Pretty nice flashback going back in this thread and seeing some names you have already forgotten... like andre...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2wwforuMak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8op-hcYLMM

Jalkapallo

I just drop this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGPqceHwh6g

Time to make changes to your team and make your bets if you are not going to get up early tomorrow.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

NDAs are just something that happen to other people aren't they..?

The nda has been lifted.

sad panda
http://www.f1racemanager.com/subleague.asp

http://www.youtube.com/user/plagasRZ
These are pretty funny at least for everyone who plays world of tanks

Quote from Krane :

This has been asked many times on youtube, forums, bbs' etc. Never saw an answer.

What is the wheel you're using? The wheelrim clearly is from a G27 but the what in the world is the base? It seems to have faster FFB response than my T500RS

http://www.racedepartment.com/ ... -releasing-a-wheel.29885/

Quote from Cornys :

It's actually possible to not have a hobby. It's not possible to not have a beleif for a human being that is alive. Because of this, not believing in something is a belief that it is false (until or unless more proof is given).

Not having a hobby is still not a hobby. Not having something here is adjective, not verb.

If scawen is game developer and I'm not then according to your logic I'm ...a game developer.

Quote from Cornys :

A lack of belief is a belief none-the-less.

...like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Quote from Cornys :

lack of existence is my greatest fear. Christians don't believe this (as I do) and neither do 99% of other religions. This is why I feel that it is a (let me rephrase this to be more accurate) pessimistic view of our existence.

Why would lack of existence be anything to worry about? You go to sleep every night and that is as much about of lack of existence as being dead. And when you die your memory lives inside the minds of everyone else who knew you regardless of yours or theirs religion or lack of there of. For someone the idea of ending up in heaven is a beautiful thought while for someone else values the idea that the remnants of your body are put back into the ground which allows new life emerge from it. Be it flora and fauna, or stars and galaxies. Death being the beginning of new life is not what I'd call pessimistic view.

Quote from Cornys :

Tolerance is a key point in this discussion. There's nothing wrong with your religion, and I won't try to alter your belief, so please don't try to alter mine because it is just that, mine.

I don't have religion. I find it strange and malicious that you try to label atheism as religion.

I'm not tying to convert you into anything. You brought this up and posted your opinion on a discussion forum and when you do that you will have discussions. If you do not want to talk about then stop posting.

Last edited by Hyperactive, Sat, 6 Oct 2012 06:36.

Quote from flymike91 :

Are you saying that only religious people have accidental pregnancies or that only God causes them? I don't think being against abortion is entirely unreasonable whether you prescribe to a religion or not. I personally am not against abortion in most cases.

No I'm saying people with tight christian views force people to use illegal and shady doctors to get their abortions because they have banned abortion based on religious reasons. And that lack of abortion options kills mothers an children and causes suffering. Just like ban on contraception causes death and suffering. It is also worth remembering that the religious view and practise of "abstinence" does not help at all against accidental pregnencies:
Kohler further found that teen pregnancy rates were higher in students who had undertaken abstinence only education, when compared to comprehensive sex education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education

For me god causes as much things in this world as santa, zeus, spagetti monster or donald duck. They are all man made fictional characters.

Quote from flymike91 :

Some Atheist groups spend a lot of time and energy fighting Christianity in the US. It seems like it would make more sense just to ignore it.

It is hard to ignore it when the christians want to decide all the things about your life based on their own religious ideas. I just mention contraception, creationists, circumcision and gay rights here.

Quote from flymike91 :

That is just spiteful. You can't be smug about being right after you're dead, especially if you don't believe in an afterlife.

I'll just quote that because I think it is extremely funny thing to hear from a christian person.

Quote from CSF :

NASCAR it is then.

My guess is motogp

Time to make bets and make changes to your team unless you are planning to get up really early tomorrow. The bets are not updated yet but you can still guess something..
http://www.f1racemanager.com/editTeam.asp

Quote from flymike91 :

If Christianity did not exist, I think there would still be a lot of people in the world uncomfortable with vaccuuming a half-formed child out of a woman and throwing it in a dumpster.

But such problems only exist because of religious practises.

Quote from AndRand :

I dont know South Korea that deeply. But I reckon Far East countries that explicitly broke with Confucius tradition were North Korea, China, Vietnam.

Oh damnit. Meant north korea. Now somebody shout me a bit

I don't think his comeback was a mistake. I think it was very good and courageus move from him to come back. If F1 is what he wanted to do then why not do it?

Quote from AndRand :

So if you learnt - give me an example of social system based on science that didnt end up with mass persecutions or even genocide.
French revolution? Nazis? Soviets? China soviets? Cambodian soviets? Cubans?
All scientifically based on scientific progress or historical must of classes or races prevailing. Drove to bankruptcy or disaster half the world.

Why don't you give the examples because it is you making the argument.

Let me ask you this: do you think south korea is a good example of atheistic nation?

Quote from AndRand :

There are good anchors and bad anchors.

So where does moral come from? Why has supernatural stronger anchoring (than what?)? Stronger anchoring to what? Even if assume there is stronger anchoring then it is only stronger anchoring against reason, logic and emotion. I'd guess suicide bombers are very well anchored too.

Quote from JJ72 :

Let me be more specific, like how nature discover honeycomb structure is the most material efficient form, how did it happen? Is it started with a single solid structure gradually trimmed off with unnecessarily mass or else?

This is a genuine question, and it is okay if there is no real answer to it at this stage.

Seriously, read about evolution.

Edit. and lol classic flymike. He comes into thread presenting his opinion as fact, makes up few more facts out of his arse and when people tell him he is not wrong he tells them they are arseholes.

Quote from AndRand :

ALL the scientific-based social systems had some kind of justification for victims of "better new world". It ALWAYS occured there are some enemies of "new better world", and their sacrifice was justified.

Nope. You are now just talking out of your arse. What has ALWAYS occured is some ideology that is not based on fact or science has taken over.

Just read some history and learn. Literally all the big catastrophies, wars and genocides in the past are product of some economical, cultural or political ideologies taking over. Putting the blame on some enemy while you having all the answers to the problems. That's not scientific anything. To call such society a scientific society is just hilariously odd.

Maybe you should just check some latest scientific studies what we actually know about how human mind works...

Quote from AndRand :

Nope.
Moral comes from many sources, but supernatural has stronger anchoring.

I guess that is just a leap of faith because you give no evidence or proof to support this crazy claim. Maybe we humans do not eat our children because we all believe in god but the animals do not eat their children because...? If evolution happens to animals it happens to humans as well.

So where does moral come from? Why has supernatural stronger anchoring (than what?)? Stronger anchoring to what? Even if assume there is stronger anchoring then it is only stronger anchoring against reason, logic and emotion. I'd guess suicide bombers are very well anchored too.

Just saying it is so does not actually mean it is so.

Quote from AndRand :

btw. micro-level physics - it occured that our world is possible with just one set of initial parameters, lets say, axiology

Repeating much? Watch that video mentioned earlier. If it was any other set of parameters we would not be here. It is not a question of the parameters being just right for us. It is about if the parameters were any different we could not be here. If the parameters were different even galaxies could not be here. Here could not be here
https://www.youtube.com/watch? ... amp;v=7ImvlS8PLIo#t=2653s

Quote from JJ72 :

But in my view nothing is "magical, nothing is too crazy, everything is just unknown. Why is a super creator not logical actually? It is just logic beyond our knowledge and comprehension, before you can prove it is an impossibility, it remains a logical option. I mean whoever or whatever can trigger the born of a universe has to be pretty crazy isn't it? To our mortal eyes it is close to magic.

I don't think there's anything bad about assumptions, without assumptions there wouldn't be hypothesis and there wouldn't be science, as long as I don't hold my assumptions as truth, I don't think there's anything bad at all.

Having a open and curious mind is exactly my point, I just see all seemingly supernatural icons as untied links in something that ultimately makes logical sense.

But what you are doing is creating your own explanation which you already know is wrong when you create it if you expect to find the real truth later on and replace your false idea with that. If you do not know something you just say "super creator happened" only to figure out later what it really is? How is that logical? Isn't that just the god of the gaps?

I don't even know why would you need an explanation for something we do not know yet. Why is it bad to admit we do not know something?

Assumptions are fine if they are backed and checked by evidence, follow rational thought and logic and are based on known facts. Simply stamping "super paranormal happened here" on all currently unsolvable problems does not really follow that process but works against it. Creating metaphysical explanations hardly solves any physical problems imho.

After all you need to ask yourself which one is more likely answer:
a) there is some physical phenomena happening that we do not yet understand
b) we do not know what it is so it is something paranormal created by super creator for totally unexplainable reasons we can not ever figure out in any way

Why is a super creator not logical actually?

Because it is a made up explanation that is based on the idea of religion (pantheism or creator of some sorts) and not facts. It tries to explain science by using metaphysical argument while at the same time it denies any scientific criticism towards itself by making the claim it is beyond our knowledge or understanding. It is unfalsifiable claim. It's a Russell's teapot.

Quote from JJ72 :

Anything that can create a universe out of nothingness is by definition pretty super natural isn't it? And our science has so far given us no more answer than this premise, so the assumption that there is a creator of some sort is a rather logical one, without assuming we know it as a fact.

But you are making an assumption that something was created from nothingness by something. That already is a very big assumption so you are basing an assumption on an assumption (that leads to an assumption).

What if you don't just add any creators into the mix? Would it be so bad to not know (yet) what made it happen? How it is logical that when you do not know an answer you create some magical being that "explains it"? How can a super natural creator of worlds be a logical answer to anything?

If we do not know something why would be it so bad to admit that we simply do not know it? Isn't it better to admit not knowing and have open and curious mind about it than to make up a story just to have an explanation no matter how crazy that explanation is?

Quote from aoun :

Do you have any idea what that means, or do you just hear it and read it and laugh away??

I think it means exactly what it says.

Quote from AndRand :

Well, it is quite easy to find examples of succesful tribes man-eating their enemies or even big flourishing civilizations (like Aztecan) that used to make mass sacrifices of humans for centuries. So, scientifically - if it works, there could be only objections of esthetics against.

So in your own words science is nothing more than an ideology that says "the end justifies the goal"? How could human suffering be just esthetics when science can create tools and form laws to prevent human suffering in the first place?

The bigger problem with your post is that you seem to think that one good goal of science is to have big flourishing civilization at all costs. Big is good but suffering is aesthetics?? Where did you get the idea that big flourishing man eating civilizations like aztecan were "succesful" in any scientific sense?

Let's see what the wikipedia says about:
Human sacrifice in Aztec culture:
Human sacrifice (Nahuatl: tlamictīliztli [t͡ɬa.mik.tiː.'lis.t͡ɬi] was a religious practice characteristic of pre-Columbian Aztec civilization, as well as of other mesoamerican civilizations such as the Maya and the Zapotec. The extent of the practice is debated by modern scholars.

So you are trying to disprove science because religions cause cannibalism and cultural relativism makes it feel normal for you when you get to taste some gourmet dish made of human nostrils?

As for all our values being "floating" then surely attaching them to some thousands of years old fairy tale does not exactly make them less floaty. That's just circular logic. Religion says all moral comes from religion so without religion you can not have moral. Is that a fact?

Quote from AndRand :

Please find out what "axiology" means.

Putting things short it means there are values chosen just by choice. Science doesnt give answer to this - even if you use "Pareto choice" paradigm science DOES NOT tell you WHY you should use "Pareto choice" (allocations of means in a way that nobody is worse off in new situation) instead of maneating.
In fact, science will tell that you should eat people if they have enough proteins and cant fight back.

It is moral axiology telling that eating humans is not humane.

Through evolution human being has survived because we do not eat other people. Just like animals don't eat their children. It is a product of evolution that we don't eat other humans. So it is in us and it is not a choise. Or it is as much choise as we choose to not walk on our hands as we choose to not eat other people.

And talking about man eating then what is the deal with drinking blood in all religions? "Eating the body of your christ?" That's the better choise??

And don't you find it contradictory at all that while every religion is based on human sacrifice and suffering while you try to make a picture here than science in some ways does not prevent us from eating others while in fact scientific evidence proves that the attribute of not eating other humans is a central key for our survival as a species and a natural result of evolution?

Anyways, here's a video. Go eat some humans and watch it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

If perez was not good enough then how could they pick hulk or diresta??

Ferrari, not much sense you make...