ManMadeGod's forum posts

#1 Edited by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

@hunter5024 said:

@vaddixbell said:

@hunter5024 said:

Also Richard Dawkins seems like a prick.

How so? I'm not holding him up as some amazing figure, the reason I mentioned him was because he has a degree in the field of biology (and I'm not very familiar with other famous atheists with a background in biology). I'd be interested to hear why you think he seems like a prick.

I don't mind it so much when people are really opinionated about what they believe in, it's annoying, but tolerable. However when people are preachy and opinionated about what other people believe in, it starts to bother me. I don't think that accomplishes anything productive, it just makes the opposite side feel bad. So personally if someone does that, I feel like they're kind of a prick.

Sometimes the truth hurts. If someone holds their religion as a key part of their identity, which includes a loyalty to family and cultural traditions, then there is no way to have a debate and not make them "feel bad". I understand that you (and me) don't want to offend others, but at some point a real discussion has to be held on the matter.

I think people being opinionated is beautiful. You're willing to come out let others challenge you. That's how you learn and grow as a person. Debate is the most productive things one can do for their mind. Even if one person is being arrogant in their opinions there is still much to take away from watching or reading counterpoints to their views.

@vaddixbell said:

I'm going to check out of this thread just because presenting a belief in evolution based on evidence and presenting reasons for that belief is somehow forceful, antagonistic and rude. I have a rational reasoning for accepting evolution as the best model that explains the diversity of life (it has nothing to do with beginning of the universe or the beginning of life as someone erroneously said).

I feel that this is a subject I want to write a long blog post on soon (not on GiantBomb). There seems to be a group of people whom wish to stifle any debate in the name of not offending. As if one side can never be wrong and that there must exist a middle ground where everyone is a winner. Simply stating your views and there implications is going too far. These people also offer little justification for why this compromised position is valid other than name calling.

I think it would be rude not to engage in these debates. For example I'm sure the OP would much rather read our opinions than have no one reply to him lest we be accused of offending the sensitive.

#2 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

I'm going to skip over most of this thread, since it's certain to be a (mostly one-sided, all rudely forceful) presentation of personal opinions, but I want to commend you for not blithely accepting either belief that must, by nature, alter your entire worldview, and instead examining the evidence for yourself!

@tearhead said:

@professoress said:

I've gone through similar philosophical struggles in my life. Unfortunately I've found every piece of literature I've looked into on both sides is so steeped in agenda that I end up exactly where I started.

Creation vs. Evolution is big business and frankly I have trouble seeing anything but a bunch of people on both sides trying to get famous and/or make money. That's not much help, sorry.

I have found this to be a problem as well. I read some of this stuff and feel like they go out of their way to criticize the other side, when I'm just looking for someone to lay out the facts as they see them. If it's true, it should be able to stand on its own without having to acknowledge the other side. I've been trying to stay away from literature whose stance is basically "Fuck those guys, and this is why those asshole are wrong!"

Unfortunately, Hitchens is kind of the poster child for that mentality, and even Dawkins hits those notes in quite a bit of his writing. There are plenty of educated (and, more commendable, intelligent) Darwinists who present their evidence with grace and poise, so it's a shame that the two most often thought of are basically the Rush Limbaughs of the party.

Comparing Hitchens to Rush Limbaugh! That is something I never thought I would read. Hitchens had a long career before his anti-religious books got big. Please check out his other writings before making such a spurious remark. His views on religion evolved (hehe) from his anti-totalitarian views which span back decades.

Please remember that Hitchens never argued solely in favor of evolution. What he was trying to do was show that religion is morally bankrupt and evil. So yes, he would come out and say "those assholes are wrong" because the entire point of his argument was that religion is evil (not saying I agree or disagree). He wasn't just a pro-science writer as some of these other unnamed Darwinist you mention.

#3 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

@manmadegod said:

@jimbo said:

Evolution doesn't disprove or even contradict Creationism in the broadest sense, it just contradicts a bunch of (once) commonly held ideas which were associated with creationism.

People are entitled to *believe* what they want of course, but those who claim to *know for sure* that a creator definitely doesn't exist are no smarter than those who claim the opposite. Both positions are equally baseless. Both 'sides' are claiming to know something which is fundamentally unknowable to them, as though it's a weakness to admit that you don't know something which you can't possibly know.

It's also worth keeping in mind though that while "I can't know whether a creator exists or not" is really the only 'correct' position, that isn't to say that it's necessarily the right position for any given individual to take. Some will find comfort or security or some other positive in convincing themselves that they know for sure one way or the other, and so for them that may well be the right thing for them to think.

Also, how is that the "correct" position? Please apply that line of thought to any other subject. Hey I can't disprove Big Foot. Hey I can't disprove the loch ness monster. Hey I can't disprove leprechauns. It is not "correct" to ever believe in those things. It doesn't matter if ignorance makes someone feel warm and fuzzy inside.

"that a creator definitely doesn't exist are no smarter than those who claim the opposite." ARE YOU KIDDING ME? sorry, but stuff like this really works me up. If someone is going to stand up and say "hey I believe in God/Aliens/UFOs/Big Foot whatever it is, they must show proof. It is only logical to say that without evidence such a being is not real. For you to say that the less credulous among us are "no smarter" than those that believe on faith alone is outrageous.

Why you mad tho

I can't help it. 100% rage 100% of the time. Grrrrrrrrrr

#4 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

@mirado said:

@manmadegod said:

If someone is going to stand up and say "hey I believe in God/Aliens/UFOs/Big Foot whatever it is, they must show proof. It is only logical to say that without evidence such a being is not real. For you to say that the less credulous among us are "no smarter" than those that believe on faith alone is outrageous.

They don't have to show shit. I believe that there's life on other planets. I believe that, because there are so many fucking planets, across so many star systems, and that each year we find more habitable planets, that statistical reasoning would lean towards at least one other having some kind of life on it. I don't need to show proof because I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Hell, I was never shown any proof of life, but I came up with the answer I found the most logical from the information I've accrued. You have access to the same material that I do, draw your own conclusion.

You're crazy to put God and BIgfoot in the same category. One is a creature that has to eat, sleep, shit, and live in the woods. Verifiable evidence of it's existence should have shown up by now if any person who ever claimed to see it was telling the truth. It'd be near humans if that was the case, and if it's near humans, then it should have left some evidence of that. But the other is a "supreme being" that is invisible, untouchable, and was supposed to create everything around us. If you believe that is true (and I personally do not), detection would be nigh impossible if said being decided it didn't want to be detected. It'd have the power to do literally anything. Farfetched? Sure. But not something you can apply the scientific method to.

For you to say that the less credulous among us are "no smarter" than those that believe on faith alone is outrageous.

I know a lot of stupid atheists. Belief or non-belief in something isn't a good indicator of intelligence.

The problem with that is that you can't disprove anything, including bigfoot. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Now it's silly to believe in bigfoot without any evidence to support his existence. To a lot of people God is the same way. You can't prove he/she/ it is not there but the way various religions describe their deity(ies) seems silly knowing what we know now.

It doesn't matter what you believe until you factor in science which is what creationists try to do. The onus is on them to prove their claim, so far none of it has stood up to the scientific method. If one day a creationist does prove that there is a divine creator then that person would win a noble prize.

Thank you for the reply, and I agree. Let me add a little bit regarding what mirado said:

Jews/Muslims/Christians make a lot of claims about God. They say that:

  1. He created the world and humans.
  2. He listens and answers if you pray.
  3. Jesus (who lived on earth) entered heaven after death (his entire body).
  4. The prophets spoke with and interacted with God
  5. God created souls and that they exists
  6. God performs miracles
  7. Mary was a Virgin

I can go on and on but I think you see my point. Remember: the view is not that some invisible being is out there trying not to be detected. God wants to be detected. The major religions will tell you that there already is enough reason to believe in God (see the reasons listed above), and if you reject God you go to hell.

I guess a person of faith can fall back on the "you can't disprove God" argument if they wanted to. But have you ever seen someone do this? Why would anyone worship a being solely because it can not be disproved? I don't think any religious person would agree that this is the reason they worship God and thus may be a moot point.

As for the "they don't have to show shit" remark: you are right, they don't. But this opens them up to ridicule and mockery. To lump those that point out the lack of reason for faith in God with those that do believe is a mistake.

#5 Edited by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

@jimbo said:

Evolution doesn't disprove or even contradict Creationism in the broadest sense, it just contradicts a bunch of (once) commonly held ideas which were associated with creationism.

People are entitled to *believe* what they want of course, but those who claim to *know for sure* that a creator definitely doesn't exist are no smarter than those who claim the opposite. Both positions are equally baseless. Both 'sides' are claiming to know something which is fundamentally unknowable to them, as though it's a weakness to admit that you don't know something which you can't possibly know.

It's also worth keeping in mind though that while "I can't know whether a creator exists or not" is really the only 'correct' position, that isn't to say that it's necessarily the right position for any given individual to take. Some will find comfort or security or some other positive in convincing themselves that they know for sure one way or the other, and so for them that may well be the right thing for them to think.

Also, how is that the "correct" position? Please apply that line of thought to any other subject. Hey I can't disprove Big Foot. Hey I can't disprove the loch ness monster. Hey I can't disprove leprechauns. It is not "correct" to ever believe in those things. It doesn't matter if ignorance makes someone feel warm and fuzzy inside.

"that a creator definitely doesn't exist are no smarter than those who claim the opposite." ARE YOU KIDDING ME? sorry, but stuff like this really works me up. If someone is going to stand up and say "hey I believe in God/Aliens/UFOs/Big Foot whatever it is, they must show proof. It is only logical to say that without evidence such a being is not real. For you to say that the less credulous among us are "no smarter" than those that believe on faith alone is outrageous.

#6 Edited by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

@sargus said:

@shortbreadtom said:

The obvious answers are Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins books. "The Selfish Gene" is really good for this kind of stuff, and Dawkins is a master of putting stuff in layman's terms (but you already know that, reading the Greatest Show and all). Well done on being someone brave enough to question your beliefs; there are so many people who go through their whole life thinking what they were told to think because it's the easier option (being an atheist in a Catholic household I sympathise)

While Hitchens and Dawkins know their science and are thus a good source for the Evolution vs. Creationism "debate," just keep in mind that both are terrible philosophers. Like, "can't stand up to a freshman Basic Philosophy class" terrible. So they can be good sources on science, but their commentary on God and religion can, in my humble opinion, be more or less ignored.

OP, as you go on this journey (which sounds like a great idea, by the way), keep in mind that there is a very large, growing number of theists/Christians who outright reject young Earth creationism. Among them is Francis Collins, who wrote the book The Language of God -- a book that talks about theistic evolution. Based on what you've said, it sounds like it might be something you'd be interested in.

I am a big fan of Hitchens and his writing (not just on religion). You're going to have to give 2 or 3 examples to back up this remark. It's easy to smear someone on the internet: please post examples from his debates or from his writing which show him lacking basic philosophy skills.

#7 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

@fisk0 said:

The PSP version of Tom Clancy's Endwar, which is Vita compatible, is a Battle Isle clone - and the Battle Isle series was inspired by Hudsonsoft's Nectaris/Military Madness for the PC Engine, which was in itself the precursor to Famicom/Advance Wars. The console game Endwar was an entirely different thing, but the PSP game is an hexagonal turn based strategy game.

Dam, I had no idea the PSP end war was like this. Going to pick this one up now.

#8 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

@narficacid: Yeah I don't understand it. Speed tested my PS4 and I'm getting 22mb/s down and 4mb/s up so it isn't my internet. So frustrating it keeps jumping back 5-10 seconds repeatedly looping the same part.

I had this problem with WM30 on my ps3. Pause the video for 45 seconds or so and let it buffer. You'll fall behind the live stream a bit but it worked for me.

#9 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

So Heyman on Stone Cold's podcast is about as fantastic as you'd expect. Most noteworthy is Heyman's Austin impression is so on point, it made me think Stone Cold was talking to himself. Super excited to hear the second part on Thursday.

Just finished part two. So good. Heyman had me cracking up with his Vince McMahon stories.

#10 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

@hadoken101 said:

So Heyman on Stone Cold's podcast is about as fantastic as you'd expect. Most noteworthy is Heyman's Austin impression is so on point, it made me think Stone Cold was talking to himself. Super excited to hear the second part on Thursday.

I loved all of Heyman's different voices on that podcast.

I liked the Lesner v. Stone Cold tease.

Also Heyman dodging the "what is creative going to do with Cesaro" question. This was recorded right before WM30 so that made me smile.