₦airaland Forum

Tgirl4real: Indeed!!!

Where are u from by the way?

UK
Ungwan kudu, kaduna

Ihedinobi: Of course I know what atheism is. It's a philosophy that holds that God or Deity or the Absolute or the Arbitrary does not exist. But its proponents hold that certain candidates for Deity do not exist while others do. That makes atheism a lie.

Good $deity. No, we don't. First of, first cause etc is not science yet. Not till there's some testable hypothesis. Atheists reject the notion of ANY deity. There is absolutely no evidence to support one, simple.
Personally, supposing there really is a first cause, I am damn sure there would be no jazz behind its actions. It would be all natural laws. You claim one is playing with words, you are trying to pass 'god' off to describe anything that could potentially be responsible for first cause, regardless of said entities properties. All notions of personal gods are equally ridiculous. Some notions of first cause might be plausible, but that is all conjecture.

No gods, simple...

tbaba1234: How would you know if my arguments are subjective when you refuse to even read??

Because literature, by its very nature, is a subjective persuit.

Double post

tbaba1234: @wiegraf

You insist on going the christian route with Islam... Let me clear a few things

1. In islam, we come to the realization of our beliefs through reason... The case for Islam is simple, by reflecting on the realities around us, we could to the conclusion that the universe itself had a beginning and therefore was came into being... As a result, there must have been a cause, reflecting on the characteristics of that cause and the description of God in the Quran. We have a match.

With first cause, that is not a notion accepted by the scientific community, mostly for technical reasons. It could be more accurate to say it isn't science yet. This because no satisfactory hypothesis, let alone theories, have been put forth. They all have flaws like untestable, unverifiable, have no evidence, make no testable predictions and/or faulty logic. Now, considering how strange quantum mechanics is, you can see why the need to keep an open mind.
But ok, let us assume there is a self-existant agent (conscious or not) behind first cause, why is it the islamic god? Frankly, following simple logic and occam's razor, allah is easily one of the least likely options. Your conclusions are not scientific, ask any top scientist if they are (ie if you doubt me)

tbaba1234: 2. We reflect on the Quran and show that as a book is beyond the productive capacity of a man, it is just impossible. I have shown you threads which you refused to read that shows that from just the literary angle and there are many ways we can prove this.

Like I asked you before, are you fan of the zodiac? Do you need to study its details before dismissing it?
I think asoiaf could not have possibly been written by a man. Even the length alone is miraculous. Not to mention the prescience, the realism (despite dragons though, and the others, etc) the planning, the use of language, etc etc. I suppose shakespeare would be a meta-god in that regard.
Literary genius, is in no way whatsoever objective evidence.

tbaba1234: Our beliefs are therefore based on reflection of the universe around us and the inimitability of the Quran text.

These are objective, verifiable reasons to come to belief.

No they aren't, at all. I'm glad you didn't add 'scientific' to the mix.

tbaba1234: We are an intellectual civilisation... Do not come here with a christian-atheist attitude..

Religion and science has had amazing successes in the muslim world and there are many references to that.... That, it failed in the western world is no reason to transpose their failures to us...

What is an atheist attitude? Oh, is questioning your doctrine not allowed?
Religion and science have also had amazing failure in the islamic world. That is also a fact.

Btw, this might be beginning to sound like a blame the white man thing. We africans do that as well. And there are at most what 12,000,000 jews? And they have something like 30 percent of the nobel prices in the sciences? They also make up maybe 30 percent of the billionaire list in the usa? (not sure of the exact numbers though, would have to look it up). I seem to remember the jews being the victims of persecution for millenia. At some point we black people probably should figure out that if we really do deplore our situation but have failed so miserably to fix it, perhaps we are the problem. Maybe the muslim world should consider that too, ie if they are dissatisfied with their condition. You seem to think there is a problem, but are trying rather hard to place the blame on things other than your beloved.

tbaba1234: We are an intellectual civilisation, We have to show the young ones why we have a superior argument... You prepare them for what they might face in the future....

No offense, I'm not sure what you mean here, but isn't hubris in this statement off the charts?

tbaba1234: Young muslim kids when they come to the west face issues in trying to reconcile evolution with Islam because they know very little about Islam or the Quran and they start finding out about this alternate explanation. Many of them end up messed-up..

Why do they even go to the west in the first place? Anyways, calling them muslim is well... It's like calling them democrats. They aren't muslims, or any religion. They are too young to make informed choices on these matters, most parents use their authority to indoctrinate them in whatever religion of choice. When I was growing up, certain curricula from some western countries did not allow for say christian religious studies. You had religious studies, not tailored to any one religion. We studied 6 religions for instance. Now provide your child with options, let them mature, then let them make their own decision. At that point the person can now be called a muslim, xtian, atheist, satanist, whatever. Else frankly, the person is just brainwashed. The children are just children.

The alternate information is the one accepted by well over 90% of the scientific community, myriad nobel prize winning scientists (virtually all top level scientists accept it). Yet you would censor that important information because a book, which you admit is not a scientific textbook, is known to have various inaccuracies and was written based on the knowledge available 1400 years ago, says so? Not to mention the books conclusions are overwhelmingly not supported by the scientific community. You are already interfering with the scientific process.

tbaba1234: This is why they should be given a proper Quranic education showing the literary excellence and unparalleled brilliance of the Quran and a class on evolution to understand the theory and take away what is useful from it..

Not only do they become better muslims but they can give dawah to evolutionists...

I do not need to mention that the bolded is extremely subjective I hope. And why so much focus on ensuring they grow to be muslims?

Ihedinobi: Sorry I can't answer you right now. I'll do so a little later.

No probs, I should be doing something else as well. Good $deity, I pray to you, help me concentrate.. Pwease?

Ihedinobi: Dude, I don't care if you think that Nature is God or that natural laws are God or that energy is God or that Allah is God. As long as you can attribute self-sufficiency to anything, you make that thing God.




Therefore the foundational ones, whatever they are, are God.

Again, by assigning arbitrariness to anything, you render it God, thus giving the lie to your atheism.



Are you creating a dichotomy between reason and purpose?



Ok. The issue is the existence of multiple ultimates, right? By the definition of the word, ultimate, it is clear that there cannot be multiplicity to it. The ultimate is perfectly arbitrary in nature. If there were more than one entity exercising the quality, they would be in such perfect unity as to never disagree. Or else, none of them would be ultimate.

Therefore, if you like to assume the existence of multiple entities exhibiting arbitrariness, you still have named them God. It matters very little if they are two or two billion.



Ok then. Let's work your example another way, shall we?

Wiegraf just had breakfast and he's so full he could burst. Wiegraf is served another dish. Does Wiegraf eat the dish? If yes, why? If no, why not?



Ok. See my response above.

Also, what are "new choices"?

Again, if free will means total arbitrariness of will, it means that its wielder does completely as it pleases. As such, it is never under any obligation or necessity to pick from among options. Once options exist, they are necessarily creations and thus unbinding on the uncreated.

I will go on to show you the fundamental error in your logic: that omniscience is ability to know. Do we need to argue over linguistics in this regard? Omniscience is the possession of all knowledge.



My question was why I need to.

No offense bro, I can't take this post too seriously.

Note, I have never said I fully buy the idea of self-existent entity

So your ultimate cannot consist of ultimate partnerships? Ultimate rivalries? Ultimate unions? Ultimate threes. Ok, they can.. So your definition of god...
I'm looking at my fan, supposing it inadvertently created the universe, would I then call it god? Then you imply I'm attempting verbal gymnastics.

Reason, why is the ball flying? Because I kicked it
Purpose, what's the ball's purpose in flying? Absolutely non. And wtf kind of silly question is that?

No, not interested in cheap tricks. Again, I can't jump over the moon, whether I want to or not is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Obligation or not, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Why would he want to? Well, from your descriptions, he has no say in the matter. The path has already been laid down and he cannot deviate from it...

If an omniscient possesses all knowledge, that would mean it would know everything, including its own actions. It would also mean that it could not arbitrarily change said actions (and create new actions), if it do that then that would mean it was not omniscient from the start, as it didn't know the new actions created arbitrarily. If it cannot deviate from the path it knows then it cannot make arbitrary actions. That is not free will, AT ALL. That is more or else a machine programmed to follow exact instructions (not even random, or pseudo-random ones).

Your shenanigans with language are interesting... No, not really. This is an extremely simple concept, there are no excuses for your failing to grasp this except LALALALA. If you cannot understand how free will is void once you have omniscience, then there is little hope of gaining anything else from here....

tayoccu: Read and let's rub minds [Url]http://www.mangapanda.com/naruto/605[/url]

It seems Rin has a bloodline limit technique, cos the mist guys wanted her body, probably might explain why Kakashi killed her (to prevent her abilities from falling into the hands of the mist, and spare her the torture)

I don't think he was fully in control when he killed her, perhaps some genjutsu, as he's as suprised as tobi that his arm is in her. But yeah, seems she had some sort of bloodline limit.

Also, is that really hell, or a path to hell. That's just so f***** cool

Yeah, not read all of that with full attention, forgive me but limited bandwith/space plus mild ADD is how my brain rolls. Like the others say it's nice to know that there are some muslims that at least try to apply reason to their faith (perhaps a futile endeavour considering reason - faith).

As usual, I disagree with quite a lot of what I could glance through. Probably too much to cover in one post.

You insist on mixing religion with studies, on a mandatory basis? If so, I unequivocally disagree. I feel the same way about mixing it with politics or science.

Note, faith based religion is NOT science, it is a subjective affair

So long as you cannot justify your case objectively, your religious beliefs are as relevant to science as santa is. They should not be a consideration, in any form, where science is concerned. It's like me saying I'm going I'm going to build a car and you brought me a cook book and told me to use it. I might be looking for a spanner and you'd bring a spoon and insist I use it. Not to mention the incompatibility of dogma with the scientific method is glaring. The whole point of science is to question and find better, objective truths. Once a scientist finds something that goes against dogma, religious 'truth' is given priority over objective scientific knowledge, that is never science.

With human rights, I might disagree with your beliefs, and you have no evidence to back up your case, but then you force your will on me? That is just egregious. Iirc correctly, mohammed faced a lot of persecution from people who couldn't back up their claims as well, in fact, he went to war with them ostensibly to protect his faith. Yet the same religion now becomes popular and inflicts the same injustice to others? Surely you can see the hypocrisy on display here? Imposing your will unjustifiably on another person is never right. (Random, I might be wrong, but it seems you lament the fact moorish spain was lost, which is natural, but have you considered the fact that when muslims where colonizing spain its original inhabitants probably did the same thing?). If in the classroom you make islamic studies mandatory and ban the others, you are very close to infringing on peoples rights. Not to mention ideas, disciplines etc from other cultures which could be useful (like the spanner, rather than the spoon), might be discarded because the disagree with some unjustifiable dogma.

With regards to the golden age, did it happen in spite of or because of islam. Anyways, even ignoring that, the same islam was used by others to justify the repression of scientific thinking that has led to the malaise in science in islamic systems. Were they unislamic? They might have been (though I'm looking at you true scotsman), but regardless, the fact that islamic doctrine cannot be questioned certainly aids. A dissenting voice? Find a verse/hadith that justifies persecuting the dissenter, apply it rigorously and shut him up, case closed. So islam can be used both for repression and liberation, and many other systems could do that as well. Islam is worse than most of these systems though because of its dogma, based on laws which may have made sense 1400 years ago. Dogma that cannot be questioned.

And with the law in general, secular laws are built around the concept of human rights, humanism, humans. We can objectively verify humans exist yes ? Islamic or religious laws are built around a deity that has never bothered to show up, is unverifiable etc. Which system do you think should be more valid?

In short church and state should NEVER mix.

MacDaddy01: It is not satan or boko haram that will destroy Nigeria at the end of the day.

It will be brainwashed sheep like some of the dumbazzes here that will contribute to the collapse of Nigeria because of their ignorance to their enslavement to this illogical faith.


I dont know whether to weep or to laugh at some of the illogical answers given here.


-Why would God flood the whole earth only to have a similar one replace it? If the flood was to punish the unrighteous then why create the same unrighteousness again? Another question is that were the children that died in the flood not inncoent?


Simple questions that baffle the faithful!

They just brought up the topic, then swept it under the rug...


Edit:
Oh you're an atheist.. I see.. My bad

Ihedinobi: There is no worldview that lacks an element or entity that exhibits self-sufficiency.

Aaaaannndddd again, even if one agreed, why is this self-sufficient element a conscious 'god'?

Edit: You do realize that atheism is a rejection of the notion of deities, and that is all there is to it?

@ves
Maybe you could tell me exactly where you had problems. Following usual procedures I use there were no issues.

Do you have utorrent? Of course there are others, and they should work, but I used utorrent for this purpose...
http://www.utorrent.com/downloads/complete/os/win/track/stable

Installed? Then

1. Search for torrent or magnets, this url
http://thepiratebay.se/search/code%20geass/0/7/0

2. Sorting by seeds I chose this one
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/5356148/Code_Geass_Seasons_1__amp__2_%5BSubbed%5D_%5B.avi%5D
10 gig for both seasons, fairly reasonable

3. Click on "get this torrent", beside a small magnet jpeg.

4. Your browser should open utorrent and add the file automatically

5. Give it a little time to pick up, say 5 mins. After that check, its status in utorrent, it should be downloading by then. I'm not sure as to how magnet links work, but it seems they do not immediately pickup.

I used mtn, no blocking..

Good lucking, any issues?

edit: looking up magnet links, they work in an awesome way, but they might take a while to locate the files, so depending on your connection speed I could see it taking more than 5 mins to start, but ~15 should be the limit

Now, @ihe, you seem to be unable to ditinguish a personal god from others like a pantheist god. Very different, look them up. Lots of different types of 'gods' could be the agents behind big bang in your fairy tales

Ihedinobi: lol, dude. What have I asserted?

Ok, so now, it is natural laws that bestow purpose on all things. What then bestows purpose on natural laws? Or are natural laws entirely arbitrary?

The foundational ones probably are. Think of a multiverse. This universe just happens to be capable of supporting our kind of life, just like this planet just happens to be in a goldielucks zone, fairly circular orbit, big moon etc. There are probably myriad other universes, the vast majority not capable of supporting carbon based life (or even carbon), just like there are many other planets/star systems not suitable for life.
This is conjecture though, what I can say with certainty is however the process they came about, no (especially personal) gods were involved. And they probably don't bestow purpose in the way you imply, get this, they are not conscious.

You are asking if there's a reason/purpose behind events, I say there are reasons. There is a purpose? Then show it/them.

Ihedinobi: What do you mean, wiegraf?

See above, and response to anony

Ihedinobi: I don't have a problem following logic, that's why I can ask how it makes sense for an omniscient which already knows how good a sandwich is to ponder on how good it is. That's nonsense.

No it's not. At all

Ihedinobi: You know what? Just tell us what omniscience means.

Know everything. Again, particularly impossible in any form when the entity possessing it is said to have free will as well. Free will involves the ability to make new choices. God is playing tennis, decides to smite instead, then heads out to drop a hurricane or two. If god knew what all his actions were going to be, play tennis then smite, even his thought processes, but could not alter them, then he has no free will. This is simple. He is just a machine going through the motions without the ability to make changes to choices he has/will make. How is this in any way compatible with free will? How is it compatible with omnipotency as well?
Last time I'll state this bro, unless you have a proper argument, as this is ridiculously easy to grasp. Omniscience would mean it cannot change its thoughts, voiding free will and omnipotency. If it can change its mind, then its has neither omniscience or omnipotency, as there are things it cannot know until after conceiving them.

Ihedinobi: Can you show me exactly why I need to read up on free will?

Read the wikki for a start, they usually have decent sources

Ihedinobi: You mean the logic murderers?

Ihedinobi: You do know that patience relates to emotion

Maybe? Not necessarily. So?

Mr_Anony: @wiegraf,

Let's start from our friend pickiwoki, Let us say pikkiwocki is the first cause from which everything emanates i.e. the ultimate creator. Naturally, he knows all things because all things come from him. Pikkiwocki by definition would be essentially be God. pickiwoki would then be the first cause i.e. God.

If you now come along and say that there is a cause before pikkiwoki called jugabute, then pikkiwoki is not the first cause, you have only pushed the first cause back a step and given God another name. The definition of God still remains the same.

Let's say you tell us again that fitubunu caused jugabute, then jugabute is not uncaused and therefore is not God. All you have succeeded in doing so far is renaming God nothing more.

You can push the first cause back as many steps as you like, when you eventually arrive at the first cause that doesn't have a preceding cause, you have reached God.

The second part of the argument that follows is this: Since God is the first uncaused cause who created everything that exists then it follows that God knows everything about everything since it is His creation. Beyond God, there is nothing.

Feel free to push the first cause back as many steps as you like.


The only other option open to you is to say that there is no first cause. If you argue this way, then the whole notion of cause and effect breaks down and then we are left with absolute chaos and no sequence

I don't have a problem with infinite regress. For reality to exist, infinity probably was dealt with; likely it doesn't exist in the real world. Pikiwokki could be first cause, jugabute could be the first effect. Big bang could be the result of different activities/events, actually it probably is. You're going to name the agents behind the event god (conscious purpose or not) I see no reason why they can't be more than one.


edit:

Mr_Anony: The second part of the argument that follows is this: Since God is the first uncaused cause who created everything that exists then it follows that God knows everything about everything since it is His creation. Beyond God, there is nothing.

And I've mentioned several times before that this is wrong. Example, we could build a black hole, but we would not be able to access any information from beyond its event horizon. There will always be things it could never know/do due to some logical paradox or the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Applies to everything, even gods (I can see it coming, you're going to try to use this to 'prove' god exists...)

Even if his creation is part of him, this will still hold. And if you go down that route, god is boundless, everything etc, then well hitler, you, me, air, water, hell, justin beiber etc are all part of god then. Or are we exempt from 'boundless', 'everything', etc? Yet xtians somehow think it just to send life to hell for eternity. Actually, that would mean he was sending himself to hell... Great logicking there yahweh

Double post

muskeeto2: Got banned . Won't be around here for a while. But just had to reply my non-Japanese speaking friends..


Yeah, I'm mad. I take crazy options, prob why I'm in India. Why learn hiragana when there's romaji. I've also memorised a few kanji. It's an interesting language, really..
as to baka, fuzakeiru na... dolt



I'm also terrible with language, still can't speak Igbo.. But I probably had the interest that's why it was easy. Or cos my other choices were french and german.. who knows?

Hoping to do an internship at NEC Japan this Christmas .. fingers crossed

see y'all next week when my ban expires.. keep kicking anony and ihedinobis ass by the way..

Nippon, that could be cool. I sort of considered a program they have where they recruit teachers from all over the world for 2-3 years, I forget what it's called, but it's supposedly popular. Of course I didn't follow up, but you could check it out if interested. However, iirc, you can't get in with a 9ja passport.... $deity bless us, and you'd probably have to finish your program first

And I've been trying to figure out why you were banned. I can't see you making any threats (in fact some dude threatened to beat you up, lol, good job), so it looks like censorship to me..


@ves, lemme get on a real pc later tonight, I'll look for good torrents and post it probably before tomorrow, unless of course you find them before them before then. And that's why I don't usually have a list of 'watch anime online' site, they rarely last more than 6 months. I wonder if crunchyroll is still worth the money....

Ihedinobi: [s]Put succinctly, your post made no logical sense in its entirety.[/s]

Let's use your example, shall we? The sun has no reason for shining. Why is there life at all on earth? Answer that in relation to the availability of the sun's energy, if you please.

Also, what claims do you say that I have made?

Because natural laws, the end result of energy interacting. I've said this already. And the sun has a reason it shines (in a sense), again, natural laws. Planets have reasons they form, life has reasons it forms.
What all these, except for maybe some life, don't have is a purpose. Even life doesn't initially form because of a purpose. Though lifeforms may have a purposes after conception, when they do so said purposes are self-generated by the life form via natural laws, thus ultimately they are illusory as well (this could depend on free will though). Exactly how are inanimate objects supposed to generate purposes?
You are asserting there is a purpose, some sort of goal, behind natural laws. Prove it.

Ihedinobi: Whatever you say, but if two or more ultimates exist, no ultimate exists. There must be one alone for anything to exist.

The ultimate two or more ultimates?

Ihedinobi: What things "can't" he know? If God is omniscient, his knowledge is infinite, therefore there is nothing that exists, has existed or will exist that he does not know.

Erm, yeah, that was what those examples were for. If you have a problem following the really simple logic, maybe there's not much else I could do. Mayhaps you could wait a bit and I'll find crayons and put up a diagram?
Again, knowing everything implies he has no free will, this is really simple to understand.

Ihedinobi: Of course, it does. Do you need to eat if you are full? If God already knows something, why would he ponder it? Is pondering not onto more perfect knowledge? If God already possesses perfect knowledge, why would he ponder to perfect his knowledge?

Because he might want to exercise his free will? So grand creator of the universe can't aimlessly reminisce if he wants to? He can't spontaneously change his routine, change his mind? Even 3 year olds can do that in some capacity. I might as well be omnipotent too.
Regardless, it doesn't matter, so long as he cannot do it, wanted to or not, he's not omniscient. I can't jump over the moon, whether I want to or not does not affect that fact.

Ihedinobi: What is a "new thought"?

Read up on free will. If you don't need to then you're being disingenuous. Also see above

Ihedinobi: Am I.

Yes

Ihedinobi: Including . . .

Again, all the examples

Ihedinobi: One of you is yet to give me a proper beating. I, of course, did not have the patience to teach you guys to think so when you got extremely illogical, I got pissed off and left you to your nonsense. But I figure that it's smarter to just help you guys finish every thought you start so that its absurdity becomes absolutely crystal.

Anony is no more a slave to logic than I am. He's just been a great deal more patient with you guys than I knew how to be.

Because you're more emotional, that's my point. Your 'feelings' were hurt. Icky icky feelings... Disgusting things

Ihedinobi: Ok then, let's talk purpose. What is purpose? Do you agree that asking why is the same as enquiring after a cause? You should unless you want to teach us linguistics. If you say that the universe just exists insubordinate to any reason or purpose, you have rendered it uncaused and therefore God.

Thus, your atheism is necessarily a lie.

And you think I will attempt verbal gymnastics?
Inquiring what about the cause ? How, what, when, etc. Not necessarily why. So
inquiring about what?
It could have reason, natural physical laws, not what I suspect you're thinking about. It does not have a purpose, just like the sun doesn't have one when in shining (you could fly up and ask it if for yourself if you wish). There are no goals to achieve. If there are any, kindly illustrate them, as you are the one making the needless claim.

Ihedinobi: Because a first cause is arbitrary. If there are multiple Pikkiwokis, they must necessarily be in perfect agreement or else nothing else would exist.

Why, oh why, do you say that? How do you know that? Let one god in, let the others in as well

Ihedinobi: Why would he need to observe himself?

And how does that matter? All that matters is that he can't know some things, thus not omniscient. I'm not versed in math, but I would guess it could be extended to the many infinities. Does he know all the multiples of 2?

Ihedinobi: Omniscience means that the omniscient already knows how good the sandwich is and therefore has no need to ponder about it.

Again, whether he needs to or not does not matter. This is a cheap attempt to escape having to admit he cannot escape the problem.

Ihedinobi: What is "new information"?

Free will, the ability to make a spontaneous choice, a new thought. Can god make a new thought? If he can, then it's new, he didn't know it before he made it, therefore he wasn't omniscient. If he can't make a new thought then he has no free will. He cannot change his mind, he's just going through pre-programmed motions without the ability to change them. If you claim he's omnipotent then that is void as well.

Ihedinobi: If there's a "cannot know" description or a "changes his mind", you're no longer speaking of omniscience.

And you are also voiding his free will

Ihedinobi: Like what? And why do you use "cannot"? Isn't knowledge a "does" or "does not" know affair?

Like things he does not know.

Ihedinobi: Whatcha talking? My heart's still in pieces from being separated from my own princess. Why should Anony be any different?

You're different beasts despite looking similar on the surface. You're sensitive (run off for days when you receive a proper beating, show up intermittently to whine, plus imaginary friends), anony is a slave to logic. Might seem pliable on the outside but will have unemotional, cold logic on the inside. Like a vulcan. Except he's not so good with logic.

PhysicsQED: That's a long and a good list. I probably haven't watched that many anime

Lucky you, if only I could get a refund for my time from certain studios

PhysicsQED: but a lot of my favorites are on that list (Neon Genesis, Cowboy Bebop, Last Exile, Mushishi, Fullmetal Alchemist, FLCL, Mobile Suit Gundam 00, and some others)

You sir, have near impeccable taste. Almost as good as mine (true impeccability)

PhysicsQED: and I agree with your ratings for most of the ones there that I have seen, but did you really think Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex was only a 4/10 and Samurai Champloo was only a 6/10? Just a bit surprised.

With time, some of those have aged well, other not so much. SAC 1 I found boring. Also, I thought the xters a bit hypocritical (probably not a fair assessment), and I took it as trying to appear derper than it actually was. I probably thought it a bit overrated, hence the slightly silly rebel-against-the-man score. But even now I wouldn't grade it past 6. SAC 2 was all meh-ish as well for me till the rather spectacular final arc. That was truly beautiful, so I could grade SAC 2 maybe a 7, but it would get that score only because of that arc.

Shamploo was just meh for me, nothing new or particularly special. Also cowboy bepop trounced it mercilessly in every single category, so maybe a bit of disappointment as well. To be fair, cowboy bepop I think is a bit special, tough task to ask him to top that. It probably was a fluke actually

PhysicsQED: Also, I can recommend watching Serial Experiments Lain, Tenjho Tenge, Trigun and Paranoia Agent if you're looking to add any more great anime to that list.

Tenge I've seen to a point, then read manga past the point the anime stopped at. Oh great!'s writing clusterbeep and excellent art work, a style comparable bleach's kubo
. The writing, it's like they are on some really strong drugs... But I'd say Great is better, definitely. He at least puts backgrounds in his work (good ones too, lazy a$$ kubo), and is perhaps more mature and ambitious . Have you read air blade, oh great's other famous manga? I'm not sure if there's an anime adaptation. It's in the spirit of tenjou.

Lain, paranoia agent I've always wanted to see. Trigun I usually ignored. Thanks, will give them a try.

If you haven't seen planetes, perhaps you should. I know, garbage men in space, but at least it's the same writer/director crew from code geass. It is NOTHING like geass, but just as brilliant (for any others, if it's action or constant entertainment a la geass you want to see, ignore this recommendation). Geass and planetes are arguably my all time favorites. They also worked together on infinite ryvius, which is something like lord of the flies in space, but ryvius is nothing too fancy (though I enjoyed it).
And the original mangaka of planetes has a manga called
vinland saga, very good, very very violent. Vikings...

Btw, you've played ff tactics?

PhysicsQED: Glad you liked the Kip Thorne book and thanks for the other suggestions as far as other anime to check out. I wouldn't really consider Code Geass "violent" although there is clearly combat and violence. It's not really more violent than most anime that have some combat in them. Still one of my favorite anime ever though - the story/writing is just brilliant. The only anime that you mentioned in this post that I've watched so far are Baccano and Code Geass, both of which I liked a lot. I'll try to look at those other ones. Also, I watched the first 2 episodes of 3*3 eyes yesterday. It had an interesting start, although it hasn't really impressed me like Mnemosyne did.

Getting back to the subject of violent anime, Durarara is a great anime that is sometimes violent and has great writing/storylines.

Another anime I liked that is pretty violent at times is Black Lagoon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lagoon

I also noticed your username is an RPG reference. Are you watching Sword Art Online by any chance?

no, I haven't seen anything new in a bit (even code geass ova, gundam unicorn, eva movies, last exile 2 (have you seen, is it as good as 1? I saw opening ep or 2, sort of glad to see Dio alive)..... I could go on and on ). Could you tell me what's worth seeing from maybe 2010?

Black lagoon I dropped. Everyone I know that's seen it calls me baka as a result. I guess I'll have pick it up again and see what I'm missing.

Oh yes, durarara is in the spirit of baccano, just maybe less violent.

Yeah, 3x3 has a bit (note: bit) of the studio ghibly feel, I think that's why I like it, but it's not particularly violent or too different.

musKeeto: It's a fairly easy language to learn.

You aren't human, are you?

Well, I'm actually terrible with languages other than english so it might be more difficult me. The only thing I've picked up is 'baka', and maybe 'dozo'

English sef na manage, considering the confusion I seem to create in various situations

I'm not sure what you are on about here, we are discussing omniscience, first cause just somehow slipped in

Mr_Anony: This is what Ihedinobi points out to you. When you describe the universe as "just is", you are essentially saying that the universe has no cause. Therefore you have defined the universe as first cause and made it God.

That quote is in response to a question about purpose, from another discussion. In that context when I say 'just is', I mean 'the universe does not have a purpose, it just exists'. Has nothing to do with how it came to exist

Mr_Anony: The architect in the matrix was not omniscient. God by definition is the ultimate reality. God is the first number in the sequence. Once you ponder over something before that number, then you are you are no longer talking about the first number. You have only succeeded in pushing the sequence back a step. This is what Ihedinobi is pointing at to you guys as God the concept. If you cannot agree that a first cause must exist, then you fall into the loop of infinite regress.

I'm not discussing first cause, again.
With regards to omniscience, matrix architect probably was as omniscient as possible. I'll get back to that.

Mr_Anony: An uncaused cause is simply a first cause. It is perfectly logical that a first cause must exist. If you say Pikkiwoki is before the first cause, all you have done is push the sequence back a step. You have only succeeded in defining God as Pikkiwoki

And again...
Also, I don't think it's perfectly logical that a first cause MUST exist. And why can't there be multiple Pikiwokki's? That's another discussion though

Mr_Anony: If you can grasp what it means to be first cause, then omniscience wouldn't be hard for you to grasp.

Anyways, from the top
God cannot verify he knows everything, so I could only accept his claims on faith

Situations like him observing himself lead to a an infinity.
1- omnis eats a sandwich
2- he decides to ponders on how good the sandwich is
3- if he is really omniscient, he will also need to know what he thought about his pondering in 2
4- he will need to know what he thought about 3
5- he will need to know what he thought about 4
.......
The only way to escape this is if at some point he forfeits knowing something. That's not very omniscient.


Primarily though, so long as he can create new information, he isn't omniscient. That should be obvious, as it's NEW information. It can escape this by voiding its free will, and if it's omnipotent that as well.

With that in mind, considering the architect, he can make myriad postulations as evidenced from his discussion with neo, and fairly accurately predict actions of others (predictions will be hampered though by quantum uncertainty and chaos systems in his case). But the architect has free will, and he is part of the system. Since he can make new information, read info he cannot know due to his ability to spontaneously change his mind, he cannot know the consequences of his actions until after he's made them. Thus limiting his omniscience, his ability to predict the future of the matrix. So you could argue he's as omniscient as is possible once he's in the matrix.

Brah, there are always things an omniscient cannot know


And your frustrating your waifu won't be about being xtian, it would be about you obliviously using your infamous logic time and again when all she'll want is some loving
For instance, can you look her in the eye and tell her "I love you"? You just shivered, didn't you? Better yet, "sugar in my tea", "darling", "in ba ke, se rigiya" etc etc

@Realtym
Let me guess, if I don't repent I will burn in hell?
Was there any need for you to be an eediot?
My bad, that's probably your default mode, so it would be wiser to wonder if you're capable of being sensible.

Hello /sports, thought I'd show you one of the reasons players dive

http://d3uwin5q170wpc.cloudfront.net/photo/52715_700.jpg

Ihedinobi: lol...... Why? Don't you know what God is? God is that thing, whatever or whoever it is, that self-exists. That's so that you don't get it twisted.

I've not agreed to there being a self existent item... I do not know
Your definition of god is far too vague. If I were going to accept some self-existent object(s) existed, I'd go with energy, or some by product of numbers. I wouldn't call these sentient, or god, at all. If you want to equate what is essentially energy to god, that's fine, but that is an radically different concept to the personal god I assume you are pushing. It would be misleading to interchange the words.

Lord_Reed: No but laws are fixed and do not discriminate or discern the emotional states or any other subjective characteristics which a reasoning being maybe able to apply.

Yeah, but a xtian would base this code on the bible, yes? Many atheists would of course consider that man made as well
For me it's all about natural good/evil.
Relevant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

Not fully relevant. It's more about the science behind naturally evil deeds, not on how moral codes are formed. But they sort of insinuate a universal moral code based on natural evil/good


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc6kk3cT8kM

Ihedinobi: ......the bolded being the operative word. I've only decided to go to the root of things dispassionately. When we talk Christianity, everybody bases their atheism on objections to a Christianity that even a Christian is hard-pressed to recognize as such. So, let's simply discuss existentiality. Does God exist at all? If it does, what is it? At the latter point, I'll open the Bible. Until then, just prove to me that your atheism makes sense in the light of bare reality.

Burden of proof bro.
Anyways, I have no problem with you not using christian god, but you'll have to describe what god you speak of. What you seem to be implying in that thread is pantheist god. Could you clarify over there? I might not answer right away though as I might need to hit the road soon.

musKeeto: Oga Ihe, sounds like you're explaining Nature not God.. unless ur saying God is Nature...

Exactly what he seems to be doing in another thread...

Ihedinobi: If after that pause, you still couldn't figure out what was wrong with your answer, we have us a big problem.

You cannot define the universe as "just is" which phrase means "self-existent" or "self-existing" both of which connote eternity and absolute reality and still not hold that the universe is not God. That is contradictory and renders your position questionable.

Don't you think you should be describing god first? You don't speak of the personal one, do you?

Femmymata2: I've been enlightened and entertained by post from theist and atheist. The humour,witty and intelligent remarks are second to none.

I suppose we can be boss sometimes... Ty. I've sharpened some of my thinking on /religion, it does enlighten a bit

Ihedinobi: There are many things in your answers to haibe's posers that I would love to discuss but the above is the first that I want to deal with. From there we may proceed to the others.

Do you realize that by your statement above you have defined the universe as God?

No


































Am I supposed to say/add something else to my answer?