Recent posts by Navarre on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Paradox (Warning! Extremely confusing!)

Not sure if this should go in the arts bit but I’m doing some artwork kind of based around this idea.

http://www.ideastap.com/people/36a48a9c-96be-412e-bbdd-9e3400c4d0ae/standard-portfolio/ca4461ad-da62-42b2-9015-9f06012558de/

This isn’t plugging. I wouldn’t click on that if I were you, looks rubbish.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What makes poor people poor?

People are poor because their resources don’t allow them to reach their desires.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Paradox (Warning! Extremely confusing!)

The resolution to the paradox is that having a group of groups which are not members of themselves is impossible. Such a group cannot exist.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / If athiests dont believe in God, then what do THEY think will happen to them when they die?

I will never die.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / "Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks..."

A house isn’t a pile of bricks. It’s a number of bricks laid out in a coherent structure utilising prior knowledge of structural integrity and architecture, it’s laid out according to a method.

Science isn’t an accumulation of facts. It’s a method of arriving at fact using both experiments and prior knowledge according to systems of logic, causality and method.

Piles are accumulated. Houses are built.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is religion a superstition?

I think of superstition as a action-informing belief based on either no evidence or tenuous pattern recognition.

Why should they be switched? Superstition is the more general of the two, as is sport as opposed to ‘football’, a type of sport.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Where lies the moral event horizon?

The morality of an action lies in it’s intention and the circumstances in which it is performed. These variables can change so much that any conceivable action could be called moral in a given set of circumstance. There is no moral event horizon as there are no moral absolutes.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is religion a superstition?

Acting on religious belief is acting on superstition. Religion is to superstition as football is to sport.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Alternative Options to Universal Health Care

If healthcare isn’t a right, why would security be one? It’s fine for the government to look after laws, but not its citizens? Always found that strange.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / @Navarre - an attempt of answer to atheists argumentation

This thread seems to be less of a reply as a discourse. If you want to de-construct my post, please do so argument by argument. If you want me to simplify and re-post me arguments for you to refute, I will be happy to do so.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / One sentence answer - why do you believe in religion - or not.

I do not believe in a god or religion because there is no need or reason to.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / @Navarre - an attempt of answer to atheists argumentation

Yet I still believe in free will. If it does exist, then I am right, and if it doesn’t, I don’t have any choice in whether I believe it or not. Plus free will is a useful concept for our society to have.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / @Navarre - an attempt of answer to atheists argumentation

The point is there is no possible way that an omniscient being could be wrong, so there is no option but for you to eat hamburgers. Without an option, there can be no choice.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / @Navarre - an attempt of answer to atheists argumentation

To further clarify the free will issue, I find it easiest to think of it like this.

A choice is an active decision between options.

An option requires at least two possible outcomes.

If one outcome is known with 100% certainty, then no other outcome can be possible.

A situation with only one possible outcome cannot be called an option.

Without an option there cannot be a choice.

Therefore if God knows that only one outcome can possibly happen, then there is no option and therefore no choice.

It is not god knowing the outcome that removes her free will, it is the concept of omniscience existing at all that removes her free will.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / @Navarre - an attempt of answer to atheists argumentation

As glad as I am for a reply, especially one that has been thought out and has such a knowledge of logical form and structure, I have to make a few observations.

I made my definition of god general in order to deal with as many deities as possible.

“A god is a supernatural being usually attributed with powers far greater than humans or any known physical entity. Gods are usually believed to be creators or deities of some natural phenomenon, for example the Abrahamic god is credited with being the creator of all things”

I feel this definition does indeed include your god, although not defining all of its aspects. Think of it less as a template and more as a bracket.

I am glad of your clarifying how god can be perceived, but I don’t see anything to validate these statements. You are familiar with the concept of circular logic? You can’t use the existence of ‘revelation’ as evidence for the existence of ‘revelation’.

I suggest you do as phoenix suggested and create a counter-point not specifically in answer to my own, but covering the same points and offering counter-arguments. I’ll do my best to answer them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

People act on their opinions and beliefs. Actions based on flawed beliefs will be flawed actions. Actions very rarely effect only the acting party, usually they affect most people around them.

I would prefer that everyone acted on justified beliefs rather than flawed ones.

Not only that, but in order to solve global problems, we will have to change the very way we approach them, we need to restructure our thought processes and truly eradicate outmoded and harmful ideologies in order to properly educate people. Religion is one of these ideologies and I see no reason for it to continue.

There are aspects that religious people claim make religion a good thing, but I would say that those aspects can exist independently of religion and therefore do not justify it as a whole, but only the aspects that we need that do not need religion.

In short, flawed beliefs harm the global consciousness and therefore harm me.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

Then the discussion will always be with someone willing to accept a belief on no evidence, something that may hinder the discussion. Surely if you are willing to arbitrarily accept and deny certain beliefs, you will be willing to disregard any argument contrary to your own beliefs?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

I did not mean to ridicule. I used analogous examples as they share a relevant common trait, having no evidence to support them. It would have been ridicule had they not been analogous.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

Darkruler: “You two misinterpreted my post to have another go at religion.”

In what way did I have a go at religion?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

Solid2112: To a point, I agree with your points. However, I would teach ‘comparative religion’ under a blanket subject known as ‘mythology’. I actually believe that mythology is an important subject in understanding how the people of the past think, and even how we think today. I would teach mythology along with the social climate that was around when the stories came to be, along with reasons and influences. I’d like to see someone prove the religions of today as anything but the in fashion version of Roman mythology. The evolution of religion as a whole, it’s origins and the gradual decline of god would be a major module in this mythology course.

In this mythology course, I would teach as many creation stories as possible, showing the overlaps and influences taken from others.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

If we teach Creationism in schools, surely we must also teach Astrology, Alchemy, Sorcery and Phrenology.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

Originally posted by Searth:

Not a single atheist before has told me “you know, your beliefs could be true” or something similar like that.

That would be agnostic. I’m agnostic, and you know what, your beliefs could be true.
But it’s a far-fetched theory.

You don’t have to be agnostic to admit that religious beliefs could be true. I do admit they could be true, just as I admit unicorns could exist or the universe could be shaped liked Homer Simpson. What could be true is irrelevant, what matters is what is true and what is probably true.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Science and Religion: Which side are you on?

PFB: “You’re right. There is no 100% evidence that God exists. However, logic tells us that the chance for his existence is quite high.”

http://www.kongregate.com/forums/9/topics/17035?page=1#posts-356860

Refute it or shut up. Really. This has gone on for too long.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What Does 'Nothing' Look like?!

Anyone with any understanding of quantum mechanics will know that ‘vacuum’ is not nothing. The entire universe is covered in the quantum field, in which virtual particles are created and destroyed all the time for no reason. Not to mention all the electro-magnetic radiation going on. There are lots of ‘things’ in vacuum.

There is no place in the universe where ‘nothing’ exists and if it did, we wouldn’t be able to see it. Nothing doesn’t look like anything.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What Does 'Nothing' Look like?!

You cannot see Nothing.