Dan-95

OK, fine, i'll do the whole metaphor thing... If you're not driving(Theist), you're a pedestrian(Atheist), if you're not a pedestrian, you're a cyclist(Atheist agnostic) or a passenger(Theist agnostic) or your sitting completely still(agnostic) or even refuse to ever move and think that other people shouldn't move (Strong agnosticism). Also, to the postman one heard earlier. Being a postman is a job, you could be a president or an office clerk. You could be working part time, full time or flexible hours. Yet again, you can be jobless. One more time: You might have a different hobby to stamp collecting such as posting on forums ( ) if you do not have a hobby, you are hobbyless. I really don't know a middle ground here though :S The act of not believing is still an act. Not acting is the lack of an act, not knowing is the lack of knowing. Whenever you believe with a certainty, i consider that an act. So the lack of an act = not acting = not believing = not knowing.

The waste of life is a fact of the world we live in, i wouldn't think twice for Osama. It doesn't matter to me, but for several thousand (If not more) it does, or at least i presume so.

Quote from Danielsangeo: "Just curiosity. If the subject is driving (a car, a motorbike, an RV, whatever)...and I say that I'm not doing that, am I still driving?" What if we don't know if there is anyone driving, or the act of driving is being done (Sorry, hard to translate a verb into a noun with this metaphor)? I think these kind of metaphors don't do the situation justice. We are not talking about what is there and what we know is there, we are talking about belief, the only way to not have belief is to not know, not care or claim equal possibility to available circumstances. That's why i see agnosticism as the kind of 'default' or 'off' position, still, there is strong agnosticism, which i would say is also a belief. This is also why i acknowledged atheist/theist agnosticism, which i missed. Quote from smart guy: "I think you are moer of a Freethinker then Agnostic." I personally think we all have different beliefs, we are just labelling ourselves for the convenience and to sum up our individual thoughts to that of a group. Quote from Romano: "However, I still remember what I wanted to say about beliefs. I say that science is a belief because its link with truth is not different with the link between truth and faith." I would argue science is only a belief if you choose it to be, the laws of nature are indisputably laws of the nature we see and know of this physical reality. Science is based (mostly) upon deductive thinking whereas faith is more inductive. I don't think that's what you meant though, is it? @kookaburra Perhaps you should look more closely at the labels for types of agnostic belief there is, it may or may not help with definitions. This is why i mentioned forgetting about atheist/theist agnosticism. It's kind of hard to look at the main 'families' of the beliefs in a broad sense and debate on a more detailed level. P.S I said Agnostic(ism) a lot

Few points, still haven't really researched into it, so still not going to edit original post, don't think i will... Anyways, looking back, i forgot about agnostic atheism. I see some people treating atheism as a kind of 'default' in the lack of belief in religion. I, myself, would consider saying 'i don't know' (some form of agnotisicm [This stems from a couple metaphors heard]) as a kind of default, if you guys want to debate this, feel free. When i said atheism, i meant an actual belief there is no god, this can be a form of skeptecism, but i think skeptics would question the belief in no belief (debatable). Now that i think about it, i really don't remember what i was thinking at the time, but it sparked debate, so whatever. @kookaburra I wanted to give you guys something to think about EDIT: Don't mind the typos :S

I didn't want rebuttals or quotes because i was going to edit these half-baked ramblings into a something readable, i just wanted you guys to think about it for a bit :S One the same note, editing it has been postponed, in my typical procrastinating fashion.

I would like to start off by saying i'm not here to start a flame war. Even though pretty much everyone on this forum can debate calmly and intellectually, i can just see this turning for the worst. I would also like to clarify that i'm am talking about atheism as in the belief that there is no god or the lack of belief in a god. Anyways, i've been thinking about atheism as a belief and it became apparent that atheism makes no attempt to answer the big questions of 'why'. I'm not saying that religion is somehow superior because of this, but i am at least grateful for religion's atempts to answer such questions. Atheism has no specified system in which to contemplate such questions, which i think is a fundamental part of your faith (or faith in the lack of faith). What i'm trying to say is when you fill a form and where it says faith/religion/belief you fill in atheism, is that even an applicable answer? I'll leave you with that, but i'll edit it tommorow to elaborate, clarify and perhaps add some more points, so no rebuttals for now thx.

Science: Groups clinging to their theories as if it were sacred. This is usually beneficial in that admist the stubborness, meticulous research and debate has gone by, ultimately leading to a better conclusion. Religion: Age old nemesis of science but continues to adapt to the situation. Usually philisophically bulletproof. Philosophy: Nothing can be ultimately proven, debate always going on. Often to choose a labelled side. Can disprove anything, sometimes ridiculously so. Current levels of science are unable to affect philosophically. Philosophy really is the middle ground of the other two, able to relate to both. Here's my conclusion from this... Philosophy will get me nowhere except peace of mind. Religion will spout the same fundamental beliefs. Science will be stubborn but will eventually come to a complete conclusion. So for me; rock, paper, scissors.

I was browsing the interwebs when... http://www.imdb.com/video/wab/vi1863713561/ I'm not quite sure what happened, then i saw Ross in the credits. Help?

I think string theory is completely redundant as a scientific theory by today's technological standards. :trollface:

Firstly, you have no idea how good it is to see a fellow 14yo who can actually WRITE. You'd think with the amount of mandatory literature and years of english lessons we'd be able to form coherent sentences; metaphors and other forms of expression are just a bonus now. I had typed a lot, but for now i'll leave you with this statement: It's relative.

Fine then, end it here One last question. If your initial statement's purpose wasn't philisophical, then what was it's intended purpose? @BTGBullseye You would make a great skeptic. Also, you forgot the part where kookaburra is just mad and insulting because you're turning a rational eye to his dogma.

Expanding what you're saying, so full understanding can be reached. One question leads to another. And when i said simplify i was bringing the end result of what you said together, before expanding on it. My questions still apply to your "I'm just saying" statement.

Nein, ve live to continue ze survival of our species. Yes but why do we die? Because we live. If you were never born in the first place you'd never die. You'd be immortal. Yes, you could not die without first living. Is not just a matter of perspective through time? Simplify what you're saying, what does not exist is immortal. This is where we define immortal. Conservation of energy, matter is never created nor destroyed, the humans ability to process, control and imagine does(In this physical reality anyways). Combining these two, is everything or anything immortal? Or nothing? Does this impact in a universe where laws can bend time? Is the universe random or predetermined? And how do we truly define random? Questions with multiple answers, i'd like to hear yours.

I know i'm late to the party but heres my input: They are both taught in schools, one as science and one as scripture. They are both presented as fact. Yes, a contradiction, yet relativity and quantum mechanics are taught in the same institution. That is all.

Be Australia... Wait, fuck! We're selling the Uranium :3 More important than nukes, why does everyone post at 2am? Including me, right now...

@MichaelArcher For some reason my forum post screws up if i type too many words, so i'm going to ask you to re-read your last post and keep some things in mind: 1.Correlation is not causation, a certain amount of correlation is decent enough evidence. 2.Look for contradictions in statements made or at least semi-contradictions. 3.Please do not draw facts from thin air. While you do provide evidence on more than one occasion, you have made large statements that i've never heard to be true.

Mozzarella, i can eat the stuff endlessly.

Mostly electronic, but it made me stop gameplay to listen to it. Favourite song?

Anything + Garlic Aioli. I have a ton of jars of the stuff in the fridge, and it beckons to me, promising it's savoury goodness.

Agreed.

Just general opinions on this. Do you think that we've all gone mainstream and that we're destined for generic, reskinned sequals? Perhaps you see redemption in certain developers. Maybe you only play indie games and don't care. Or you think that video games really shouldn't be an artform. Anything regarding games as an artform (or not) is welcome here.

I think there are some of those types of lawyers, but like i said, that's where the story ends for me. Perhaps the college went bankrupt? I don't know.

While i understand where you're coming from, i felt the relationship between the two (micro and macro) should be enough, one could argue that many civilization problems stem from things of this level. To put it as a metaphor, the relationship is quantum and relative. I did, however, intend to keep this on the micro scale. So, categorize it as you wish, it won't change the content, so it doesn't bother me. One last thing, how did i miss that! Social has an 'i' I was tired

We've all been victims, witnessed or at least heard about situations of socioeconomic injustice. While the situation may technically not be 'unjust', any situation of misfortune in such a manner is welcome here. Anything in society, going on with the people around you or you yourself, that you deem unjust, unfair or just a damn shame. I'll start off. One of my friend's boss owned a cafe. Executives of an arts college often went there and put meals they ate on the company's tab. After two months and a lot of money owed, the college refused to talk to her about the money, finding ways to divert her. Turns out, the college is doing is doing bad financially. With the money owed, she is unable to make rent payments and the building owner forcefully takes the cafe from her possesion. This is where the story ends for me. Just some extra information, she is a single mother of three and is paying a mortgage. So the business means a lot. My friend told me that she was seen crying on the steps behind the cafe. As far as i know, she doesn't have a lawyer. Maybe i'll post some others later (2 am here).