Recent posts by Kasha4890 on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Explain the logic in BELIEVING in god

I’m just going to have to wikipedia them yourself, since I don’t have the time ATM, and any answer I gave would be from there >_>

www.wikipedia.org if you somehow forgot that URL >_>

Topic: Serious Discussion / Perfect government?

If people are generally good, then no government is needed. If people are generally evil, then government cannot be allowed because it would have evil people in charge. The thinking that government is needed is a fallacy.

There are evil people, but most are not.

What then?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Aww =\

Thanks anyways =]

Topic: Serious Discussion / Perfect government?

The fact that you used sweden, and switzerlands direct democracy-ish system. I don’t even know how those debates started up, but they were fun =]

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Sounds pretty interesting indeed mrjake.

Do you still have that study? I’d honestly enjoy reading that.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Perfect government?

Lincoln douglas. It’s a high school extra curricular activity >_>

Topic: Serious Discussion / Perfect government?

enigmocracy, you just brought back memories of LD debate from last year >_>

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

True, but athiesm is the most common one to pick to appear "intelligent". It's misunderstood by a large number of it's "members"(appropriate term I hope). Instead people just say "oh I'm an athiest" but the moment you question them on their beliefs, you see just how flawed they're beliefs truly are.

I accept that one could be a bandwagon christian, or jew, but athiests are often grouped as a whole to be more intelligent and rational than thiests(not to say thiests are irrational. I know plenty of intelligent rational thiests. The assumption[sorry for this] is that athiests are usually the intelligent ones, and thiests are not. People latch onto that assumption and use it to appear "cool". It's a poorly conceived idea, but it's present all the same.). Because of this, people pretend to be athiests more often then they pretend to be christian.

Though, in all of this, I have only assumptions =P

No factual evidence or support of any kind. Simply my own observations of my relatively small town, which in no way represents the whole of humanity =P


Edit: Had to.

_One thing I don’t understand about athiests, as said by kasha, is how they can argue against religions, and then do the same thing. I don’t understand how someone can say they have no proof for god, then say there has to be no god. Thats why I find agnostics overall smarter than atheists._

He finds agnostics smarter than athiests. That's not supported by factual evidence of any kind. but it's still accepted as true by most people. Soon we'll have bandwagon agnostics *eyeroll*.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I find athiests make the same assumptions most theists make. They make general assumptions on a topic they can’t begin to fully understand, and then claim it’s 100% true. I’m never content to believe in anything 100%, and as a result, I’m agnostic.

Though I’m ashamed to say many people claim to be athiest because it makes them look or seem more intelligent. If you can corner and athiest and get them to contradict themselves, or fumble over a simple logic test, it’s a bandwagon athiest. Those people annoy me beyond all others. The people that claim beliefs they don’t even understand, and cannot possibly defend, for the sake of being cool, or intelligent looking.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Perfect government?

The thing is, what is perfect for me, isn’t perfect for you, or many other people.

So move to the city over there that IS perfect for you.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Theories of creation can never be right.

TC got at the inherent flaw in creation theories, but didn’t quite get there. We rely too much on cause and effect, but cause and effect is inherently flawed BECAUSE it can have no initial event. If it can, what caused that event? Our whole way of thinking sets us up for failure when if comes to creation. I think it’s probably linked to humans lack of comprehension of infinity. It was always there. There was always matter, or always god. But we can’t grasp infinity, so we lose sight of the truth and instead try to figure out what happened first. If only there was a “first”. =\

Topic: Serious Discussion / This made me sad

Interesting point Damijin. I never thought of it that way =O

Topic: Serious Discussion / Explain the logic in BELIEVING in god

True, but we’re talking about something that literally defies logic. Gravity is logical. We have limited evidence to support it’s existence. You can use logic to argue for and against the existence of gravity. You can’t use logic on god, because he’s beyond logic.

I keep mistyping my thoughts, and it’s making me change my question slightly each time =P

God transcends logic, and we cannot therefore use logic to define or explain him. How do you believe in something (logically) without being able to truly define it?

On a side note, I think this still connects to your math analogy, which I’m not sure about. I think the math analogy was more based in knowledge, rather than logic. I don’t think we can accumulate enough knowledge to apply logic to god, but we can definitely do so to apply logic to math(which oddly enough is part of our logic system).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Perfect government?

Seems that way, doesn't it?

Just ask yourself what you'd want in a "perfect" government. Then ask if that would apply to the general population as well =P.

We seem to accept government as a necessary evil, so why not make the "evil" as good as possible?

I'll start us off with something that screams anarchy.


What would a perfect government offer?
Protection from other nations, and protection of all people from having their freedoms infringed upon by other individuals.

What would it require in return?
A sacrificing of a few "rights", soldiers, and whatever else people wanted to offer up to keep their way of life intact.

How would it defend itself?
Via a volunteer army.

How would it even establish itself?
Probably by separating from an already present nation.

What rules would be required?
No individual can infringe upon another's freedoms, save to prevent the "another" from infringing on other rights.

Basically, no infringing upon whatever pre-conceived notions of freedom or rights whatsoever.

What rights would the citizens be forced to lose?
The right to force their will on another.

*New idea: How would decisions be made?
Absolute democracy, where everyone votes on everything.

Is it possible in a human society at all?
Not sure. It might be =\

It would probably require small "villages" or "cities" independent politically, but connected economically, socially, and militarilly. It would actually be fairly similar to how I've always imagined(though possibly not true) the Greek City States.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Explain the logic in BELIEVING in god

I don’t want proof. It’s impossible to prove or disprove god, and I understand that.

But it seems illogical to simply “believe” in something you don’t understand. Is there any higher justification, or is it really just blind faith?

Edit: Arcane, everything is illogical to humans because we’re too damned self centered. Everything needs to have been made for us, or it’s illogical, and that’s just rarely true. We just got really damned lucky with our whole creation, however it happened. =\

Topic: Serious Discussion / Explain the logic in BELIEVING in god

I suppose I grouped logic in with all forms of thought, because most thought processes(points of view or “ways of thinking”) effectively come from logic.

My mistake =P

I’m effectively comparing god with solipsism, in that neither can be understood or proven/disproven, because conventional logic may not apply to them.

With that comparison in mind, how can you justify believing in god? How can you justify believing in something you cannot come close to comprehending? Normal people, religious or not, operate on relatively the same logic. I’m simply curious as to the process the logical person goes through when believing in a being they don’t (at all) understand.

Edit: Arcane, I believe it was some guy named “boolean” =P

Topic: Serious Discussion / Perfect government?

What would a perfect government offer?

What would it require in return?

How would it defend itself?

How would it even establish itself?

What rules would be required?

What rights would the citizens be forced to lose?

Is it possible in a human society at all?

Topic: Serious Discussion / This made me sad

Anarchy has its many flaws as well.

Name a political system that doesn’t.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Explain the logic in BELIEVING in god

We already have a debate for whether or not god exists. Keep that discussion there.

I’m more interested in the discussion of why you believe in god.

What is the logic, if any, that motivates that belief?

As I understand it, god is beyond conventional logic. He can be contradictory to anything we can say or think of. He is capable of making a rock that he cannot lift, and then he can lift it. How do you apply logic to the belief of something that is, inherently, beyond logic?

Topic: Serious Discussion / you are your enemy

I’d eat tomatoes and brussel sprouts all day long.

Topic: Serious Discussion / How much government is enough?

Lately I’ve been thinking about how messed up the American governmental system is. The government takes such a large role in peoples’ lives that we may as well have no freedoms at all.

The government tells us who we can and cannot marry.

What we can and cannot breath.

What we can and cannot grow.

What we can and cannot build without permits.

etc.

Then they make us pay THEM so they can tell us what we cannot do.

So I’ve been thinking about alternative governments, but I always run into the problem of the government’s control. Just how much control does a government need to keep it’s citizen’s rights from being infringed?

So far I’ve been liking Kant’s view on government, but I don’t find his as practical as needed, and It’s a bit hypocritical.

Topic: Kongregate / Suggestions

A new forum for the discussion of ALL programming languages, rather than JUST Action Script.

Topic: Kongregate / Argue Beta Testers

I’d love to test =]

Topic: Programming / Flash...spyware?

SSID…Why did I say that?

Social security number was what she was afraid was getting stoled by nabb. =P

Topic: Kongregate / The Best Kongregate Avatar!

Mine is an inside joke.

I always get into philosophical debates, and I almost always end up self defeating, and the joke is, I always throw my tea down when I prove myself wrong.

Darwin has the best avatar.