Recent posts by 404WindStalker on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

karma: …And I know the folly of trying to separate aspects of oneself, let alone someone else. Today’s culture has grown far quicker and to far a greater scale than the human brain is familiar with. I guess that’s why most people and the groups they identify with come off as cliquish, petty, and polarized to me.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Jantonaitis: All that feuding across threads is my biggest turnoff from posting here; it evokes unpleasant memories of real life. It’s doubly irritating seeing the board only stagnate when I’ve made great positive changes as a person. I guess it’s easier to slip into old personae whenever everyone else does it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question for fellow Lovecraftians

I doubt “the Evil” is supposed to be a Lovecraftian beastie, but if it is, it’s probably a mask of Nyarlathotep. He’s the only overtly “evil” Great Old One or Outer God in the mythos. The rest just don’t give a shit about us puny humans.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

I have to agree here. I’ve posted off and on here for the last 4-5 years, and it saddens me seeing this forum having ossified further while I’ve undergone copious personal growth. But such is the Internet, where any place marked “serious discussion” instead serves as a sink for polemic, apologetics, complaint, and temper tantrums…with a drop of malice for color. It’s real life distilled into concentrate so that it becomes unreal (or surreal, depending on the topic).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Are So Many of the Kids My Age so Immature?

Pete: Sad we haven’t got more like you out there.

OP: You’re young yet; still growing. You can afford to make a couple mistakes. However, I think you’ve shown enough sense to avoid most of the bigger ones (drugs, crime, among others) if you’re asking questions like this.

One greater part of maturity is learning how to get along with people who may not agree with your ideas and ideals. Sometimes, polar opposites make the best friends.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I am damn tired of Obamacare. Now it's time for the correction. :)

Profiteering doesn’t belong in healthcare.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I am damn tired of Obamacare. Now it's time for the correction. :)

It is the duty of any society calling itself “civilized” to provide quality healthcare to its people. Wherever lives hang in the balance, business and politics must learn to take the back seat. Nobody should have to pay fees to have a checkup or enter crushing debt in order to live longer.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

brash: Pity, that. And I’d hope that you’re mentally balanced enough that you won’t feel forced to use that firearm unless your (and/or someone else’s) survival actually depended on it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Vannie: I used to think like that, but now I realize why humanity invented spirituality: it’s a mechanism for coping with life’s unknowns.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How to solve the mental health problem of "transgender"

Gender is a cultural construct. Personally, I’d love to see you spout this shite somewhere like Thailand- I’ll bet you’d be thought of as crazy.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Wargamer: “god” is but a placeholder for that which lies beyond human knowledge. Using the label to describe a personal entity causes a collapse into incoherence.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

vika:

  1. People tend to equate their perception of reality to reality itself.
  2. Many belief systems incorporate a buffer against scrutiny.
  3. The conjunction of these two leads to psychological projection of faults upon critics.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / My vision for new resources

vika: This “Arborium” sounds suspiciously like Tiberium from the Command & Conquer series…

OP: It’s fun to imagine new materials and propose uses for them, but remember that testing those materials is key to determining practical applications—or whether the proposed materials are even physically/chemically possible.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

BSG: Noted. Wasn’t obvious at first glance. >_<;

vika: It seemed to me that Wargamer was all too content to stay inside the hypothetical rather than test his idea(s) for any practical application; a sort of reality filter.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

BSG, Kasic: If any your above comments refer to me, I guess I’m being too accommodating re: Wargamer’s begged question. I’m currently in a state of flux IRL, I find myself less dismissive of arguments as of late. btw, would either of you know anyone knowledgeable in Kantian philosophy? I’m curious to see whether Kant is being misused/abused here.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Wargamer1000: I’ve reflected on previous posts and I now suspect we’ve been talking at each other about the freedom of will from differing (not necessarily opposing) vantages: myself speaking from an objective view, and you from a subjective view.

Harmonizing the two wherever possible and minimizing conflicts is definitely the best course.

While (current) science shows free will as illusory from an objective viewpoint, the subjective perception of having a free will is most important to personal and collective morality, right?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Wargamer1000: Actually, ought implies can fails where:

  1. an agent imposing an obligation misperceives the ability of its subjects to actually follow same.
  2. factors beyond any agent’s control or ability to adapt/account for exist.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Wargamer1000: Examine your own logic first before trying to school others on theirs. Have you ever considered the possibility that your position is wrong? Absolute certainty is yet another fatal flaw in logic. To demonstrate the necessity of something, one must first demonstrate its existence; bare assertion is not demonstration. “God” is functionally superfluous. I suspect you’ve been trying to shoehorn “god” anywhere you can.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Don’t rely so much on thought experiments; they don’t reflect reality— only hypotheticals.

The ability to determine one’s next course of action is constrained by previous experience, genetics, and one’s current perception of the situation requiring the decision.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

What we humans label with “morals” or “morailty” is an emergent property of social interaction; a response to the basic need for group cohesion among social animals. Empathy is the root of morality; it (usually) benefits us to benefit others because we can expect reciprocity for whatever actions we take that may affect others.

What we humans perceive as and have labeled “free will” actually isn’t truly free; it is an emergent property of our more complex brains. There exists several seconds’ lag between actually making a decision and conscious awareness of same.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Wargamer1000: The [concrete] existence of a thing does not follow from the ability to concieve of or imagine it. The concept of “god” is not innate, but rather learned. Your hypothetical person-in-a-box would have no referent they could even label with “god”. They wouldn’t even have language! The paradox only exists if you assume the very thing you seek to prove. Circular reasoning is fallacious. Also, the rejection of a positive claim is neither the acceptance of its negation nor some other opposing positive claim.

One of the cores of philosophy is self-reflection. It is folly to hold a claim or set thereof beyond question, criticism, dissent, or ridicule.

Looking back, I may have been too accommodating in granting that your position is even coherent.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Wargamer1000: But this “god” thing is not self-evident to those who don’t already believe it’s there. From where I stand, this is an attempt to define “god” into existence! And if it isn’t demonstrable, it’s indefensible. If all things eventually end, isn’t it special pleading to assert that one’s pet entity “God” doesn’t? Your epistemology has some rather fatal flaws, possibly buttressed by fear of retribution if you dare critically examine it and the belief system based upon it.

I’ve learned that it’s the apex of insanity to repeat an action ad nauseam and expect the result to change. If all you’ve got is “But God exists!,” go home. You’ve lost the argument before it started.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

wargamer1000 then why even posit, let alone assume this “god” thing if one cannot even experience it? How do you know your position is correct? What makes existence itself “perfect?”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I partook of the fruit of wisdom, something apparently forbidden to certain sects most extreme ideologies. Basically if a belief system must shield itself from self-reflection, examination, scrutiny, critcism, or dissent with the threat of violence or social exclusion, it’s not worth holding IMO.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

It’s rather difficult to avoid diving headlong into ad hominem and related faulty argumentation when discussing the merits of belief systems as they form much of any individual’s personal and cultural identity. That difficulty gets further amplified in religion, faith, and spirituality (as well as in extreme political ideologies) with the prohibition on serious, critical examination of the system and its indiviual beliefs on pain of ostracism, death, damnation, or whatever fate the system considers the worst possible. It is exactly that coupling of beliefs with self that makes RF&S distasteful to me, especially when it’s couched in talk about tolerance and acceptance of other systems.