually slaves of our brain chemistry or not and all that stuff.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

I did.

Then try understanding it next time, too.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

It does.

Nope.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Ipse dixit.

What?

Professor Falken edited this message on 12/10/2008 4:36AM

King Krimson

Avatar: King Krimson's Avatar
11

[Snobby McSnobbers-
ons
]

Level 69 Troll

A lot fo kewl boiz wer it ok!

Religious discussion? In my forumwarz?

It’s more likely tha- NO. BAD.




My point being thus: Why are all these religious threads popping up? This is a game about trolling and the internet, not deep (and not so deep) discussions about the nature of life and the universe. If you came to this site for that, then you’re in the wrong place.

And I would also like to argue about the religious and the non-religious being as bad as each other. The anti-religious are worse because they (ironically) try to shove their viewpoint in your face more than the (normal, non-crazy street preachers) religious. Although technically atheism IS a religion itself, but let’s not get into that now.

King Krimson edited this message on 12/10/2008 5:03AM

Theo de Raadt

Avatar: 72133 Fri Jan 02 12:04:19 -0500 2009
6

[Late Yak Sectarian]

Level 31 Hacker

My brain is so full of **** that I have to spew it on Flamebate so I don't have to suffer a lobotomy

Well, at least we can learn how to do subtle religious trolling.

That’s an art imo.

OverclockedJ-
esus

Avatar: 16071 2010-02-06 15:55:38 -0500
17

Level 69 Troll

“Human Yeast Infection”

Professor Falken Posted:

what?

Ipse dixit means “that which is bumerted but not proven”.

Professor Fa-
lken

Avatar: 81434 2009-10-14 08:47:28 -0400
8

[team awesome face]

Level 69 Hacker

“Trojan Horse Magnum”

Oh. What exactly is it you think is “bumerted without proof” there? “God” as a concept basically means “something beyond matter” (super-natural, if you will), and of course we couldn’t find definite proof for or against something “not made of matter”. It’s the same as with every philosophical thesis, really – you can argue ad nauseam without ever reaching an unchallengable solution.

King Krimson Posted:

And I would also like to argue about the religious and the non-religious being as bad as each other. The anti-religious are worse because they (ironically) try to shove their viewpoint in your face more than the (normal, non-crazy street preachers) religious. Although technically atheism IS a religion itself, but let’s not get into that now.

I’d say there’s not much of a difference between both, really… they’re just obnoxious in different ways. As in, Theists say you’re going to hell, and Atheists call you a science-hater.

Professor Falken edited this message on 12/10/2008 9:51AM
Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!