Call me ignorant, but what is Rule 34. I did a Google search and the links make me nervous to click on anything for fear of running into something naughty.
But otherwise I am in complete agreement with your statement.
I'm honestly curious to hear more of your thoughts that you only were able to respond to in brief the other night. I know you were tired, but I'm curious about how you feel on my dualistic perspective of the world.
I can't help but wonder what loon installed SilverWook as a moderator at originaltrilogy.com when he's always acting as a prequel trilogy apologist!
;)
Scientists are convinced they have discovered the Higgs Boson, aka God particle.
This and the recent conclave are really getting me thinking about Angels & Demons.
Attention all conspiracy theorists, be on the lookout for an Illuminati thread bump! Something's going on here.
Warbler said:
Warbler said:
- ST. Peter 30 - 64
- Linus 67 - 76
- ST. Anacletus 79 - 92
- ST. Clement I 92 - 99
- Evaristus 99 - 107
- Alexander I 106 - 115
- ST. Sixtus I 114 or 119 - 124 or 128
- ST. Telesphorus 126 - 137
- Hyginus 136 or 138 - 140 or 142
- ST. Pius I 140 - 154
- Anicetus 154 - April 20, 167
- ST. Soter 166 - 174
- Eleuterus 174 - 189
- ST. Victor 189 - 199
- ST. Zephyrinus 199 - December 20, 217
- Callixtus I 217 - 222
- Urban I 222 - 230
- Pontian July 21, 230 - September 28, 235
- Anterus November 21, 235 - January 3, 236
- ST. Fabian January 10, 236 - January 20, 250
- Cornelius March 6, 251 or March 13, 251 - June 253
- ST. Lucius June 25, 253 - March 5, 254
- Stephen I May 12, 254 - August 2, 257
- Sixtus II August 30, 257 - August 6, 258
- Dionsysius July 22, 259 - December 26, 268
- ST. Felix I January 5, 269 - December 30, 274
- Eutychian January 4, 275 - December 7, 283
- Caius December 17, 283 - April 22, 296
- ST. Marcellinus June 30, 296 - April 1, 304?
- ST. Marcellus I May 308 - 309
- ST. Eusebius April 18, 309 or April 18, 310 - August 17, 309 or August 17, 310
- ST. Miltiades July 3, 311 - January 10, 314
- Sylvester I January 31, 314 - December 31, 335
- Mark January 18, 336 - October 7, 336
- Julius I February 6, 337 - April 12, 352
- Liberius May 17, 352 - September 24, 366
- Damasus I 366 - 384
- Siricius December 384 - November 26, 399
- Anastasius I November 27, 399 - December 19, 401
- Innocent I 401 - March 12, 417
- Zosimus March 21, 417 - December 26, 418
- Boniface I December 28, 418 - September 4, 422
- Celestine I 422 - April 6, 432
- Sixtus III July 31, 432 - August 18, 440
- ST. Leo I September 29, 440 - November 10, 461
- Hilarius November 17(?), 461 - February 28(?), 468
- ST. Simplicius 468 - March 10, 483
- Felix III March 13, 483 - January 3, 492
- ST. Gelasius I 492 - November 21, 496
- Anastasius II November 24, 496 - November 16, 498
- Symmachus November 22, 498 - July 19, 514
- Hormisdas July 20, 514 - 523
- ST. John I 523 - 526
- Felix IV 526 - 530
- Boniface II 530 - 532
- John II January 2, 533 - May 8, 535
- Agapetus I 535 - April 22, 536
- ST. Silverius June 8, 536 - March 537
- Vigilius March 29, 537 - 555
- Pelagius I 556 - March 4, 561
- John III 561 - July 13, 574
- Benedict I June 2, 575 - July 30, 579
- Pelagius II 579 - 590
- Gregory I September 3, 590 - March 12, 604
- Sabinian September 13, 604 - February 22, 606
- Boniface III February 19, 607 - November 12, 607
- Boniface IV September 25, 608 - May 8, 615
- Adeodatus I November 13, 615 - November 8, 618
- Boniface V December 23, 619 - October 25, 625
- Honorius I October 27, 625 - October 12, 638
- Severinus May 28, 640 - August 2, 640
- John IV December 24, 640 - October 12, 642
- Theodore I November 24, 642 - May 14, 649
- Martin I July 5, 649 - 653
- Eugene I August 10, 654 - June 1, 657
- Vitalian July 30, 657 - January 27, 672
- Adeodatus II April 11, 672 - June 17, 676
- Donus November 2, 676 - April 11, 678
- Agatho June 27, 678 - January 10, 681
- ST. Leo II August 17, 682 - June 28, 683
- Benedict II June 26, 684 - May 8, 685
- John V July 12, 685 - August 2, 686
- Conon October 21, 686 - September 21, 687
- Sergius I December 15, 687 - September 8, 701
- John VI October 30, 701 - January 11, 705
- John VII March 1, 705 - October 18, 707
- Sisinnius January 15, 708 - February 4, 708
- Constantine March 25, 708 - April 9, 715
- Gregory II May 19, 715 - February 11, 731
- Gregory III February 11, 731 - November 28, 741
- ST. Zachary December 10, 741 - March 22, 752
- Stephen II March 26, 752 - April 26, 757
- Paul I May 29, 757 - June 28, 767
- Stephen III August 1, 768 - February 1, 772
- Adrian I February 1, 772 - December 25, 795
- Leo III December 27, 795 - June 12, 816
- Stephen IV June 22, 816 - January 24, 817
- Paschal I January 25, 817 - February 11, 824
- Eugene II May 11, 824 - August 27, 827
- Valentine August 31, 827 - October 10, 827
- Gregory IV October 827 - January 25, 844
- Sergius II January 844 - January 24, 847
- ST. Leo IV April 10, 847 - July 17, 855
- Benedict III September 29, 855 - April 17, 858
- Nicholas I April 24, 858 - November 13, 867
- Adrian II December 14, 867 - December 14, 872
- John VIII December 14, 872 - December 16, 882
- Marinus I December 16, 882 - May 15, 884
- Adrian III May 17, 884 - July 885
- Stephen V September 885 - September 14, 891
- Formosus October 6, 891 - April 4, 896
- Boniface VI April 896 - April 896
- Stephen VI May 22, 896 - August 897
- Romanus August 897 - November 897
- Theodore II December 897 - December 897
- John IX January 898 - January 900
- Benedict IV February 1, 900 - July 903
- Leo V late July 903 - mid September 903
- Sergius III January 29, 904 - April 14, 911
- Anastasius III April 911 - June 913
- Lando July 913 or August 913 - February 914 or March 914
- John X March 914 - May 928
- Leo VI June 928 - February 929
- Stephen VII February 929 - March 15, 931
- John XI March 931 - December 935
- Leo VII January 3, 936 - July 13, 939
- Stephen VIII July 14, 939 - October 942
- Marinus II October 30, 942 - May 946
- Agapetus II May 10, 946 - November 8, 955
- John XII December 16, 955 - May 14, 964
- Benedict V May 22, 964 - June 23, 964
- Leo VIII June 23, 964 - March 1, 965
- John XIII October 1, 965 - September 6, 972
- Benedict VI January 19, 973 - June 974
- Benedict VII October 974 - July 10, 983
- John XIV December 983 - August 20, 984
- John XV August 985 - March 996
- Gregory V May 3, 996 - February 18, 999
- Sylvester II April 2, 999 - May 12, 1003
- John XVII May 16, 1003 - December 6, 1003
- John XVIII January 1004 - July 1009
- Sergius IV July 31, 1009 - May 12, 1012
- Benedict VIII May 16, 1012 - April 9, 1024
- John XIX May 1024 - October 1032
- Benedict IX October 1032 - September 1044
- Sylvester III January 20, 1045 - February 10, 1045
- Benedict IX April 1045 - May 1045
- Gregory VI May 5 1045 - December 20, 1046
- Clement II December 25, 1046 - October 1047
- Benedict IX November 1047 - July 1048
- Damasus II July 17, 1048 - August 9, 1048
- ST. Leo IX February 12, 1049 - April 19, 1054
- Victor II April 13, 1055 - July 28, 1057
- Stephen IX August 3, 1057 - March 29, 1058
- Nicholas II January 24, 1059 - July 27, 1061
- Alexander II September 30, 1061 - April 21, 1073
- Gregory VII April 22, 1073 - May 25, 1085
- Victor III May 24, 1086 - September 16, 1087
- Urban II March 12, 1088 - July 29, 1099
- Paschal II August 13, 1099 - January 21, 1118
- Gelasius II January 24, 1118 - January 29, 1119
- Blessed Calixtus II February 1, 1119 - December 13, 1124
- Honorius II December 21, 1124 - February 13, 1130
- Innocent II February 14, 1130 - September 24, 1143
- Celestine II September 25, 1143 - March 8, 1144
- Lucius II March 9, 1144 - February 15, 1145
- Eugene III February 15, 1145 - July 8, 1153
- Anastasius IV July 9, 1153 - December 3, 1154
- Adrian IV December 4, 1154 - September 1, 1159
- Alexander III September 7, 1159 - August 30, 1181
- Lucius III September 1, 1181 - November 25, 1185
- Urban III November 25, 1185 - October 20, 1187
- Gregory VIII October 25, 1187 - December 17, 1187
- Clement III December 19, 1187 - March 20, 1191
- Celestine III March 21, 1191 - January 8, 1198
- Innocent III January 8, 1198 - July 16, 1216
- Honorius III July 18, 1216 - March 18, 1227
- Gregory IX March 19, 1227 - August 22, 1241
- Clestine IV October 25, 1241 - November 10, 1241
- Innocent IV June 25, 1243 - December 7, 1254
- Alexander IV December 12, 1254 - May 25, 1261
- Urban IV August 29, 1261 - October 2, 1264
- Clement IV February 5, 1265 - November 29, 1268
- Gregory X September 1, 1271 - January 10, 1276
- Innocent V January 21, 1276 - June 22, 1276
- Adrian V July 11, 1276 - August 18, 1276
- John XXI September 13, 1276 - May 20, 1277
- Nicholas III November 25, 1277 - August 22, 1280
- Martin IV February 21, 1281 - March 28, 1285
- Honorius IV April 2, 1285 - April 3, 1287
- Nicholas IV February 22, 1288 - April 4, 1292
- Celestine V July 5, 1294 - December 13, 1294
- Boniface VIII December 24, 1294 - October 11, 1303
- Benedict XI October 22, 1303 - July 7, 1304
- Clement V June 5, 1305 - April 20, 1314
- John XXII August 7, 1316 - December 4, 1334
- Benedict XII December 20, 1334 - April 25, 1342
- Clement VI May 7, 1342 - December 6, 1352
- Innocent VI December 18, 1352 - September 12, 1362
- Urban V September 28, 1362 - December 19, 1370
- Gregory XI December 30, 1370 - March 27, 1378
- Urban VI April 8, 1378 - October 15, 1389
- Boniface IX November 2, 1389 - October 1, 1404
- Innocent VII October 17, 1404 - November 6, 1406
- Gregory XII November 30, 1406 - July 4, 1415
- Martin V November 11, 1417 - February 20, 1431
- Eugene IV March 3, 1431 - February 23, 1447
- Nicholas V March 6, 1447 - March 24, 1455
- Callixtus III April 8, 1455 - August 6, 1458
- Pius II August 19, 1458 - August 14, 1464
- Paul II August 30, 1464 - July 26, 1471
- Sixtus IV August 9, 1471 - August 12, 1484
- Innocent VIII August 29, 1484 - July 25, 1492
- Alexander VI August 11, 1492 - August 8, 1503
- Pius III September 22, 1503 - October 18, 1503
- Julius II November 1, 1503 - February 21, 1513
- Leo X March 9, 1513(elected) March 11, 1513(proclaimed) - December 1, 1521
- Adrian VI January 9, 1522 - September 14, 1523
- Clement VII November 19, 1523 - September 25, 1534
- Paul III October 13, 1534 - November 10, 1549
- Julius III February 7, 1550 - March 23, 1555
- Marcellus II April 9, 1555(elected) April 10, 1555(proclaimed) - May 1, 1555
- Paul IV May 23, 1555 - August 18, 1559
- Pius IV December 25, 1559 - December 9, 1565
- ST. Pius V January 7, 1566 - May 1, 1572
- Gregory XIII May 13, 1572 - April 10, 1585
- Sixtus V April 24, 1585 - August 27, 1590
- Urban VII September 15, 1590 - September 27, 1590
- Gregory XIV December 5, 1590 - October 16, 1591
- Innocent IX October 29, 1591 - December 30, 1591
- Clement VIII January 30, 1592 - March 3, 1605
- Leo XI April 1, 1605 - April 27, 1605
- Paul V May 16, 1605 - January 28, 1621
- Gregory XV February 9, 1621 - July 8 1623
- Urban VIII August 6, 1623 - July 29, 1644
- Innocent X September 15, 1644 - January 7, 1655
- Alexander VII April 7, 1655 - May 22, 1667
- Clement IX June 20, 1667 - December 9, 1669
- Clement X April 29, 1670 - July 22, 1676
- Innocent XI September 21, 1676 - August 12, 1689
- Alexander VIII October 6, 1689 - February 1, 1691
- Innocent XII July 12, 1691 - September 27, 1700
- Clement XI November 23, 1700 - March 19, 1721
- Innocent XIII May 8, 1721 - March 7, 1724
- Benedect XIII May 29, 1724 - February 21, 1730
- Clement XII July 12, 1730 - February 6, 1740
- Benedict XIV August 17, 1740 - May 3, 1758
- Clement XIII July 16, 1758 - February 2, 1769
- Clement XIV May 19, 1769 - September 22, 1774
- Pius VI February 15, 1775 - August 29, 1799
- Pius VII March 14, 1800 - August 20, 1823
- Leo XII September 28, 1823 - February 10, 1829
- Pius VIII March 31, 1829 - November 30, 1830
- Gregory XVI February 2, 1831 - June 1, 1846
- Pius IX June 16, 1846 - February 7, 1878
- Leo XIII February 20, 1878 - July 20, 1903
- ST. Pius X August 4, 1903 - August 20, 1914
- Benedict XV September 3, 1914 - January 22, 1922
- Pius XI February 6, 1922 - February 10, 1939
- Pius XII March 2, 1939 - October 9, 1958
- John XXIII October 28, 1958 - June 3, 1963
- Paul VI June 21, 1963 - August 6, 1978
- John Paul I August 26, 1978 - September 28, 1978
- John Paul II October 16, 1978 - April 2, 2005
- Benedict XVI April 19, 2005 - February 28, 2013
- Francis March 13, 2013 - ?
fixed.
Can I just say that I'm a big fan of pope #121? A bit of a scoundrel at times, but he certainly proved his worth.
I'm reading the ROTJ novel, and I have to say that I find the whole slave Leia bit pretty disturbing. I mean, the film and book really don't say much about it, and I know it's a kids movie, and furthermore I understand that GL was probably looking for an excuse to please his adolescent male fans by getting Carrie Fisher in a bikini, but...in reality she would have been horribly traumatized by this experience. If the Star Wars universe were real, I imagine that Leia would have been horribly sexually assaulted, probably numerous times, prior to her escape. These are evil, horrible monsters that clearly have little respect for the rights of others, and the only females you see in the group are slave dancers. In the book Jabba actually kisses/licks Leia and later forces her to drink out of his goblet ("Soon you will learn to appreciate me."). I know it's a kid's movie, but as an adult this part actually strikes me as pretty dark.
Sorry, not trying to be gross. It's just a random thought that entered my head.
Somebody get Bingowings a taco!
Now that I've explained my joke, the full weight of my wit is diminished :(
I thought you said you were from Tblisi!
Oh, so because Bingo did that, he now thinks he's all powerful? I hear it took him at least a week and a half! Pffffft!
I believe the proper spelling is colars, but since you live in the UK, I guess I would let it pass if spelled colaurs ;)
In all seriousness, I too enjoy the screenshot comparison, it is very pretty.
Among the simple but beautiful changes I've noticed is how you brighten the engines, Ady. Thanks, as always, for your work. Every day I look for that magical "I'm done" phrase in this thread. Still very excited :)
CP3S said:
This whole discussion is getting so very silly.
Science doesn't need to disprove the existence of gods or god-like creatures. No evidence exists for them, there is no reason to assume they exist or to feel the need to disprove they don't.
There are all sorts of things that don't exist, and thankfully, we don't waste a lot of time on proving they don't. If someday we discover mermaids or unicorns, I for one, think that would be super cool, and I'd be very excited about it. Until then, I am content to assume they are mythological (which I am sure you assume the same about them).
So now we have those who through faith believe in a deity (which I am perfectly cool with, if it brings you comfort, if it makes you happy, please, have at it), waving the burden of disproof in our faces for something we haven't the slightest good reason to suspect any possibility of. If you are going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on your shoulders. "Period. End of sentence." As Warb would say.
If I make the claim I am a super awesome vigilante that makes Batman look extremely lame by comparison, whose job is it to verify this? Yours of course! No! Obviously it is mine. You have no way to prove I am not an amazingly awesome vigilante who fights crime every evening, but I am the one making the fantastic claim.
I cannot disprove your god. Me admitting this is no more of a victory in the name of theism than me admitting that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of centaurs. But ultimately, all evidence points away from their existence, we only know about centaurs thanks to ancient writings of fantastical tales that they are included in.
I know centaurs and Santa do not exist. If you can prove to me either one exists, then I will drop my defense of Leonardo's statement that, according to his belief system and world view, he knows god does not exist.
Barring proof of centaurs or Santa, I'm not going to reply to another word on Leo's claim, and my defense of his use of wording. It has just gotten absurd, and driven what was an interesting discussion into a pithy debate over semantics.
Leo feels he knows God does not exist. Many religious people are at least as certain that God does exist.
Why should either of these concern us to the point of discussing it with nearly as many words as we already have?
Oh, CP3S, don't be a party pooper ;) Quite honestly I've enjoyed this discussion and have found it very interesting. I'm saddens me you haven't gotten the same pleasure. If I may try to wrap things up on one thing: you and every other atheist of any brand may make any claim you like and I will not like you less for it. I just felt that the reasoning was inconsistent, and I simply wanted to make what I thought was an interesting point. I understand that the burden of proof would be on me to demonstrate that God exists, if that were my intent. But I too know that it is not a falsifiable experiment, and that the nature of the experiments which I have performed are only evidence to myself of his existence. It was not my purpose to prove anything, just to point out the different standards. And considering the extensive criticism the prominent scientific atheists level at believers for not using our brains enough and having no evidence of our point of view, I see nothing wrong with turning their logic back on them a bit. I certaintly respect your perspective and am not trying to persuade you to believe anything else.
Sorry for double posting, but I'm also reading the ROTJ novelization, and one thing I think it does more effectively than the film is portray Luke' slippery slope. While the reader sees a wiser, more subdued Luke, he also sees a more sadistic Luke, feeling guiltless as he chokes the Gammorean guards (for a moment) and taking pleasure in the knowledge that Jabba's unwillingness to let Han go will actually justify Luke killing him (it actually reads like that: Luke hoped that Jabba would turn down the kind offers so that he could rid the galaxy of him). I wonder if there is some way this could be better conveyed on the screen, as it makes Luke seem to slide perilously close to the dark side and makes his decision to not kill Vader more dramatic.
So while many utterly hate the Ewoks, I see no way to remove them and still make an enjoyable film. But then of course it would be Adywan's/anyone else's aim to minimize their presence as much as possible. Well, I think the following ideas can perhaps best utilize them whilst keeping them, since they were originally supposed to be the primitive Wookiees that defeat the technologically superior Empire anyway:
1) Redub them, make them tougher, more vicious sounding.
2) Remove the cheesiest and "cutest" stuff of course.
3) Perhaps physically alter their appearance, though I doubt this could be done effectively--perhaps something simple but creepy, like glowing eyes.
4) Somehow indicate that they have been planning an attack upon the Empire for some time. Using Anthony Daniels' lines from the radio drama, as demonstrated by...SSWR (I think?) and incorporated into my theoretical edit found in my link, could go a long way to convince the viewer that they are pretty tough. If we saw stormtrooper armor and/or corpses in the Ewok huts (ideally during the Han Solo cookout), showing Ewoks setting up log traps, and incorporating Tony Daniels lines together could really sell the package. That way, even though Ady intends to place more emphasis on the commando actions, we would still be able to better believe the Ewoks' efforts were effective as well.
So I'm getting ready for exams and haven't been giving as much attention to this lately. However, I should give a small update that I am largely done sifting through the pictures I don't need and I still have over 3,000 pictures! Now these are of varying quality and during the sifting process I've tended to keep redundant pics just so I could choose the best quality versions. But still, I have far more pictures that I could imagine. Now I'm trying to put them in the appropriate folders depending on the episode, and from there I will put them into different slideshows and try to put them in the proper film order. I have to say I am pretty proud of the collection I've put together and I can't wait to show them to everyone. When I'm done putting this together, I will probably just upload all the folders somewhere for others to download at their leisure and make use of all the pictures. I honestly have never seen such a full collection of material!
Little help request, but nothing terribly important: I am working on the OT mostly. I have pulled together various bits of PT, but I have not placed such an emphasis on pictures that would be potentially interesting. I've collected little bits here and there, such as the fat blue Twi'lek senator and his magically changing assistants, but I haven't really put a whole lot of effort into it. If anyone is interested in collecting deleted material or alternate takes from the PT, I would be happy to include it in the project. If not, no biggie, I probably just won't have quite as exciting a slideshow for the PT films (which I know will disappoint EVERYONE at originaltrilogy.com) ;)
Aha! Don't know why I couldn't link to it before. Here is the Taylor Kessinger piece that got him in a bit of trouble:
http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2008/09/a_rational_response_to_atheists
Too bad the comments posted in the paper weren't tacked on to the electronic article, as it was satisfying to read the responses. I swear, as reasonable as this bum sounds towards Christians in this article, he wrote several insulting comments about them during my time at the UA, including one targeting Mormons (satire, but in bad taste).
So I hear ya on that topic. Yes, atheist is broader term than I was/am giving credit. But at least know this very article was in the back of my mind as I composed my earlier message, and I simply chose to focus more on the scientific atheists without careful phrasing.
So perhaps you are correct that the whole topic could be defined as a matter of semantics. But...forget it, I just decided to delete my silly paragraph showing that you can use scientific evidence to 'know' with reasonable certainty that the TMNT aren't real. I won't bore you, since I'm sure you know that such testing can be shown. Let's just cut to the chase. I suppose that in a philosophical sense, Leo can claim to 'know' that God is not real. But I am curious as to his source of knowledge. I can claim to know that 9/11 was an inside job and have far more evidence than he (I don't accept the Truther philosophy at all, incidentally). To what can he point in order to claim this knowledge? Frankly, I don't care if he or anyone says he knows God is false, except that I feel those who really claim to 'know' such things are usually the very offended. But as you said, atheist ~ agnostic for those who really take the time to think it through. The difference in labels is only slight in most cases. TV's Frink is, after all, only a weak atheist ;)
Oh, and the new Pope is an Argentine! In before Warbler!!!
EDIT: Ah, crud! Boost beat me to it :(
Bingo, you've got to work on this "not mocking" thing. I know you are phrasing it in such a way as to make it look ordinary, but the nature of the Christian Plan of Salvation (with which I am sure you are already quite familiar) is not so easily summed up. Your wording looks condescending.
mrbenja0618, it's refreshing to read a simple testimony. I really enjoy the philosophy and science surrounding the religious debate, but it's nice to read someone share their conviction based on the sort of knowledge I am arguing for.
Frink, I certainly don't like you better than Leo, I just better understand where you're coming from. I apologize for oversimplifying and generalizing about agnostics and any group in general. Such things are inescapable, as any argument is always an oversimplification of the real issue, but it looks like I OVER-oversimplified this time.
And I didn't even realize English was not Leonardo's first language! He writes like a native, IMO!
Oh, and sometimes I just have no idea how one should respond to the things that emerge from Bingowings' fingers :D
As is often the case, I ask you to forgive the formatting weirdness. Especially I ask that the reader forgive the overuse of caps, as the proxy server I'm using won't allow me to italicize. If you take the capitalization too strongly, imagine I merely used italics for emphasis.
darth_ender had before said:
"There is an inherent advantage for the believers when using the word 'know' in debate. The atheist holds that in order for something to be true, it must be demonstrable through observation and scientific experimentation. A falsifiable experiment is necessary to actually disprove something. From Wikipedia."
CP3S then said:
"I think you are generalizing quite a lot here, and being very presumptuous. Not all atheists are materialistic atheists or ascribe strictly to scientific thought, or require demonstration or falsifiability to disbelieve in God or gods.
"And even for those of us who do, you're trying to spin the scientific process in a way that makes it sound extraordinarily limiting, in a way that it isn't to most of us. Ultimately, a scientist knows that we don't know even a small fraction of everything there is to know, and that the knowledge we do have is just a starting point to greater discovery and free thought. Where you make it sound like a brick wall that stops us in our tracks, it is really a wide open gateway and a series of bridges and roads to all sorts of exciting places that are still in the process of being built and paved."
darth_ender now sayeth:
Actually, believe it or not, I included an extra couple of sentences discussing atheists who do not fit the "scientific" mold. I removed it because I thought it detracted from my point. Now I see I should have left it. Yes, an atheist can believe in anything...except in a god of any sort: 'a-' meaning 'without,' 'theos' meaning 'god' (of any type), '-ist' meaning 'one who subscribes to that way of thinking.' But they can believe in the tooth fairy, fortune telling, horoscopes, or whatever. I should have been more specific in that I was referring to those who actually claim to hold to a truly scientific mindset. (I was alerted to this common misconception around 5 or 6 years ago when this idiot who wrote for the Arizona Daily Wildcat named Taylor Kessinger wrote a very condescending piece criticizing atheists who were, in his view, superstitious about other things; though he had often been condescending towards Christians without much backlash, you should have seen the responses to that article; I'll see if I can find it online; time lapse...ah, looks like Google gets some hits, but then I get the 404 error).
But don't misunderstand my intention, because you are actually reinforcing my point. I know that scientists know that they do not know everything. They acknowledge that they cannot. Those atheists who are truly scientific admit that they cannot possibly know those things they cannot test, even though they also acknowledge that just because it cannot be tested does not make it nonexistent or unreal. Thus, since God is untestable, a truly scientific atheist cannot with full conviction 'know' that God does not exist, but rather can be firmly convinced based on a perceived lack of evidence. Those that 'know' that God doesn't exist are not acting truly scientifically.
darth_ender earlier said:
"For this reason, I can see where the agnostic comes from, but not the atheist. The agnostic does not believe God exists, yet reserves ultimate judgment. The atheist on the other hand feels that they can somehow disprove God's existence, though such is scientifically impossible. In other words, they are contradicting the only source of truth they even accept: scientific experimentation."
CP3S followed with:
"From a strictly scientific standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to feel the need to disprove the existence of God. It is not that complicated."
darth_ender now replies with:
I agree. There IS no need to disprove him. It is not a falsifiable experiment. But as such, while one may criticize the testing of the reality of God, one cannot either prove or disprove his existence. Ergo, though one may hold a firm conviction that God does not exist based on a perceived lack of evidence, one cannot truly say with certainty that he/she 'knows' God does not exist.
CP3S went on to say:
"I'm going to use Odin, because he is by far the most badass god who ever existed. (See what I did there?)
"Now I am pretty sure none of you theists believe Odin exists. In fact, I am willing to bet you guys know Odin doesn't exist. The very idea of believing in this ancient Nord god in this day and age is silly. But at one time for a group of people who lived long ago, it would have been offensive to walk up to them and say Odin doesn't exist. It's very likely you would end up with a battle axe embedded in your skull, in the name of Odin, of course. Perhaps some of them would have just tisk tisked your lack of faith, or challenged you to disprove Odin, ranted about how their belief liberates them, or simply handed you a banana. Who knows.
"The definition of "atheist" is: "A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods."
"Darth_Ender, Warb, Mrebo, and any other theist here, I could be way off on this and just wildly assuming, but I am willing to bet you are all atheist. If you only believe in one god, it means there are hundreds of gods you don't believe in, or that you hold an atheist stance toward. In the end, I simply disbelieve in one less god than the countless number of gods you don't believe in. The same way you find no reason you should believe in Ra, I find no reason I should believe in your god."
darth_ender is now replying with:
In my mind you are correct in all that you say here, except for a bit of semantics. I won't argue much because I think it beside the point, but just for clarity, atheism does not mean one doesn't believe in certain gods, but rather that one does not believe in ANY gods: completely without belief in a divine being. Thus, I am not an atheist towards Odin or Ra or Jupiter. I don't believe in them, true, but I am still not without belief in a Divine Being. Everything else in the above quote does not disagree with what I am trying to say.
darth_ender earlier said:
"Something I have noticed, and it's just an observation and may not be correct, but I feel that more atheists tend to have a chip on their shoulders than agnostics. It seems that because 'Mom sent me to Catholic school' or 'Bible-thumpin' George W. Bush started a crusade against Islam' or 'Evangelicals won't accept homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle,' therefore 'because I disagree with what some religious individuals have done to ruin my life or poison the world, God cannot possibly exist.' One may use this as evidence in their personal quiver, but still cannot actually disprove God. They may only support their theory, but they cannot 'know' that God does not exist."
CP3S then pointed out:
"Religion has done and does do a lot of shitty things. While I tend to be much more open minded about religion and its positive sides, I certainly cannot fault people for speaking out against it."
darth_ender now respondes with:
Nor I. That is not my point. My point is that the religion and those that hold to it are not exactly evidence that God does not exist. Let's turn this around. Nazis believed in the principles of evolution. Utilizing those principles, they theorized that they were a master race, that others were inferior, and some so inferior that they were not worthy of existence. Thus, these 'subhumans' were sent to extermination camps. So does the crappy use of an idea disprove evolution? Obviously not. It merely shows that humans can take an idea and twist it for evil use. The same applies with those religions and the people who have wielded them to do crappy things. It doesn't disprove God, it just discredits certain followers of him.
darth_ender previously said:
"Religious persons on the other hand are liberated in this sense. Their sources of knowledge are not limited to the scientific method (though they may be limiting themselves in other ways). They believe that God can prove his existence to them, and that they can 'know' he is real. The scientist may dispute this method, but the very fact that it is accepted on faith and not on scientific proof allows for a claim to knowledge, even if the non-believer disputes the reality of that knowledge."
Unimpressed, C3PS said::
"Wow. I don't even know where to begin in disagreeing with this, it is overwhelming."
So darth_ender cheerfully ;) said:
I hope you will find somewhere to begin, because I see no flaws in my logic, and I'm wondering if you misunderstand me. Let me summarize my point, with the hope that (relative) brevity will better explain what I mean:
Truly scientific atheists turn to one source for knowledge: the scientific method. They also acknowledge that nothing can be universally known, but can be demonstrated with great certainty. On the flip side, they acknowledge that there are things in this universe that cannot even be demonstrated with ANY level of certainty, but that do not preclude their existence. ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS, and using the scientific principles that scientists hold in consensus, one cannot truly 'know' that there is no divine being, though one can certainly be convinced based on what they see as a lack of evidence. There is simply no falsifiable experiment to disprove him.
Meanwhile, religious persons do not turn to the scientific method as the only source of knowledge (far too often many believers do not look to it for knowledge at all, sadly). They turn to faith and personal revelation. According to THEIR own standards, one CAN know something with certainty; one CAN test something that is not scientifically testable. And thus, according to their own standards, one CAN know that there is a God.
My point is not to prove that God exists with this argument; it is philosophical, not scientific in nature. My point is that atheists and believers follow different standards, and according to those standards, the believer is free to 'know' (even if his/her 'knowledge' contradicts completely with the 'knowledge' of a different brand of believer, and even if the non-believer sees such knowledge as nothing more than foolish, unscientific superstition), while the atheist, FOLLOWING HIS/HER OWN STANDARDS, cannot truly claim to 'know' that God does not exist. Make sense?
How have I never read this thread before!?!?!
One can lazily seek God, but those are they who are usually weak in faith. For others it is no easy, indolent task. It just involves a different sort of test than science.
There is an inherent advantage for the believers when using the word 'know' in debate. The atheist holds that in order for something to be true, it must be demonstrable through observation and scientific experimentation. A falsifiable experiment is necessary to actually disprove something. From Wikipedia.
"Falsifiability or refutability is the trait of a statement, hypothesis, or theory whereby it can be shown false by way of some conceivable observation practically possible to achieve....
"By the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as 'All swans are white,' yet it is logically possible to falsify it, as by observing a black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonym to testability....
"In falsificationism, an unfalsifiable and thus unscientific theory is not intrinsically false or inappropriate, however, as metaphysical theories might be true or contain truth, and are required to help inform science or structure scientific theories. Simply, to be scientific, a theory must predict at least some observation potentially refutable by observation."
Simply put, it is impossible to scientifically prove anything as universally true, but it is possible to provide a scientific test that in theory might prove something as false. All the scientific testing in the world cannot prove God does exist, nor is it possible to falsify his existence. The hypothesis "God exists" is not scientific, nor is "God does not exist."
For this reason, I can see where the agnostic comes from, but not the atheist. The agnostic does not believe God exists, yet reserves ultimate judgment. The atheist on the other hand feels that they can somehow disprove God's existence, though such is scientifically impossible. In other words, they are contradicting the only source of truth they even accept: scientific experimentation.
Something I have noticed, and it's just an observation and may not be correct, but I feel that more atheists tend to have a chip on their shoulders than agnostics. It seems that because 'Mom sent me to Catholic school' or 'Bible-thumpin' George W. Bush started a crusade against Islam' or 'Evangelicals won't accept homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle,' therefore 'because I disagree with what some religious individuals have done to ruin my life or poison the world, God cannot possibly exist.' One may use this as evidence in their personal quiver, but still cannot actually disprove God. They may only support their theory, but they cannot 'know' that God does not exist.
Religious persons on the other hand are liberated in this sense. Their sources of knowledge are not limited to the scientific method (though they may be limiting themselves in other ways). They believe that God can prove his existence to them, and that they can 'know' he is real. The scientist may dispute this method, but the very fact that it is accepted on faith and not on scientific proof allows for a claim to knowledge, even if the non-believer disputes the reality of that knowledge.
^I think this is too harsh. Quite honestly, long before the prequels came out, what I wanted out of them was the Clone Wars. Sure, they're now sandwiched between two fair movies at best (that is my opinion, as I do enjoy them despite their significant inferiority to the OT), but if they actually tell a good tale and fill in the gap of what I'd hoped from the pre-OT Star Wars anyway, I'm glad that it gets lots of time to tell the tale. I too am saddened at the news, but it did have to wrap up at some point.
That said, it is also good that things are finally moving on a bit. It would be neat to explore other time frames in the universe.