What is the likelihood that mankind is merely existing within a simulation?
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/11/universe-computer-simulation
had Batman stew because he
I want to know how much that one fellow was paid merely to lie there and tickle Jabba's underbelly...disgusting what these artsy folk will do for employment...
TV's Frink said:
Post Praetorian said:
TV's Frink said:
28) Insisting you have a sense of humor.
...but I "have" a "sense" of "humor"...I'm simply not certain where I last placed it...
I don't remember you insisting until now. ;-)
...and what if I should insist that I was not insisting?
As head of the Illuminati in my district I find that highly unlikely...
ATMachine said:
Ah. A mote in one's eye, perhaps? Or perhaps not.
Given the size of my eye it is possible...
At any rate...
You Win!
Of course...I always win...
You scored 800 out of 800 points.
A perfect score seems excessive for the initial round...should we pare it by half?
Remember to load a saved game after the credits to store your Jedi Quotient.
Have you been up late playing Loom again? Seemingly you need your sleep again...
---
But of course, that's not the only way the story could have unfolded... far from it, actually. And this particular version was rather a long-shot anyway.
"Would you like to know more?"
It did not earlier seem possible to know a greater quantity than what has been previously offered...but carry on should you so wish...but do pause for breaks...
radioactive spider blood? How could
TV's Frink said:
28) Insisting you have a sense of humor.
...but I "have" a "sense" of "humor"...I'm simply not certain where I last placed it...
Possessed said:
This doesn't really fall under the category of emotional support, but I don't know where else I should post it and it doesn't warrant the creation of a topic on it's own. I would just like youz guyz opinion on if I'm doing the right thing here or not.
I had this childhood bestfriend, a very beautiful girl. We grew up together and we were super close. Inevitably (if you ask me anyway) at a certain age we became romantically involved. That ended up not working out. There wasn't any kind of bad event or hatred involved in the ending of it, it just kinda fizzled out. We stopped talking and we don't see each other any more. This was about 6 years ago.
We still live in the same town and we see each other quite often at certain events. For the entire 6 years we haven't been talking, she's made it very obvious that she is not happy with this arrangement, she wants to be friends. I do not. I do not dislike her at all, I just don't think it's a good idea for us to talk anymore. It's not that I still feel anything for her, or that I think she does for me, it just doesn't sound appealing.
I can understand her wanting to stay friends. After all, we grew up together. It seems to mean a lot to her, there's definitely a sentimental attachment and bond we'll always have, but I'm perfectly content to let it rot away, and I think that's best, but sometimes I wonder if this is really fair to her.
She's married now, and she still wants us to be friends. I don't tell her no, but I just avoid her and I'm sure it's obvious that I avoid her. There is no chance of anything inappropriate happening, it'd just be childhood best friends reuniting, and I know that she would love it if I spent time with her and talked to her, I just... I dunno I really just don't want to. It's not so much that I think it's wrong, but I still really don't want to. But I'm not sure if this is fair to her.Bunny.
I would suggest you maintain your distance. Your instincts are correct in this regard as there is little good that might come of even a platonic relationship at this stage--particularly from the point of view of her husband...
TV's Frink said:
Well clearly some of us are going to have to let go of certain inhibitions, otherwise we'll just be like the line of passengers waiting to "calm down" the hysterical woman in Airplane!
That is still my favorite part...
Now we just have to work on our humility...
You have an impressive mind ATMachine...an interesting read for sure...
darth_ender said:
Post Praetorian said:
darth_ender said:
imperialscum said:
darth_ender said:
But to say religion is just nonsense is, in fact, nonsense. Religion is built into humanity. Even most who do not believe in deity in any form still engage in religious-like behaviors and rituals, whether they realize it or not. It too is a part of humanity.
The only useful thing about religion are some (emphasis on some) of the moral standards it teaches. Pretty much everything else is a nonsense, such as time-wasting rituals and stupid stories like creationism and life after death.
And in the end you don't really need a religion to abide the high moral standards.
I am afraid that this is all a bunch of ignorance. I don't disagree that people who are without religion can still hold high moral standards. But bear in mind where those standards came from. Right now you are from the UK if I recall correctly. Your nation has been tremendously influenced by Judeo-Christian values. Let's say that the world was taken over by the Islamic State. Over time, societal norms conform to those accepted by what we now see as an evil group. In 100 years, a guy very much like you wishes to live a life with morals much like yours. Do you know what would happen? This man would be branded a heretic and executed for apostasy. You know why, because he would be living a life if immorality according to a different society, though his standards may be exactly like yours today. Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims, I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.
In other words, morals are not universal. There is no supreme law that says that murder is wrong, that human equality is right. Not unless there is a Supreme Being. Otherwise, those values are actually just accepted by the majority of society. Being moral in one society may be immoral in another.
Note that this is not proof of any Supreme Being, but rather that in a sense, if there is no God, no one can be truly called moral.
Is this necessarily the case? Given that some elements of morality seemingly differs from one society to another, is it not yet understood that such normative mores may yet be recognized by the society itself? If refraining from watching television might be considered a high standard in one household while watching the late night show as a group might be upheld as a time for bonding in another, is it true to claim that neither family may have any standards without an outside source capable of affirming the one and rejecting the other? Or is it not more likely the case that the moral exists solely within the familial sphere, where it might be applied, ruled upon, extolled, and promoted by those in authority therein, but that its absolute moral certitude must necessarily wane the further it might depart from any immediate parental reach?
Further, if no moral certitude might yet exist even upon this earth, how might this be construed as evidence that one all-powerful being whose interest must clearly be human-centered might yet be in any position of control? Would one not instead expect a degree of moral uniformity to extend from a singular creator of great power and virtuous intent?
Finally, is morality truly as complicated that it might require an all powerful singularity as its source of origin? For would not such self-evident truths as "if you take mine I'll take yours so don't take mine" be as clear to men of fair intellect as to an omnipotent being of infinite intelligence?
If I understand you correctly, the latter two paragraphs are answered in my last sentence from my previous reply, which I have underlined above. All I am saying is that there is no definitive sense of morals without a Divine lawmaker. Otherwise it's all simply what we agree upon. In answer to your first paragraph, I would agree, pointing out that a family is itself a society on a small scale. There are even those who would say that the individual can create his own moral code, a law unto himself, as it were. Who is to say he's wrong, except a larger society in disagreement?
I apologize for the misread...I seemingly have taken the wrong end of the stick...leading to an argument with both of us nodding in agreement...how are we to remain entertained given such a poor turn of events? Is there truly nothing we might find with which to disagree?
They must know we all want this at some level...
darth_ender said:
imperialscum said:
darth_ender said:
But to say religion is just nonsense is, in fact, nonsense. Religion is built into humanity. Even most who do not believe in deity in any form still engage in religious-like behaviors and rituals, whether they realize it or not. It too is a part of humanity.
The only useful thing about religion are some (emphasis on some) of the moral standards it teaches. Pretty much everything else is a nonsense, such as time-wasting rituals and stupid stories like creationism and life after death.
And in the end you don't really need a religion to abide the high moral standards.
I am afraid that this is all a bunch of ignorance. I don't disagree that people who are without religion can still hold high moral standards. But bear in mind where those standards came from. Right now you are from the UK if I recall correctly. Your nation has been tremendously influenced by Judeo-Christian values. Let's say that the world was taken over by the Islamic State. Over time, societal norms conform to those accepted by what we now see as an evil group. In 100 years, a guy very much like you wishes to live a life with morals much like yours. Do you know what would happen? This man would be branded a heretic and executed for apostasy. You know why, because he would be living a life if immorality according to a different society, though his standards may be exactly like yours today. Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims, I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.
In other words, morals are not universal. There is no supreme law that says that murder is wrong, that human equality is right. Not unless there is a Supreme Being. Otherwise, those values are actually just accepted by the majority of society. Being moral in one society may be immoral in another.
Note that this is not proof of any Supreme Being, but rather that in a sense, if there is no God, no one can be truly called moral.
Is this necessarily the case? Given that some elements of morality seemingly differs from one society to another, is it not yet understood that such normative mores may yet be recognized by the society itself? If refraining from watching television might be considered a high standard in one household while watching the late night show as a group might be upheld as a time for bonding in another, is it true to claim that neither family may have any standards without an outside source capable of affirming the one and rejecting the other? Or is it not more likely the case that the moral exists solely within the familial sphere, where it might be applied, ruled upon, extolled, and promoted by those in authority therein, but that its absolute moral certitude must necessarily wane the further it might depart from any immediate parental reach?
Further, if no moral certitude might yet exist even upon this earth, how might this be construed as evidence that one all-powerful being whose interest must clearly be human-centered might yet be in any position of control? Would one not instead expect a degree of moral uniformity to extend from a singular creator of great power and virtuous intent?
Finally, is morality truly as complicated that it might require an all powerful singularity as its source of origin? For would not such self-evident truths as "if you take mine I'll take yours so don't take mine" be as clear to men of fair intellect as to an omnipotent being of infinite intelligence?
Since I cannot argue with you less, Ender, would it help you to stay should I offer to argue with you more?
Now we who are anxiously awaiting its completion have something to complain about!
DrCrowTStarwars said:
We got some help from the food bank this morning so now we are doing better.
I am so sorry for over reacting like that.
Thanks for putting up with my panic and helping any way.
I know I must sound like a broken record at this point but I will work hard to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Sorry, and thanks again.
Glad to hear it...
DuracellEnergizer said:
I want to visit Giza and Teotihuacan so I can see the pyramids of both up close and personal.
Find God again.
Find a beautiful, spiritual, feisty girl-next-door who'll love me and complete me.
Become a director who can make whatever films he wants with no studio interference.
Learn some other languages, especially Welsh, German, Japanese, and ancient Egyptian.
Meet Heather Langenkamp and get an autographed photo taken of us together.
If you succeed at the 4th you should have no further trouble with the 3rd...
skyjedi2005 is ignoring me...I do not know why...?
You will surely have to tell us if you succeed at the food bank...otherwise we might worry...or at the very least be somewhat curious...
Warbler said:
1. See the Eagles win a Superbowl.
2. See a qualified canidate get elected President.
3. Visit Churchill Downs on Derby Day.
4. See Lucas apologize to the fans and release the O-OT on DVD.
5. Attend a Phillies home World Series game.
6. Watch someone do the PT right.
7. Watch my old Highschool Football team go undefeated.
I see you are still waiting for #2 & #3 ...how are you scoring on the rest?
where he was suitably refreshed...
Hey Bingo, something about you is different...no, do not tell me...wait, have you changed your hair? ;-)
Have you tried a local food bank? They do not care about your income.