Conversation On Agnosticism vs Atheism

OU812 wrote:

It staggers the mind, if you think about it, that so, so many of our 'enlightened, intellectual' class pass by the label of Agnostic in order to proudly label themselves Atheists. Why not be content with being Agnostic if you, as an intellectual, cannot prove any conclusive position on this point? It seems calling yourself an Atheist is a cheap and easy way to secure an appreciation of your intellect - in certain circles, anyway. I am not using this as a means of starting a theological debate, but to me, the lack of consistency exemplifies, so blatantly, human failings. Would any Atheist 'intellectual' conclude that there is no life on other planets simply because there is no proof that there is?

Gnosticism deals merely with knowledge, not belief. That's where theism comes in. Everyone is agnostic, since NO ONE knows for sure. Saying you're 'agnostic' is a nonsense statement in a sense since it says nothing about what you believe. Even the most religious person on earth is agnostic, no matter what they say. So when someone asks if you believe in god(s) if you're one of those people who shrugs their shoulders and thinks "I dunno" that's not what they asked.

The right answer (and this is where people start getting annoyed and whatnot but it's just true) is that you don't currently hold a positive belief in god, aka you're an agnostic atheist. If you think 'I dunno' when someone asks if you believe in god you're definitely not a theist......which makes you an atheist. There's no third middle option. That middle option people think of is actually the answer to a separate question (do you KNOW a god exists).

Theism= belief in a god.
Prefix 'a' denotes the lack of something.
A-theism= the lack of a belief in god.

Gnosticism= knowledge of god's existence.
Prefix 'a' denotes the lack of something.
A-gnosticism= the lack of knowledge of god's existence.

Two different things. It's not agnostic or atheist; those are two different answers to two different questions. I am an agnostic atheist.

OU812 wrote:

That may be accurate in a literal sense, but i don't think most people, particularly those in the public eye who voice their opinion on the matter, go any further into the definitions of atheist, agnostic and believer/theist than as I had originally argued. That would certainly make sense since I believe those in the forefront of politics and popular culture, the opinions I am hearing and evaluating, are the pseudo-intellectuals Sowell so elegantly swipes at in his books.

You, Sowell, and those like you are all making the same mistake. Let me quote you to show you what I am talking about:

OU812 wrote:

Now both believers and non-believers require the same level of proof to come to their conclusions -- none. It is the Atheist, however, who claims the intellectual high ground for his position, ridiculing those who disagree.

The problem with this is that the burden of proof is always on those making a claim. The axiomatically correct stance in any case of the asserted existence of some thing is the null hypothesis until proven otherwise. This position should only be changed to belief/acceptance of the claim when sufficient evidence is given to them by those making said claim. So, in the case of the existence of a god, the human who says "hey, a god exists" to a second human, or a group of humans, must then prove that this is true. Much like the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court case, the god believer must demonstrate to the people he is preaching that the god in question exists and he must do beyond all measure of reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this, the 'atheist' is holding the correct position- that of disbelief. He need not defend this disbelief nor is it correct to accuse him of holding a faith based position. It is in fact the philosophically correct one.

Sowell is wrong and imo, he just gets off on writing off the atheists as angsty pseudointellectuals. It's lazy.

In Defense Of 'Crazy' Stay At Home Moms

We all know the trope of the 'crazy' suburban mom; you know,  the one who screams at her kids and husband all day despite being medicated to the gills with pharmacological agents and vodka coolers and while I have done my share of sneering at them to myself and others (shitty behaviour around kids is hard not to sneer at) I have been thinking a lot about these women and what might be at the root of the problem and I think that "they're just crazy" isn't fair and what really may be going on is totally not their fault but actually the fault of the way we engineered post-industrialization/post-agricultural societies.

If you travel back in time to say 50,000 years ago, what was the life of a mother like? Were they alone, separated into individual houses, or together as a community, dealing with everyone's' kids all at once?

It was the latter.

Assuming we all agree on this point, (and how can't we; I'm always right after all, right C-man? fuma!) what can we take from this? Well, it logically follows that evolving to raise kids in a community would lead women of future generations to basically needing said communities for support and ultimately, optimal mental health. So, separating into houses all along a street and living in their own little worlds with their kids and hubbies (when home from work) could possibly be setting them up for failure. Living contrary to ones' nature is a recipe for mental illness, right?

If we think about the nature of women, are they more oriented towards being solitary or in groups? I think we all know the answer. They are definitely wired towards being hive minded. Men are generally the more solitary creatures. So, in the interest of fairness here, is it really any wonder that once they are separated into individual homes alone with their kid(s) all day that they go "crazy?" They are living without the social support networks they evolved to need!

I always think/talk about how the way this culture is engineered is really bad for men, but I am starting to consider the possibility that it's bad for women as well. It's bad for all of us, I think. One day I'll stop being so lazy and really dig into this idea and post a detailed, cogent, thought out piece about it. I really think there's a lot about the way we are living that we need to rethink. I'm just so lazy.....damn culture's fault!

10 Reasons Why Living Alone Is Awesome

Having gone from living with my parents for over 20 years to living with my fiance-turned wife for several years after that to now living alone for the last 3 years I can honestly say that living alone, at least for me, is by far the best. Here are some reasons why:

1) You can be as loud as you want

Want to play Mass Effect 3 in glorious 7.1 digital surround sound all night with zero guilt or need to consider someone else? Have at it!

2) Do your chores when you want to (or never). 

You can do them at your own convenience and pace, without ever being nagged or criticized.

3) Smokers can smoke in the house all they want if you don't care. 

I have friends who smoke and they were never allowed to smoke in the house before. Now? They can smoke in my basement all they want- this is especially great for them in the winter.

4) Sleep wherever, whenever and always uninterrupted. 

No one will hit you with "when are you getting up" or "why don't you come to bed, it's late?" If it's your day off and you want to sleep for 15 hours....you can!

5) No one but you eats your food. 

No more "who ate my taco? I was saving that!"

6) The temperature is set to EXACTLY your preference at all times. 

And NO ONE complains :) My house is 64 degrees this winter. Saving tons of money on heating and no one is telling me to turn it up because they are cold (meaning of course that I have to be too hot....no thanks).

7) If you play an instrument you can play whenever you want. 

I play the drums and nothing is more glorious than being able to just PLAY when I feel like it.

8) If you missed the lesson on sharing in kindergarten living alone is for you.

That family size box of overly sugary, diabetes inducing cereal? All mine, mine, mine!

9) Come and go as you please. 

Go out whenever you want and have no one to answer to (or ask).

10) Have people over anytime you want. 

There's never a time where you have to "check" with someone else. I can have an impromptu jam session with a guitarist friend, something that would have been nearly impossible before.

Living alone isn't for everyone, but for people like me, it's GREAT. Everyone should at least try it once in their lives.

5 Ways To Improve A Legal System/The Law

1) Judge the law less by its effect on case by case situations and more so by its effect on society as a whole.

-Increase in the ability to file law suits was implemented, supposedly, to increase power held by "the little guy" and to 'check' the behaviour of the 'big guy.' Only problem is, this has had unintended systemic effects
-For example, the increase in medical culpability has actually diminished doctors' propensity to act, decreasing the quality of healthcare

2) Simplify the law.

-If the law is too complicated to internalize, people lose faith in the law
-The golden rule is and always has been a great basis for law

3) Re-humanize the law.

-Give cops and judges the opportunity to apply their discretion (like they used to be able to) so individuals are not swallowed up by harsh, unflinching laws meant to curb societal problems

4) Have the law informed by science, not emotion and propaganda. Evidence based law, like medicine. Especially drug laws

5) Refocus the law and associated punishments. What exactly is their aim and are we acting outside of it?

-If you're in court, looking at say 5 years in jail for a drug infraction and you ask the judge "who exactly did I hurt here?" and they have no answer other than "yourself" or "the law is the law" we have a problem
-We need to rethink prison and ask ourselves if it is really the only possible way of doing things

Debate Tips #1: Rebuttal To Being "Entitled To My Opinion"

Two people engaged in a debate. One is challenging the opinion of the other. They go back and forth, point by point. Until it happens:

"Well, I'm entitled to my opinion."

When people say this, I think they're saying that they have the right to hold the opinion, content of the opinion notwithstanding. If so, I agree but that is basically a nonsense statement. I have the right to hop on one foot I suppose, but if someone points out that walking normally is more efficient and I, instead of engaging them on that point just say "Well, that may be but I have the right to hop on one foot" I might be right but I am also babbling and missing the point.

Address the actual content of the opinion, not your right to hold it.

That is all.

Ninja Gaiden Sigma Plus 2- Ninja Race Mode Tips

So I have been playing a bit of the Ninja Race mode in Ninja Gaiden Sigma Plus 2 on the Vita and I thought I would share some tips for this super fun, challenging mode. Note: I have been playing as Ryu, so these tips are (mostly) character specific.

-Lunar Staff is obtained after beating Chapter 1 in the story mode- do this first.

-The Lunar features quick combo kills using weak, weak, strong. This is much faster than square, square, triangle, shuriken cancel, triangle with the dragon sword.

-The Lunar is also fantastic for crowd control, unlike the DS. Standing neutral strong, either stand alone or chained into a combo is good, as is the standard weak, weak, weak, strong strong. A good one for quick limb detachments is chains starting with towards and square. This is a poke with range and power and like the other combos mentioned above it seems to grant some crowd protection in the same way that VF combo strings do. The dragon sword does not carry this advantage.

-The Dragon Sword does have the flying swallow, but it whiffs too much sometimes and therefore wastes too much time. There's no whiffing with the Lunar staff.

-Minimize ET/UT usage. Keep it to the purple essence or health if you don't need it. You'll definitely want to avoid using the green essence for them as green grants time bonuses. The white essence grants speed and power bonuses so try not to utilize that for ET's/UT's either, unless you're at max speed/power or you're in trouble.

-I experimented with both avoiding fights and taking them all on and what seemed to work best for me was a combination of the two- run until you group enemies together at a point where you're forced to fight and kill them as fast as you can. You'll get a feel for the best spots to do this as you try the course over after failing (unless you're amazing and do it in one go) but off the top of my head, I skip the first three regular ninjas and have them follow me, along with the first 2 dogs, into the bridge area where you're forced to fight the spider ninja. Then I grouped together the next batch with the big fight at the area before the archer section.

-Speaking of the archers, DO NOT BOTHER WITH THEM. Major time waster. Either fight the guys below while dodging arrows or take them all with you to the underground passage and kill them in close quarters (if you get far enough ahead you can no essence charge a UT, or at least an ET to soften them up (if you want).

-Plan on failing several times while you're learning the route(s) and strategy(ies). Unless of course you're god tier. At this point in my life I'm human tier, so it took me a good 10 tries or so to figure it all out. The time constraints are rough and leave little room for error. The most time I can recall having on the clock at once was somewhere around 2:40.

-Race 01: If you get to the first boss fight with less than 40 seconds on the clock restart. When I beat the course I believe I got to him with 1:10 or so left.

That's all I can remember atm.

Differences Between Bayonetta and Bayonetta 2- Which Do You Prefer?

* Unlocks are easier to get most of the time, but can't be quick unlocked via cheatcodes.
* there's a bigger difference in move-set per weapon.
* Umbran Climax is added, think Devil Trigger.
* Magic no longer drains when hit.
* Pulleys Butterfly now also constantly drains magic.
* Enemies no longer do surprise attacks at the start of a fight.
* Certain enemies will attack you in a cutscenes, if you press dodge at that point you'll start the fight with an extended Witch Time.
* Requirements for PP seem to be a lot higher and more tight.
* You can't reset to title-screen when you're looking at your ranking, so you can more easily screw up your rank.
* More costumes, like..a lot more.
* 'Serious Mode' from Bayo1 is gone during bosses.
* Few new abilities are added such as Charge Shots and a sort of Shoryuken move.
* Default Control scheme was changed, no idea why. Type B is the controls from the first game.
* Dodge animation was changed a bit.
* With the exception of truly broken setups that disallow rankings (Rosa + Climax Brace + Climax Brace 2), there isn't a big ultra move that kills everything in seconds.
* Online Co-op is now added where you can play as two male characters (Lumen Sage and Rodin).
* There's a lot less 'other stuff' when it comes to gameplay. The driving section is only a minute long and the flying section is a lot shorter as well.
* Levels are bigger with more room to explore.
* Lot more enemy types from what I'm noticing.
* Highest difficulty setting does NOT disable Witch Time
*The window to activate Witch Time is much more generous but it's balanced out by being slightly
shorter than the first and there are stricter PP requirements.