Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Glowcat

Pages: 1 ... 168 169 [170] 171 172 ... 174
2536
General Discussion / Re: Atheism Redux
« on: December 20, 2010, 10:28:56 pm »
Quote from: Il Palazzo on December 20, 2010, 10:21:00 pm
Which is the same:
Quote from: A.Einstein
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm

I seem to recall another quote from Einstein wherein which he clarified that what he believed in was not quite the same as Spinoza, although it was very similar. I pulled the following from Wikiquote:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems. - From a letter to Murray W. Gross, 26 April 1947

2537
General Discussion / Re: Atheism Redux
« on: December 20, 2010, 10:16:12 pm »
Quote from: Il Palazzo on December 20, 2010, 10:11:10 pm
I think he means Spinoza's god:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza#Panentheist.2C_pantheist.2C_or_atheist.3F

Or maybe Einstein's Naturalistic Pantheism.

2538
General Discussion / Re: Atheism Redux
« on: December 20, 2010, 08:59:48 pm »
Quote from: Sowelu on December 20, 2010, 08:10:15 pm
So what happens when you see an arrangement that is incredibly unlikely that non-conscious forces would produce, but you don't know of any conscious actor who could do it?  Say, finding a giant stone obelisk on the moon.

When I said humans I was simplifying from any conscious tool-using entity. If I didn't know any natural process that could create the obelisk then the more likely answer would be an unknown tool-user similar to humans.

As CrownOfFire is saying, there are many non-artificial objects of great complexity all round us, and yet we don't confuse between the non-artificial and the artificial based upon that complexity. That we could even have an argument about design requires a distinction between the artificial and natural: a distinction which would become nonsense if this entire universe was designed.

2539
General Discussion / Re: Atheism Redux
« on: December 20, 2010, 07:58:04 pm »
Quote from: Sowelu on December 20, 2010, 07:32:37 pm
Okay, fine, better example.  Flat rocks stacked on the beach.  If you see four rocks stacked neatly on top of each other in the sand you might say "Okay, that's cool, it could have happened naturally", but if you see rocks stacked ten high in a few columns all on one log, you have to say "Someone put that there".  One can argue that those arrangements were designed because of their complexity.

No. I'd say that arrangement was formed by a conscious entity because it's incredibly unlikely that non-conscious natural forces in the area would produce such an arrangement and because I knew of an agent (humans) who would be able to create such an arrangement, and in fact do such things regularly. It isn't about being complex, since we're talking about a few rocks put on top of each other, but because I haven't encountered any non-artificial force which could produce such a thing.

If watches grew on trees and I encountered one by its lonesome, I wouldn't know whether it was made by a human or by nature. Sure, I could look around for any watch trees that may have been the source, but I couldn't be sure either way. A real world example would be smoothed stones by the beach. Both nature and humans create smooth stones, but since the stone is by the beach my first assumption would be that it was formed into its current shape by the ocean.

2540
Other Games / Re: PLANETSIDE 2!!!
« on: December 20, 2010, 12:55:36 am »
Quote from: Vel on December 20, 2010, 12:43:14 am
Quote from: Rakonas on December 09, 2010, 06:30:14 am
Conglomerate? Sovereignty? Enjoy your oppressive regimes, I'm going with the Terran Republic, clearly the most focused on liberty.

Ironically the Conglomerate were the democracy guys, the TR were the oppressive bureaucratic nightmare state.

Lies have been removed by Fearless Leader! All hail glorious Terran Republic!

2541
DF General Discussion / Re: Rainseeker's Animal Sponsorship Drive
« on: December 19, 2010, 06:14:01 pm »
Quote from: gnodab on December 19, 2010, 04:26:31 pm
I want to donate for the Japanese Macaque or Snow Monkey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Macaque but they are not on the list >:(

It would be awesome to include them along with hot springs the possibilities are endless!
But most importantly we could see this:


They should be treatet as a whole new race, much cooler neighbours than stupid elves.

Fixed

2542
General Discussion / Re: Atheism Redux
« on: December 19, 2010, 04:16:28 pm »
Quote from: Siquo on December 19, 2010, 04:06:11 pm
Quote from: Glowcat on December 19, 2010, 03:59:37 pm
Supposed to be for what?
If we were told, that'd be spoiling the ending.  ;D

If you don't understand what this existence would be designed for then you have no business claiming that it was designed.

2543
General Discussion / Re: Atheism Redux
« on: December 19, 2010, 03:59:37 pm »
Quote from: Siquo on December 19, 2010, 03:44:10 pm
Try it. Design something better than it is in real life, and make sure that you also have a universe in which it can live, and it must be able to evolve from basic elements.

I guess Omnipotence doesn't go as far as it used to.

Or are you just assuming that the way things are are the way they are 'supposed' to be? Supposed to be for what? Why do you think your existence is so important that its inclusion was a given?

2544
DF General Discussion / Re: Rainseeker's Animal Sponsorship Drive
« on: December 18, 2010, 06:57:09 pm »
Quote from: Areyar on December 18, 2010, 06:28:37 pm
Why not a chupacabra? (Need a natural enemy for those domestic goats, no?)

Some more obscure mythological creatures would be fun. I created a DF Bunyip once but it came out more like a demonic sabertooth seal than anything particularly frightening.

2545
Other Games / Re: Majesty 1 Opinions and thoughts thread
« on: December 18, 2010, 06:04:14 pm »
The original is the superior product.

2546
General Discussion / Re: Atheism Redux
« on: December 18, 2010, 05:41:15 pm »
Quote from: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 05:16:59 pm
Because no one defends the existence of Santa.

Nobody defends the existence of Zeus either. Not anymore at least. Did he cease to exist when people stopped defending him?

How about the existence of all the deities or variations of the monotheistic deity? How about non-theistic supernatural beliefs? Or Pseudo-scientific beliefs such as Astrology, Extraterrestrial Visitors, or Alternative Medicine? Do you give those ideas credence simply because people passionately defend them?

Why is your particular idea of the supernatural more valid than other peoples'?

2547
General Discussion / Re: Atheism Redux
« on: December 18, 2010, 05:15:30 pm »
Quote from: Urist is dead tome on December 18, 2010, 05:10:54 pm
But this is more complicated than that. No one prays to Santa Claus.

Unless you count those children writing their requests every year.

But your objection is a non sequitur anyways. Why would praying make the determination of existence different?

2548
DF General Discussion / Re: Rainseeker's Animal Sponsorship Drive
« on: December 18, 2010, 07:48:28 am »
Quote from: Stormrage on December 18, 2010, 07:39:45 am
Awww, I wish I could donate, but PayPal has blocked money deposit, so all I have is 2$ there...
I wish there was a way to donate via CC directly...

That's how I donated using the PayPal link. They have a credit card option that doesn't require logging in or anything.

2549
DF General Discussion / Re: Rainseeker's Animal Sponsorship Drive
« on: December 18, 2010, 01:23:16 am »
Well, glad I held off donating for another week, otherwise I'd have missed the extra bonus.

$20 donated. Will I receive an e-mail to pick the animal?

2550
General Discussion / Re: Atheism Redux
« on: December 16, 2010, 02:50:24 pm »
Quote from: Andir on December 16, 2010, 02:22:19 pm
Short version: "You may not change their mind, but you change part of it."  ;)

Over time those small changes from debate can lead to a complete identity overhaul. I'm only speaking from my own experience but right before periods when I made a major alteration in my view I found myself clinging to micro-victories whereas the wider macro-view made less and less sense to me. Eventually the contradictions and doubts caused me to cease supporting my previous views and I slowly began rebuilding my identity from the wreckage.

Pages: 1 ... 168 169 [170] 171 172 ... 174