Lurker > Toonstrack

Torgo posted...

Perspective bro... not everything is this binary lightswitch as religion has conditioned your brain into seeing it.

No no no, no. Im not asusmng a perspective here "bro", im using the perspective the very image posted has.

You can't just arbitrarily shift from that perspective when its convenient for your argument.

So let's take it back to that picture of rhe universe and stay there because thats the perspective we're discussing.

Yeah... literally in the grand scope of the universe and in the far reaches of time we are a bunch of frightened little organisms trying to survive on a speck circling one of billions of stars in thousands of galaxies...

But it still matters that I treat others kindly. Because while light years away stars too big to contemplate explode and release energy a that could destroy a million earths... I will remember the person that did something nice for me or my neighbor.

Is that not ego? Your memory is not any more relevant than a theists faith. Your values don't become more valid or important because it's based on a similar delusio of grandeur. You snd a theist are both going toward the same end every other human does.

*grandstanding removed*

an atheist actually cares about this life and it's consequences to those they meet and live with now.

Now who's making generalizations about atheists?

I've encountered plenty who do the exact opposite of this. They say "nothing matters, we are nothing, the universe is without a care for us, no one made us and we aren't going anywhere but oblivion, so I will do only what I want, serve only myself, and no one else's regard matters because no one else matters, and I dont matter to anyone but myself. "

Surely you've encountered such an individual too. What makes your position more valid than theirs?

Torgo posted...

Yes, almost all humans are capable of creating and understanding moral standards. The different between theists and non-religious people is the theist derives all their morals from a book, and then re-interpretations of that book that shift to suit the agenda of church leadership. While atheists use philosophical and moral writings

So... books?

The reason "don't kill people" is important to an atheist is because we have empathy and experience understanding the pain of loss coupled with a sense of justice that can be learned expressing a right to continue to live. We also understand that murder is harmful to society and makes us all unsafe unless we act to criminalize it.

Ok, but that image says that society is unimportant and insignificant. That image says that in the grand scheme of things none of that matters, it just hyperfocuses on the topic of masturbation bit you can replace Jesus in that image, and replace the text with anything and it would still be acute in a sense.

So again, what makes YOUR thing important, and is it not ego to suggest it is when we humans are so tiny, so insignificant? Why is it only ego when its based around a diety?

That's the question.

reincarnator07 posted...

First, which atheist? Atheism isn't a monolith. If you want to know a person's views,

The individual i responded to made their stance clear all on their own.

"Its ego to suggest a God would care about us tiny specks in the universe"

Which pecks the question, then why should WE.

Second, didn't we go over this a few pages ago? Important to who?

The person i was responding to is someone ive encountered many times. She considers many matters, such as social justice ones, of high importance.

I was directly addressing an individual here.

Torgo posted...

What do you mean "what does the atheist say" - it appears he said it with that image and you didn't like it what it had to say about your beliefs.

I wasn't even responding to the individual who posted the image.

The question is why does the atheist believe all of those things i said. Because most atheists DO have moral standings, they may not be "dont masturbate lol" but they are deemed important, crucial even.

So no, the atheist did not answer the question with that image, that image only serves to make the question far more pressing, becayse that image is accurate. We are bur specks in the vast universe. How does the atheist argue for morals in light of that? How can the atheist argue that our morals and our virtues are important whisle arguing that we ourselves aren't?

Setting aside your notion that atheism is monolithic for a moment,

Never said this.

"the atheist says

You didn't answer the question, because you didn't understand the question, because you didn't pay attention to what was asked. Has nothing to do with gods existence.

You've really gotta stop running in guns blazing looking for gotchas without even bothering to get context.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Funny meme but no.

Humans ARE important. What we do with our abilities and our unique position on this planet IS important. We have an obligation to do right by others, and create a harmonious society, and to treat the earth we live on with respect.
You believe this as much as i do.

So the question is why do YOU believe this. Because the theist will tell you this was the will of man as ordained by a creator. What does the atheist say? Because its just as egotistical to derige such a conclusion from yourself, than it is to derived it from a God.

Umbreon posted...

Purity tests will be the end of us all.

And yet "progressives" keep trying this over and over

No different than those Twitter idiots than ran off Christina Vee.

And you got people in here literslly admitting how new they are to politics and it paints the picture of the state of way too many left wing circles, no principles, no allies, just vindictive self serving virus signaling that ar best accomplishes little and at worst makes the entire collective look worse.

Sigh.

Mechu posted...

Imagine wanting to rewatch Kenobi

Kenobi was good. Had flaws but also some great stories got the central characters

Great news

reincarnator07 posted...

The tangent that sparked this was indeed on the subject of morality.

Im notbhere to discuss gods morality. I'm here to discuss his existence.

Right and wrong exist, I just don't believe there's a single objective standard that everyone subscribes to.

For right and wrong to exist, there has to be a parameter, and that parameter has to be, if not objective, then a higher level than subjective opinion. If everyone decides where the parameters are, then there are no parameters.

Plenty of things, but your original question was poorly formed. In case you forgot, it was:

"Anytime there's a clash of wills, agendas or goals in humanity, one is going to win out. Is the one that wins out always right?"

The only general answer I could give is "It depends" which is not satisfying.

You still don't get it.

The answer not being satisfying is the point. The answer isn't satisfying, because there's no objectivity to it. Which means its a poor framework from which to run a society on, or even to build a moral standing on wouldn't you agree?

reincarnator07 posted...

It was actually. The way it went was:

Hypothesis: There is an 8th planet. The orbit of Uranus doesn't match our predictions. If there was a another planet with a mass of X, that would explain the difference between Uranus's orbit and what we predict it should be. To test this, if I look where this planet would need to be to have this effect then I should be able to locate planet 8.

The observations and calculations were made on Earth.

The hypothesis had no bearing on the actual existence of neptune tho, nor its effect on Uranus. The only think on earth is the telescope to see the evidence with. The EVIDENCE, the forces and placements that correlated, was all in space already. Happening for millenia with no human having any knowledge of it.

It's the difference between an active and a passive belief. Let's do a different example.

I have an open can of Coke on my left. I'm not gonna post any proof. If you said "I don't believe you" then you're not making any judgement on what's on my left, you're just not believing my claim. If you instead said "there's nothing on your left" then you're now actually making a claim: That there is nothing on my left. Atheism is simply not believing your claim of a god existing. Antitheism would be actively claiming that there is no god.

I'm an agnostic atheist. They aren't exclusive properties, you can be both. The majority of atheists fall under this camp.

By that logic you can be anti theist and also not atheist as well no?

Never understood the position of "agnostic atheism" however. Agnosticism seemingly already covers the possibility that God exists, AND the possibility that god doesn't, AND the belief that god doesn't.

So you... don't believe God exists, but believe its possible for God to exist? But saying you dont think God exists is somehow different than saying "God doesn't exist?" Seems like semantics.

realnifty1 posted...

I don't have time to quote it all right now, but may try to later. But, it essentially comes down to the only thing enumerated in the Constitution and subsequent law is that each State will decide on electors to send to the Continental Congress. There are provisions on requirements and disqualifications for whom can be a president, but because national law makes no provision about people actually voting for a president, there are no provisions about how a presidential ballot is run. Already every State has their own organization with differing rules and requirements for being placed on the ballot.

Theres a difference between having qualifications and being able to restrict citizens from voting for certain people.

Betting? No, the SCOTUS is always self serving and this one doubly so. I'm just continually appalled by the bold faced hypocrisy and that seemingly we will do nothing about until the whole country collapses.

Do you think they made the wrong decision here?

reincarnator07 posted...

I never said that god being a dick or not has any bearing on whether they exist. Tons of religions have deities that are dicks. However, if a god(s) teach that X is objectively bad and then proceeds to do X, maybe X isn't objectively bad?

Thats an entirely different conversation than the one this thread is based around. I would suggest reading the topic title again.

To who? Do you understand what the subjective part of subjective morality is?

Okay then. So then, if no morality actually exists in an objective state, than is right or wrong a real concept or just as fictional as you believe God to be?

What. Things. Examples. Please.

Do you really need this explained to you? What things could be more important to society than whether or not you buy a donut? You cannot think of anything?

Dalthine posted...

No, I do not. It has in fact been a subject of philosophical debate if love is real or just a product of chemicals to promote societal cooperation and procreation.

I can believe love is real. You can believe a god is real. Proof exists for neither. Evidence leads to theories, and theories are subjective explanations of our best guess at reality. Proof is definitive until disproven.

I've seen plenty of proof love is real. You're pigeonholing the concept into something physical, logical, which is a fallacy, because "logic" is also an abstract concept that assumes a correlation/causation system being the sole operating system in the universe. Which kinds clashes with atheist considerations for the origins of life.

Uranus was proved by taking photos of it in space. If someone can produce proof those were faked, it could be disproven. But unless such a thing happens, we operate under the assumption that it is reality.

You place much authority on physicality of proof and subservience to this abstract force of logic. Its a preference but when you reach the core of it, that "assumption" of correctness or accuracy of the evidence based on this logic, is not all that different from faith.

This feels like you basically just admitted to being here for no reason but to devil's advocate and stir the pot. Just a theory.

Theres no devils nor angels here. This is a topic on gamefaqs, not a court of law, not a philosophers counsel. Im here for discussion.

reincarnator07 posted...

The massive difference is that Galileo provided evidence for his claims.

The evidence was the observation and prediction of the orbit of Uranus as observed from Earth. The planet itself was obviously in space, but the observation was on Earth.

The evidence wasn't rhe observation tho. The evidence was already there before it was observed. The affect was already existing before we caught wind of it.

That's... so incorrect. I would recommend you actually try to understand the fundamental position of Atheism before trying to comment on it.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God is it not. That means that an atheist doesn't believe that there's a God. What am I missing here lol?

There is a difference between not believing something and actively disbelieving in something. I have even specified earlier that I don't actively believe there is no god, I merely don't have any faith in any of them. There are some specific descriptions that I actively believe are wrong, but I'm not so arrogant as to think there cannot be any god. For example, I don't believe the god described in the Bible can exist because the descriptions within the bible are inconsistent and many claims of the Bible have been disproved.

Sounds like you're closer to an agnostic than an atheist.

realnifty1 posted...

The problem with this, is that is exactly what the Constitution says States can do in plain text. This is the whole reason we don't have a national public election.

Can you cite this? I'm not asking in an argumentative sense but im interested to know where it says this. Because that seems to directly violate the first amendment.

Yes, it would have led to insanity, and would have hopefully forced Congress to make a true national election process without electors and State interference bullshit.

So you were betting on this ruling being so catastrophically bad and resulting in so much chaos that SCOTUS would've been forced to amend the constitution?

reincarnator07 posted...

Just so we're clear, do you think the morality of a religion is irrelevant to the subject of objective morality being handed down by a creator?

Its relevant when judging the morality of that religion, not when considering the existence of the creator. Whether or not you think god is a nice person has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God exists.

Huh? Why would I need an authority to condemn someone to? If I think something is bad, that's literally my opinion.

So nothings actually wrong, but you only THINK things are wrong, and someone else who disagrees with you is 100% valid?

I literally don't understand the question you're trying to ask. Some things don't have some great moral question to them. If we both want a donut from the store and I buy the last one, I don't think I'm morally in the right or wrong, it's just buying a donut.

But some things DO. And those things are the important things. And should those important things be subject to the same moral depth as buying a donut?

Dalthine posted...

And that's why I'm not making the claim that there's no such thing as gods. There may be. There may also be a giant invisible pink elephant stomping around Mars.

However, if someone wants to claim their god is real, they must produce evidence. Without evidence or better yet proof, no one is required to take such a claim seriously. The claim becomes meaningless from a logical standpoint. It does not need to be DISproven because nothing has tried to prove it.

Plenty in all walks of life and all points of history have given you their reasons for believing in God, or where they've perceived evidence of God's presence in their lives. Some of these are fanciful. Some of these might even be convincing. But they are all subjective. So again, your asking for physical proof of god, a theoretically physical being, a logical explanation for a non logical concept.

It would be like me asking for for logical proof of love existing. You could list to me any examples of expressions of love that you've seen and heard and observed, and I could say "those don't prove love exists, that person had othe reasons for doing what they did". You could tell me "I love someone, I can do this that and that to show you I love them" and I could say "that's just you, doing something Illogical, that doesnt prove love exists".

Do you see the problem?

You can believe in a god all you want. I don't plan on trying to dissuade you from that. Something you learned presumably led you to believe this statement, and you hold to your theory. But you should not expect others to follow along with this.

If you'll view my original post in this topic (I'll edit with a # or a link), I believe in beings along the lines of gods. Evidence and accounts have led me to this. But I have seen or heard nothing to point towards such beings as the type of omnipotent or even super powerful beings that the term "god" is typically applied to.

Edit: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80711376/979178230

Im not necessarily trying to change anyone's perspective either here. Im speaking on the agreements themselves not being conducive actual arguments for or against gods existence.

reincarnator07 posted...

It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but if all you have is your word then most people aren't going to believe you.

Who cares lol? Most people didn't believe Galileo. He was right though.

The origin of the universe and whether a god exists are actually 2 different questions. Obviously if you're arguing that god created everything then that requires a god to exist, but I see no reason that even if there was a god that it had to create the universe.

That is true.

The observation was made on earth, as were the calculations. So actually, yes the evidence for Uranus was on earth.

That's not how that works. The evidence existed in space. We just managed to be able to perceive it from here, and there's plenty we cant perceive from here.

Who here is definitively claiming that god doesn't exist?

Anyone who claims to be an atheist is making the claim god doesn't exist. Its in the definition.

Unknown5uspect posted...

General consensus on what we deem to be bad? Are you new to society?

The general consensus of whom? From what period? Of what collective?

The general consensus of practically the entire country of the US was once that slavery was ok. That doesnt mean it was. It very much wasn't.

So clearly, general consensus cannot be an argument for an authority on morality in a fair and just society, because society doesn't always choose the fair snd just option.

So what else then qualifies?

reincarnator07 posted...

I didn't specify at all actually. My logic is sound so long as one is deriving their morality from their religion.

No literally quoted the Christian Bible, so yes you did specify.

Why?

Because we aren't arguing the merits of Christianity lmao.

I don't believe in objective morality, no. I see nothing to indicate it's a thing a lot of history from cultures across history that implies that things aren't so black and white.

So then, if objective morality doesn't exist then by what authority to we condemn... anyone or any action?

Who gets their way on what?

SOMEONE does. Anytime there's a clash of wills, agendas or goals in humanity, one is going to win out. Is the one that wins out always right?

Dalthine posted...

The difference is that no one was claiming, "Hey these things exist and I discovered it and I call it this," prior to actual evidence being found. The theory of ocean super predators or considering the lineage of modern sharks can lead to evidence or hints of Megalodon existence. Fossils led to Megalodons being proven. Evidence of gravitational perturbations caused by Neptune was used to track it down in the sky and prove its existence.

The onus is on you to provide evidence that a god exists, not for others to provide proof otherwise, from a perspective of logical evidence.

"Proof of non existence" is a failed concept on an open set. I can make the claim, "There is no such thing as a six leaf clover." The only way to prove this is untrue is to go around the world and check every instance of the plant at a minute level of detail, which is impossible from a logical standpoint. Therefore the statement is meaningless. Proof of non existence only works on a closed set, such as, "There is no six leaf clover in this box." If the box's contents can be verified, the statement can then be true.

A person can say they believe in a god, and that is not a fallacious or meaningless statement. But for that same person to say that god is objectively real is a statement that they must then prove. Until it is proven, the statement may or may not be fallacious, but it can be no better than meaningless.

If I tell you I found a seven leafed clover 5 years ago, that statement doesn't mean that if you looked for one now you'd find one, but not being able to produce proof doesn't mean it didn't exist.

As it goes for the argument of evidence, that itself becomes moot when the argument is tantamount to "produce to me physical proof of god" which is also a fallacious ask when you're delving into theory of the universes origin. Its better than simply making a moral appela for God's non existence but... Neptune wasn't discovered because of its affect on earth. Its affect on earth is negligible. It wss actually discovered because of its affect on Uranus.

So, evidence bssixslly didn't exist on earth, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Evidence can exist outside of our purview, outside of our reach, but to definitely claim because we haven't already seen it means god doesn't exist is a fallacy.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


They could say Obama committed war crimes in his first term and that restricts him from being eligible. He did operate strikes but that doesn't make him ineligible for office on his own.

It's creating an entire precedent that will affect every election on the future over 1 dude who's not probably not going to be alive in another 10 years.

A precedent that can snd will he sued by bad actors to restrict entire citizens from being able to vote freely for a candidate of their choosing.

It's a bad precedent to set any way you slice it.

falayyou01 posted...

Careful bud theyre going to whip out the big foot / spaghettti monster argument on you.

CE is historically bad with arguments regarding this because they've gotten most of their arguments from reddit.

As in, when someone says "god", they immediately go to Abrahamic god of rhe Christian Bible, no other concept of God can be discussed. Already a fallacy.

Then, when discussing THAT version of God, they simply tell you hes mean, and does things they dont like, so that means he cannot exist of course. Because if a God existed, it would be one whose morality fully lined up with that of the gamefaqs poster, thats the only possible way.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


This decision doesn't decide if Trump gets elected. Voters do.

This decision decides whether or not individual states can try and restrict their citizens from voting for their preferred candidates.

If you cannot see how that could be disastrous for dems and everyone else, you are being incredible short sighted. Imagine if in 2012 southern states could just block Obama from being on the ballot by making up some claim about him. And those citizens couldn't vote for him.

Absolute disaster of a precedent.

Torgo posted...

That's not how it would work.

Lets say I go one on one with LeBron James - is there a 50% chance I win or I don't win?

False equivalence.

You're equating the basic concept of existence/non existence which is indeed a 50/50 to a quantifiable difference in skill and training that applies to LeBron vs you.

There being no "evidence" isnt itself proof of non-existence. The planet neptune always EXISTED, but there was no evidence to humanity that it existed until they found it. Megalodons always existed, there was no evidence of its existence until we found it.

reincarnator07 posted...

If god is the source of morality, it kinda does actually. If something is objectively wrong, why does god get to go against that and do it anyway? Wouldn't it still be wrong?

God can be any number of things, you're pigeonholing it to the abrahamic Christianity God.

I mean the bible pretty clearly states

Were not arguing the Bible tho.

Stop bringing up the Bible.

You're asking multiple questions here. What is morally right is subjective and depends on who you're asking.

So is your claim that objective morality doesn't exist?

Who gets their way depends on the situation in question.

Does that make who gets their way in the right?

Euripides posted...

What part of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" empowered people to murder millions of people in the name of Christianity?

Who brought up Christianity?

Why can no one argue these basic questions without scapegoating the Bible, Christianity, or the abrahanic god?

If the tenets of atheist thinking have no defense that doesnt involve the Bible, then those tenets exist only as opposition to the Bible and not as tenets unto themselves.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Tbh, it looks like I'm alone here, but I think this is the right call. Giving individual states the power to remove candidates from the ballot like that would just lead to chaos. We were already seeing Republicans starting bad-faith efforts to remove Biden from the ballot in their states because of some extremely twisted logic comparing the "border crisis" to an insurrection against the country.

And it was a unanimous decision anyway. The liberal justices agreed with the conservative ones on this.

It was the right call. This would've quickly devolved into petty chaos and nonsense, and would've backfired in later elections

reincarnator07 posted...

So the Abrahamic god, right? Based on the bible, you could absolutely describe him as a serial killer, a dictator and a terrorist.

That's not an argument against what I said.

Also, equal validity according to who?

According to everyone? Unless there is some unspoken thing that makes certain humans inherently more valuable than others. I've seen no evidence of that. It boils down to two perspectives and two goals clashing.

Euripides posted...

It doesn't take the Bible to get most people to agree that they don't want to be murdered.

What one person "wants" and what another person "wants" often clash. What obective factor determines which one gets what he wants?

Euripides posted...

No, it certainly does not

It does.

You have no objective scale to weight "correct" morality other anothers "incorrect" morality because they're all on the same playing field. Flawed humans with limited perspective. Thats the problem with appeals like this.

Also to folks who say "I decide my own morality and live by what i believe is right"

A serial killer, a dictator and a terrorist is also deciding his own morality and living by what he thinks is right. Sentiment like that places all of these as having equal validity on an objective scale.

Dark_Arbron posted...

The number one factor that determines your religion is geography.

And it's literally biblical levels of arrogance to assume "yeah, lots of religions have existed, some even predating mine, but mine's the right one dammit!"

Wouldn't it also be arrogance to say "lots of religions have existed, many predating mime and some of the smartest men who ever lived were religious but they were all wrong and im smarter?"

Missed yet again.

To has to be on the west coast and a few hours being me...

This is gonna take a while isnt it

FortuneCookie posted...

Did he state that it was canon during the period that Disney was trying to separate itself from the Netflix shows?

Disney never attempted to do this.

The shows got canceled because the contracts weren't renewed because fiege moved Ike perlmutter out of the room. They just ended with little fanfare, Disney nor anyone else came out and said "don't watch these they don't matter".
As soon as legally possible they put all the stuff back on streaming on their own platform D plus, this was before NWH even came out. How in any way were they distancing themselves?

If you consider that Hawkeye probably started development in 2019, thats a mere like 2.5 years between the final Netflix season airing and then making plans to reintroduce Netflix characters.

FortuneCookie posted...

Failure to confirm it means it's not canon.

Lol no. Not for fiege.

Hes been very clear about canonicity when he wants to.

Remember when Sony tried to say venom 1 was mcu canon? He shut that down immediately.

For the rest of things the only things he was clear about was that the stuff WAS canon, as he stated many times while they were airing. He never changed his answer.

People that have put out mostly good games but because they allow some lgbt characters and minorities in those games some gamers think they are the devil incarnate

Hes whatever, I dont mind him but I've never really seen him add an interesting perspective onto any given discussion, he usually just regurgitates the most popular take on any given issue. Never seen him go against the grain on anything.

I'll try it this time I guess.

FortuneCookie posted...

They eventually canonized it, so you can pretend it was always regarded as canon by them. They definitely disowned it for a while.

They didn't tho lol.

They didn't acknowledge it, but they never decanonized it. Fiege was asked multiple times and danced around the answer because he wasn't sure if everything with the new stuff was finalized and probably due to rights issues.

STEROLIZER posted...

Elsa her entire gimmick is red hair. Thats all you needed to do. But her hair is black. WTF? Does hair dye not exist or something?

No, her gimmick is that she kills monsters , hunts vampires, and is a badass. Her red hair is literally not important to any of those things.

This is the type of complaint I rope in with fortune cookies grievances, nd you'd be surprised how many mcu watchers have stuff like this. Its like saying Willim Dafoe is a bad goblin because he doesn't have cornrows.

ClayGuida posted...

idk, he was Thor's bitch for Avengers, Iron Man's bitch in Avengers 2, Thor's bitch in Ragnarok, and then Thanos' bitch in Infinity War. He really didn't do anything of note fighting wise in Endgame from what I recall.

Thor didn't beat him in either film, he subdued him for a time, but thats it.

The entire avengers team is scared of him, iron man beat him while he was brainwashed and dazed.

Like what do you think he should have killed iron man in the middle of avengers 2?