Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

LilithsThrall's page

5,079 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,079 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Yeah. Abstracts are pretty lame. I want to know if they have done it RCT or not, otherwise placebo can far and away explain it and more. And... call me a skeptic, but I seriously doubt that a study on social workers' methods set rigorous methods enough to check for placebo. And I am not paying for reading the whole article.

I managed to get access. Skimmed it. They organized it well enough that I could find the results in question, which turned out to be a very slight correlation between positive outcomes and face-to-face prayer. Discussing the results here is rather unscientific, I confess; but maybe their prognosis improved because they had more attention, companionship (or the bedpan got emptied more often)?

This doesn't support or refute LT's claim, since I really don't believe a single lit review gives us anything to go on.

Of course you could have skimmed it and saw that it was well enough organized to provide the needed information BEFORE you criticized it for being an abstract.

You COULD have done that. But, it provided evidence in support of prayer, so you were compelled to judge it before even reading it.


Klaus van der Kroft wrote:

My personal perspective on the matter of welfare is invariably determined by my religious beliefs, and such I cannot bear a system that does not have the dignity of each and every person as the ultimate goal. Now, the complexities arrise when trying to define what said dignity implies, but I have come to the conclussion it must include, at least, an asurance of physical, mental, and spiritual tranquility, as well as a situation where every citizen is given the same opportunities (which is different from the same material conditions).

Thus, I favour Subsidiariety over Assistentialism. Under the former, the State plays a role of ensuring everyone gets access to the necessary means to both keep the aforementioned level of dignity and grant a leveled playing field in terms of opportunities (which includes not only a proper legislative body, but also access to the tools required for said equitative terms, such as education), but only if the person is unable to provide them him or herself; under the latter, the State provides the same things, regardless of the person's capacity to do it.

Therefore, I think the State should always provide free healthcare and education to its people, while at the same time leaving room for private initiatives for those who can afford it. I've never fully understood the particulars of the US system, but I still have issues trying to figure out why the largest economy in the world doesn't have free healthcare for its poorest citizens, particularly when I live in a middle-class country -Chile- where such a thing is not even a matter of discussion, and we're not exactly the richest of the bunch.

You live in not only a middle-class country, but in a country with about 5% the number of people as the United States. The US has greater challenges with regards to corruption in social services because the scale at which US social services operates is greater. This creates problems in making sure that the people who need/deserve financial support (and only those people) get it.

I am a strong believer that US social services would improve significantly if they were managed at the state level. Unfortunately, those of us who believe that seem to be in a minority.

There's also the issue of environmentalism. While I think that everyone should have what they need to survive, whether people are capable of providing conspicuous consumption for themselves above that level is something of much less concern to me relative to the environmental impact of that conspicuous consumption.


Sanakht Inaros wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


Would you demostrate that your perception of what the rule is happens to be different than what others say the rule is?
The vast majority of people on TANF are there for a reason and are not gaming the system. In your example, did you ask about the toy cart? I've seen people on welfare save up for months in order to get things for Christmas. We were on welfare for awhile and my mom saved up for eight months in order to get me a really nice leather jacket for Christmas. She also saved up and bought my brother a tv. She had to go without, but people -like you- who didn't know any better, thought she had gamed the system. You're example is just an assumption. And it makes you look like the very first letters.

What exactly was she 'going without' in order to afford a leather jacket and tv?

My mom went without food some days in order to make sure that my brother and I had enough to eat. We had no tv and our clothes were years out of style. "Going without"? There was nothing we could 'go without' that we hadn't already.

"going without" *laughs*

LT, the more I see you post, the more disrespect I have for you. Yes. We went without. My "dad" made sure of it.

I've been busting my butt since I was 13 to make sure that we had food on the table and a roof over our head.

Which doesn't answer the question, what exactly was she 'going without'?

Clearly, it wasn't something necessary that she was 'going without'. If it were necessary, she couldn't have gone without it. If she was going without something that wasn't necessary, then why were tax payers paying for her to have things that weren't necessary?


There is no 'one true way' in playing a Paladin. So, there is no one correct answer. Start by discussing the issue with the Sorc's player and the GM. Try to do this away from the gaming table (maybe over lunch) and with only the three of you there. You need to know how the GM views Lawful Good and how he views your character's god's ethos.

A lot of this is going to depend on just how skilled your GM is. Does he allow PCs to regularly do bad political moves without repercussion? How are the other NPCs in the game world going to react when they discover what this Sorcerer is doing? Does the GM try to regularly trap Paladins into 'no win' situations?

Personally, I don't see the Sorcerer's actions as murder, though I do think, if I were GM, several of my NPCs would.

So, the answer is 'it's complicated'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for the soldier unable to go to college, I think its crap that this happens when we are, also, giving illegal aliens in-state tuition.


Sanakht Inaros wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


Would you demostrate that your perception of what the rule is happens to be different than what others say the rule is?
The vast majority of people on TANF are there for a reason and are not gaming the system. In your example, did you ask about the toy cart? I've seen people on welfare save up for months in order to get things for Christmas. We were on welfare for awhile and my mom saved up for eight months in order to get me a really nice leather jacket for Christmas. She also saved up and bought my brother a tv. She had to go without, but people -like you- who didn't know any better, thought she had gamed the system. You're example is just an assumption. And it makes you look like the very first letters.

What exactly was she 'going without' in order to afford a leather jacket and tv?

My mom went without food some days in order to make sure that my brother and I had enough to eat. We had no tv and our clothes were years out of style. "Going without"? There was nothing we could 'go without' that we hadn't already.

"going without" *laughs*


Saint Caleth wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Da Vinci's flying machine and glider? Not to mention their wind tunnel models.
I'm not aware of Da Vinci having created a working airplane. Did he create a radar system, too?

Huh? Radar? WTF?

It doesn't matter if the Wright brothers knew about previous experiments in heavier then air flight. They used their wind tunnel and ten years experimentation with unpowered gliders to determine that powered flight was possible and design their airplane.

This entire discussion is fast becoming absurd. It does not matter if we are getting details of the invention of airplanes wrong. Us possibly being wrong does not make you right (as Tiny Coffee Golem poited out like half a page ago). The Wright brothers did not need any faith. They could trust in the actual data they had accumulated to know that their airplane would fly.

Also Radar is irrelevant even to this largely irrelevant discussion. Powered, heavier-than-air flight existed for upwards of 40 years before radar. What is your point, because at this point I'm 85% certain you are just trolling.

I'm not trolling. The poster who brought up Da Vinci's non-existent airplane as evidence of the existence of airplanes before the Wright brothers probably is, though.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Da Vinci's flying machine and glider? Not to mention their wind tunnel models.

I'm not aware of Da Vinci having created a working airplane. Did he create a radar system, too?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
And you claim that the existence of heavier than air flight beforehand cannot be used as evidence that powered flight was possible, simply because they use different methods?

There are lots of things that animals can do that we -still- can't do (like create artificial spider silk) and we have advantages the Wright brothers didn't (like sophisticated imaging equipment).

So, no, the fact that birds could fly was not evidence that the Wright brothers could build an airplane.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's still only your conjecture and not any direct quote from the Wright brothers that they were acting on faith.

The conjecture, on my part, is that they'd seen no working model of a powered flight vehicle which could take off and land under its own power before they created one.

If that conjecture is false (for example, they'd seen some long lost prototype created by someone else which pre-existed their Kitty Hawke flight), then shift my comments over to that person who designed that prototype.


Sissyl wrote:


THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE HERE. .

If that's true, then we should note that

Quote:


Meta-analysis indicated small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer

http://rsw.sagepub.com/content/17/2/174.abstract

Personally, I'm much more interested in the role of religion - the support of the church community - in recovery.


Irontruth wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
LT, do you have some sort of letter or statement from the Wright brothers to back up your claim?
What claim? That they'd never seen an airplane before they created one?

You made a claim, that faith was involved in their work. Do you actually have a source for this? Something that they wrote, said, or that someone who knew them said about them?

Everything I'm seeing online seems to point to them using the scientific methods in their work. They requested and received documents from the Smithsonian, they acquired large numbers of scientific journals, were friends with several engineers, etc. They worked very hard for several years to achieve 120 minutes of heavier than air flight. To me that sounds less like faith, and more like dedication.

What evidence do you have that they were working on faith and not compiling evidence that supported their theories?

Also, heavier than air flight has been around for almost 210 million years. Airplanes didn't exist, but birds certain did. Birds are proof that heavier than air flight is possible. BTW, the Wright brothers also studied birds.

They had no evidence that an airplane could be built since they'd never seen one that had been built. As for birds, we -still- haven't been able to build a vehicle that flies the way that a bird does. Birds don't have propellers or fixed wings.


Andrew Turner wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
I'm not clear on where you're heading. Are you trying to ask me how Spinoza's works lead to a proof for Superman?

Ummm...no.

I responded to your posts to BNW, including his responses for context.

I gave you my personal definition of God.

I very simply defined Spinoza's argument.

I compared my definition to his.

I acknowledged the Biblical definitions of God, including your selected passage from Titus.

I briefly argued why Biblical definitions don't meet my personal criteria for God (here's where I think my Superman comment confused you).

I gave a cheeky example of why a limited God is like a chocolate-less chocolate cake.

What confused me was that I thought you were looking for a response from me and I wasn't sure what to respond to. Now, I do.

Chocolate-less chocolate sponge cake with strawberries and whipped cream is better!


BigNorseWolf wrote:

So being a student is supposed to be WORSE than being a prisoner? Bread, water, no tv, no cigarettes, 6 people to a room and institutionalized meals?

If they're going to college they're going to have a lifetime of increased wages to pay you back for for a few sixpacks. You are not going to solve the national debt by ending the bar tab at community college.

I have no problem at all with making college life bad. I slept on a mattress pulled out of my neighbor's trash and sold plasma to have food to eat while going to college. Other people can do it too.

As for making college worse than prison, I don't think it should be. We should cut the prison amenities budget.


Saint Caleth wrote:
He's defining god, pointing out that Spinoza posits an impersonal god, fundamentally different from the Christian god that this thread implicitly started out talking about.

With the exception of #4, none of the five starting arguments require a God with which it is possible to have a personal relationship.


Freehold DM wrote:


Man. That is some s!&&. You just explained a lot about West Virginia, and I don't mean that in a pejorative way.

I have to agree. It is the second dumbest thing I've ever heard regarding policy for government education assisance.


Winterthorn wrote:
Oh my goodness this thread has really gone off the rails! What a monstrous train wreck!! What the heck do the Wright Brothers have to do with a Reverend, a President, and Gay Marriage?

It went off the rails way before the Wright brothers were brought up.

On the very first page, posts like

thejeff wrote:

See, this just proves that Christianity isn't anti-gay, unlike what all the Christ-hating atheists here keep claiming.

Or, maybe this lukewarm acceptance by one pastor in one liberal sect fits in with what most of us have been saying all along: Christianity in general is anti-gay, but there are exceptions.

Those exceptions should be encouraged, but even this one seems mostly aimed at people in his own congregation who are upset about gay rights.

were rushing to turn the thread into an attack instead of praise for something praise worthy.


Andrew Turner wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
I can't explain how Spinoza's argument leads to something you would call "God" unless you first tell me what you call "God".
BigNorseWolf wrote:

God: A sentient omnipotent being.

Sentient= self aware
Omnipotent= being able to do any logically consistent thing.

LilithsThrall wrote:
Even the Christian God isn't omnipotent (Titus 1:2). So, you wish to judge a whole range of belief systems by a belief that none of them actually has?
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Can not is not does not.

It really is the most open definition of god you're going to get.

LilithsThrall wrote:
I don't care about the most open definition, I care about the most accurate. If you aren't capable of giving an accurate definition of a thing you fervently don't believe in, your position is tenuous at best.

I'll borrow from what I've opined in the past: to be anything more than an advanced version of us, or a kind of immortal no-weaknesses Superman, I believe God must necessarily be both omniscient and omnipotent (and I don't see the need to use both terms; omnipotent should definitively cover everything, but I'll acquiesce in favor of clarity).

An omnipotent God means, to my mind,

(a) one that is transcendent of the material universe (I'm a Physicalist, philosophically) by virtue of the notion that

(b) this God's omnipotence (complete power) must necessarily allow control over all natural processes; and

(c) this God must have command of the creation and destruction of physical systems, including energy and information.

Everything I know of science and the universe does not allow for such a being, could not allow for such a being.

The God of Titus 1:2 is no more than Superman with an odd psychological weakness (the inability to deceive).

Spinoza's God might be defined as the underlying unification of the universe (not to be confused with Newton's watchmaker). It is necessary for the existence of the universe, but is not...

I'm not clear on where you're heading. Are you trying to ask me how Spinoza's works lead to a proof for Superman?


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Lilith said that the arguments presented on the first page were poor. She mistakenly thought that spinoza used a different argument when he in fact used the ontological argument.

1.) There isn't AN (singular) ontological argument for God, there are many.

2.) Some of them are better than others

3.) The fact that an argument is ontological doesn't make it intrinsically bad. For example, several ontological arguments for numbers (1, 2, 3,..) has several useful applications. I've found the proof of integers by way of power sets useful as a starting point for some functional algorithms, for example.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Start with facts and logically work step by step to a conclusion.

That's funny, Given that you just made a criticism of ontological arguments.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


If an idea isn't worth defending then its not worth keeping.

To do that, you'd have to actually study the idea before determining whether its worth keeping. But, you've judged Spinoza's 'Ethics' without even reading it. That's not logic, its ignorance.


TOZ wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Thus, you make my point. You aren't interested in exposing yourself to new ideas which is why you turn away when the opportunity is presented.
And I'm sure that perception makes you feel very good about yourself.

No, not really. What would have made me feel good about myself is if I'd had been able to instill in him a desire to learn.


Irontruth wrote:
LT, do you have some sort of letter or statement from the Wright brothers to back up your claim?

What claim? That they'd never seen an airplane before they created one?


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Your problem is that your idea of proof lies in epistemic nihlism,

I'm absolutely not an epistemic nihilist. I've told you that before. But, since all you've got is a hammer, everything must look like a nail to you.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lilith, definition or nothing. Be fair. You got the definition, now please give one.

Here

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ethics_(Spinoza)

assuming that you aren't merely trolling,

Enough. I'm not taking that from anyone, least of all you. Goodbye.

Thus, you make my point. You aren't interested in exposing yourself to new ideas which is why you turn away when the opportunity is presented.


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Well, I am not at all familiar with Lillithsthrall's beliefs, but I'm pretty sure that Baruch Spinoza wasn't a typical Christian. Mostly because he was a Jew, but he wasn't a typical one of those, either.
I never claimed that Spinoza was a typical Christian. I never insinuated it. I said only that he gave a better argument for the existence of God than any that Atreus provided.
I didn't say you did. Seriously, man, this thread isn't all about you.

I never said that you did. I was merely clarifying what I did say.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lilith, definition or nothing. Be fair. You got the definition, now please give one.

Here

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ethics_(Spinoza)

assuming that you aren't merely trolling, but are interested in actually educating yourself, you can read for yourself.

I don't believe in creating Clif notes versions that will then be cherry picked.


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Well, I am not at all familiar with Lillithsthrall's beliefs, but I'm pretty sure that Baruch Spinoza wasn't a typical Christian. Mostly because he was a Jew, but he wasn't a typical one of those, either.

I never claimed that Spinoza was a typical Christian. I never insinuated it. I said only that he gave a better argument for the existence of God than any that Atreus provided.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Astrology is not a science because it is objectively wrong

Ludicrous. A scientific statement does not cease to be science once proven wrong. Newton's theory of gravitation remains a scientific theory even after Einsteinian gravitation arrived on the scene.

What makes it scientific is that it arrived through and was maintained by the scientific process. The degree of truth it had was a side effect.


By your logic, astrologers are scientists. We must see them as such 'less we fall into making a 'no true Scotsman' error.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Many people hold the position that god CAN lie, he chooses not to. Thats not incompatible with his alleged omnipotence.

Are we to lump in as 'Christian' anyone and everyone who claims to be so? How many astrologers claim to be scientists?


Fake Healer wrote:
I find it vulgar that people can't just respect that others do or do not believe in whatever they wish to and instead like dredging up a list of "facts and arguments" to diminish their opposite instead of just being accepting of their views. This entire thread is nothing more than a list of "this is why your view is stupid" in regards to the subject. Very disappointing.

Personally, I don't like the whole "my god is bigger than your god" or "my non-god is more rational than your god" schtick. I believe religion should be a personal choice, that the only thing that matters is how we live our lives, etc. As I've said elsewhere, it pisses me off that atheists are discriminated against in our country.

But, it, also, pisses me off that we can't have a civil discussion on this messageboard about religion without a bunch of fanatical atheists trolls jumping in.

Not every atheist on these boards is like that, so why does any of them need to be?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
I don't care about the most open definition, I care about the most accurate. If you aren't capable of giving an accurate definition of a thing you fervently don't believe in, your position is tenuous at best.

Obviously i can give an accurate definition of what i don't believe in. I did so.

Can you tell me what definition of god you think spinoza proves, and how its any different than just defining god into existance?

I just find it odd that you are so fervently against a belief that no one actually has and that you demean an entire group of people for believing something they actually don't.

Okay, I don't find it "odd", just unintentionally revealing of the weakness of your own position.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


I can't explain how Spinoza's argument leads to something you would call "God" unless you first tell me what you call "God".

God: A sentient omnipotent being.

Sentient= self aware
Omnipotent= being able to do any logically consistent thing.

Even the Christian God isn't omnipotent (Titus 1:2). So, you wish to judge a whole range of belief systems by a belief that none of them actually has?

Can not is not does not.

It really is the most open definition of god you're going to get.

I don't care about the most open definition, I care about the most accurate. If you aren't capable of giving an accurate definition of a thing you fervently don't believe in, your position is tenuous at best.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


. You're refusing to see any distinction between ANY level of uncertainty and nothing but faith.

In between is an enormous world of difference, including science. I would be interested in what definition of faith you're using, because i doubt you could separate it from from any other conclusion.

You are using a definition for 'faith' that I'm not familiar with. By the dictionary definition, faith is a belief in something without proof. So, believing something when there is no proof (ie. when there is uncertainty whether that thing is actually true) requires faith.

I don't know where you got your definition. You didn't get it from the dictionary, so where?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


I can't explain how Spinoza's argument leads to something you would call "God" unless you first tell me what you call "God".

God: A sentient omnipotent being.

Sentient= self aware
Omnipotent= being able to do any logically consistent thing.

Even the Christian God isn't omnipotent (Titus 1:2). So, you wish to judge a whole range of belief systems by a belief that none of them actually has?


Nicos wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
meatrace wrote:


Don't bother.
From what I gather it's basically ontological argumentation for god.
God exists because we can imagine what god is, that sort of rubbish.
.

Or you could read what he actually wrote instead of making wild guesses about it.

Is that allowed? ..for an atheist to read what a person -actually- says in their argument in support of God?

Could you in any way differentiate spinozas argument from other ontological arguments, or explain how it moves to something anyone would call God? (god at least requires sentience)

I can't explain how Spinoza's argument leads to something you would call "God" unless you first tell me what you call "God".
The name does not matters. I think that the spinoza´s argument leads to nowhere, but i would like to see something that prove me wrong.

Without knowing where you require it to go (which depends on your definition of 'God' which you haven't shared with us), the value of Spinoza's argument is unknown. We are as if judging the accuracy of a gun scope while the judge (you) blindfolds us.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
meatrace wrote:


Don't bother.
From what I gather it's basically ontological argumentation for god.
God exists because we can imagine what god is, that sort of rubbish.
.

Or you could read what he actually wrote instead of making wild guesses about it.

Is that allowed? ..for an atheist to read what a person -actually- says in their argument in support of God?

Could you in any way differentiate spinozas argument from other ontological arguments, or explain how it moves to something anyone would call God? (god at least requires sentience)

I can't explain how Spinoza's argument leads to something you would call "God" unless you first tell me what you call "God".


BigNorseWolf wrote:

. If that x is greater than the weight of the aircraft and the rider you get flight.

That's not true.

It is, in fact, so far from being true that I have to question what you're smoking.

There are many critical factors which emerge with scale. To name one of them, strength requirements and strength potential of building materials (particularly in regards to buffeting forces).


Samnell wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Yeah. I mean I believe in impersonal forces n' junk. Natural selection, economic supply and demand, etc. The argument becomes so much semantics if you just want to define god as being "whatever makes the universe go" even if it's an abstract concept. That's the god of Einstein as well. I'm cool with that.

But, at best, that's A god. You can't apply that definition of god to religions or belief structures that define their god differently.

It doesn't actually contribute anything, though. If a deity is just Mount Fuji, my penis, or a can of Coke and nothing else, there's no reason to call it a deity as there is no additional information to communicate about it. Obviously a person doing so is trying to smuggle in something else and is hoping an unwary person will miss it.

Trickery like this is a great piece of evidence for the falsehood of a claim, though.

Considering that there is such an extremely wide range of beliefs regarding what should be called "God" throughout human cultures (spread across space and time), -any- argument for/against the existence of God must start by defining one's terms.


meatrace wrote:


Don't bother.
From what I gather it's basically ontological argumentation for god.
God exists because we can imagine what god is, that sort of rubbish.
.

Or you could read what he actually wrote instead of making wild guesses about it.

Is that allowed? ..for an atheist to read what a person -actually- says in their argument in support of God?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lilith's thrall wrote:
They ARE terrible. There are much better arguments for the existence of God.
Care to share with the rest of the class?

Spinoza's Ethics has one.


bugleyman wrote:

In fairness, I doubt these are the "main" ones. Because they're terrible.

They ARE terrible. There are much better arguments for the existence of God. If these five were all that were available, I'd be an atheist.

But, I also think the question of whether God exists is a separate question from whether it is beneficial to believe that God exists.

Its like believing in the basic goodness of man. Whether man is basically good or basically evil, the -choice- to believe one or the other way is a separate question.


meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


As for whether or not that particular kind of faith is -religious- faith, since none of you are able to explain the difference between that kind of faith and religious faith, its pointless to stress such a distinction.
Once you stretch the definition of "faith" to mean "believe something may be possible based on a preponderance of empirical evidence, but still espouse some healthy doubts" you've redefined it to a point where it's meaningless in this discussion, where we are attempting to contrast it with doubt and the scientific method.

There was no evidence at all, let alone a 'preponderance of evidence'.

There were scientific principles which suggested (suggested, not demanded) that such a thing was possible, but there are a lot of things which scientific principles suggest are possible, but have never been done.

The definition of 'science' is NOT 'anything possible'. The fact that building airplanes was possible (a fact we only knew in hindsight, by the way) does not mean that it was done scienifically. The fact that certain scientific principles were used as components of the overall model, does not make the overall model scientific.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Gliders and hot air balloons are not airplanes.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


; Nothing you've said has been in any way accurate...

This is why I don't like to have these discussions on this board.

Some of you become so obstinate that you'll assert things like its wrong to say that hot air balloons are not airplanes.

I stand corrected. You in fact did say one thing that was accurate. Gliders and airballoons are in fact not airplanes. Therefore everything else you said must be valid. Well done.

**golfclap**

We can't discuss the level of accuracy of anything else I said when you are so eager, fervent, in tossing everything out that disagrees with you without any consideration on your part.


meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Gliders and hot air balloons are not airplanes.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


; Nothing you've said has been in any way accurate...

This is why I don't like to have these discussions on this board.

Some of you become so obstinate that you'll assert things like its wrong to say that hot air balloons are not airplanes.

Cuz that's clearly what they're saying.

*eyeroll*
You presented AS AN ACT OF FAITH technological progress gained through the scientific method.

Admit you were wrong so we can move on?

What he clearly said was that NOTHING I've said has been in any way accurate. One of the things I said is that hot air balloons are not airplanes.

As for lift, etc. being demonstrated by experiment, there is, obviously, a HUGE difference between whether or not lift is demonstrated by experiment and, on the other hand, being able to build a device. After all, we may be able to explain how a bird's wing works, but we've not been able to build one.
Being able to actually build an airplane was an act of faith.

As for whether or not that particular kind of faith is -religious- faith, since none of you are able to explain the difference between that kind of faith and religious faith, its pointless to stress such a distinction.


LilithsThrall wrote:


Gliders and hot air balloons are not airplanes.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


; Nothing you've said has been in any way accurate...

This is why I don't like to have these discussions on this board.

Some of you become so obstinate that you'll assert things like its wrong to say that hot air balloons are not airplanes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Consequently, it is the origin of all inventiveness.

At this point you're either trolling or high. Seriously.

You use the term "random choice". Which is nonsensical as choice is DEFINITIONALLY not random. The wright brothers decision to build and fly an airplane wasn't random, an the very suggestion is a huge nonsequitur. They decided to build a big plane because they knew smaller scale ones were possible. Flying machines had been built on varying scales since ancient China.

They built a machine they thought could fly. Because smaller versions already had. Because people tried to build them because they were curious. When it didn't work quite right, they examined their invention and analyzed it, tweaked it, repeat, until finally it flew (a bit). More people built on their invention. Every step was not built on FAITH but DEMONSTRABLE ACTION. This is the essence of the scientific method.

People do not invent things because they KNOW it will work, they do so to SEE if it WILL work. And, as often as not (probably much moreso) they do not work. What of all the people who had faith in things that failed miserably?

The Wright brothers had no evidence that a flying machine could take off and land under its own power.

Argue against that all you want, its still the truth.

Gliders and hot air balloons are not airplanes.

The Wright brothers, despite having no evidence that a flying machine could take off and land under its own power, had faith that they could build such a machine. That's how faith works. Once you've gone as far as you can go with what's available, faith takes you further.


meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Hope =/= faith.

Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Hope is desire.

I hope for peace. When I take _action_ which I intend will create peace, despite all rational evidence that such peace is impossible and, perhaps most clearly, when my actions are dangerous to me, that's faith.

Incorrect. That's just trying something.

Tonight I tried a new sandwich without any sort of religious faith that it would be delicious. I just tried it.

Incorrect. You are equating something done by random choice with something attempted by deliberation.

These are not equivalent. They are the difference between, on the one hand, the Wright Brothers inventing the airplane by just randomly tossing stuff together, then randomly attempting to use that heap as a flying machine, and, on the other hand, the Wright Brothers inventing the airplane through deliberate goal setting and problem solving, over a long period of time, with risk taking, guided by a vision of something that no reason believed was possible.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Consequently, it is the origin of all inventiveness.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Hope =/= faith.

Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Hope is desire.

I hope for peace. When I take _action_ which I intend will create peace, despite all rational evidence that such peace is impossible and, perhaps most clearly, when my actions are dangerous to me, that's faith.


Example 1
Let's imagine a group of people who have been at war with one another for years or even generations.
They have absolutely no reason at all to believe that they can develop a positive community among themselves. Such a belief is irrational.

Yet, if just a few of them have faith that such a community is possible, such a community may develop. It is certainly not likely to develop if no one ever has such faith.

Example 2
Lets imagine that I, for whatever reason, have faith that I can develop a vehicle that can cross dimensional barriers. Such faith is ludicrous, right? But, such faith keeps me motivated when, time and again, my various prototypes fail. Then, one day, just as the first airplane was developed, as the first faster than sound vehicle was created, as the first deep ocean explorer, and Apollo rocket were created, I end up making that vehicle that takes me across dimensional barriers.

The point is that reason only gets you so far. To go beyond what we've always thought was possible, you need to have some irrationality.

Faith was what created the Christmas truce of 1914. Faith is what made many people make the difficult journey to the New World.

We need more faith today.

Is that the same as religious faith? Well, you've got to tell me how they are different. Not all religions have a belief in God or in a spiritual world or in hidden mysteries known only by leadership (or even religious leadership for that matter). So, when you strip away all those things that are not common to all religions, then what's left and how is it different from the kind of faith I mentioned above?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Lil,

Has anyone ever been able to correct you or are you as omniscient as you present yourself to be? I've never seen it here on the boards. That alone should tell you something. Though I doubt you'll get it.

Yet again I get sucked into your troll trap. I really should know better by now than to engage. Enjoy your delusion.

Since you've got no evidence for your position yet continue to cling to it like a child holding onto his mother's apron strings, the question you raise is one better asked of yourself.

When I've been presented with persuasive evidence, I've changed my position.

1 to 50 of 5,079 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.