that breed of cat doesn't exist so you didn't answer it. ^^ you'd have to breed a new species of cat and call it that, but then you wouldn't be allowed to use that as a answer. it would be the same as answering unicorns to your question.Schadrach said:Easier than the duck-fucking question. Grimalkin, 3rd edition Monster Manual II, page 122. In their natural form they resemble a larger than average grey house cat, but are shapeshifters and can adopt the form of any animal up to size category Large (basically things around the size of a bull). Also capable of speech and of roughly human intelligence.VonKlaw said:To the OP: Please pick your favorite breed of cat. You are not allowed to include any breeds of cat that actual exists. Go.
It's the best cat, because it is *all* the cats.
How many more of these do I need to answer?
i can easily prove the last one: if something works or not depends on if you can use it for what you want to, you are using a computer so obviously it works. we can also prove you need air (or oxygen to be specific) because you would die if we denied you access to it. proving if computers are working or not just depends on your definition of working, we also know exactly how computers work. computers and oxygen are not made up so we can prove things about them, god on the other hand..Tanakh said:I know there is no God, just as I know I need air to live or that computers work, yet you can't prove any of those.
the problem with the question is why would you rate that more likely than anything else? to me the answer of the question is just everything. everything is as likely to be influenced by something supernatural if it did exist.LiberalSquirrel said:As an atheist, I feel as though I have somehow failed by not being offended by this question. I think it's actually an interesting hypothetical.
So I vote for Rasputin. The man (supposedly) survived being poisoned, shot repeatedly, beaten, and tossed in an icy river. He died from drowning. That's pretty intense.
That is however not a proof, the first is a syllogism, the second is a fallacy (you need A to B therefore not A then not B is what you are using, it doesn't work that way brah).qeinar said:i can easily prove the last one: if something works or not depends on if you can use it for what you want to, you are using a computer so obviously it works. we can also prove you need air (or oxygen to be specific) because you would die if we denied you access to it. proving if computers are working or not just depends on your definition of working, we also know exactly how computers work. computers and oxygen are not made up so we can prove things about them, god on the other hand..
I think the one thing in human history that I would say has to be due to a supernatural entity, is people's belief in a supernatural entity....because it sure as hell isn't based on evidence and facts.Schadrach said:If you were forced to choose some person, place, thing, or event throughout all of human history as "most likely to have been the result of supernatural or divine influence (christian or otherwise)", what would it be?
No, you aren't allowed to choose "nothing, because I don't believe in that shit" as the whole point is to see what people end up picking when forced to actually choose, and that isn't an answer, it's a refusal to answer.
What you are getting in this thread is all the reddit atheists who are so militant about it that they refuse to even work in hypothetical... don't worry too much about it too much.Schadrach said:Easier than the duck-fucking question. Grimalkin, 3rd edition Monster Manual II, page 122. In their natural form they resemble a larger than average grey house cat, but are shapeshifters and can adopt the form of any animal up to size category Large (basically things around the size of a bull). Also capable of speech and of roughly human intelligence.VonKlaw said:To the OP: Please pick your favorite breed of cat. You are not allowed to include any breeds of cat that actual exists. Go.
It's the best cat, because it is *all* the cats.
How many more of these do I need to answer?
Nope. Just thought it would be interesting to see what people came up with.Kged said:This "hypothetical" question clearly serves an agenda. Or, at best, is a troll.
Wasn't really expecting quite the degree of angry responses. It would be like asking this crowd what their favorite astrological sign was, except instead of discussion regarding the stars that made them up, or which one has most aesthetically pleasing symbolism, or which set of traits they claim to represent is best, I got people attacking the very idea of the question being asked in the first place. You don't need to accept something as true in order to discuss it in a hypothetical sense.
If it helps, you can think of the original question in terms of possibly being performed by sufficiently advanced aliens with technology indistinguishable from magic/divine power. It doesn't really change what's being asked in any meaningful sense.
Now of course, I could argue that it is not oxygen we need, but some hithero unknown subatomic particle that is somehow created or drawn by the exact forces at work in an oxygen atom, its just that the idea that is is oxygen is what we know based on current knowledge. This is why in science almost nothing is fact, these 'facts' might change as our understanding of the universe does. Its like gravity, which we now believe is not an actual force, but... wrinkles in the fabric of space time created by sufficiently large bodies of mass.qeinar said:i can easily prove the last one: if something works or not depends on if you can use it for what you want to, you are using a computer so obviously it works. we can also prove you need air (or oxygen to be specific) because you would die if we denied you access to it. proving if computers are working or not just depends on your definition of working, we also know exactly how computers work. computers and oxygen are not made up so we can prove things about them, god on the other hand..Tanakh said:I know there is no God, just as I know I need air to live or that computers work, yet you can't prove any of those.
Actually no we're not tired of it, especially if we feel that your entire livelihood is based around the manipulation and deception of a body of people, in order to milk money out of them. Sorry but I'm going to say that I think your profession (assuming you mean people with religious livelihoods) is dishonest, deceptive, and ultimately detrimental to human society. If you don't like the fact that I am saying that, well, too bad. And I happen to care about a lot of people on the internet, but not people who make silly comments that are worded to be somewhat insulting and confrontational towards me in the general sense, like yours was. That type of post does not engender warm fuzzy feelings from me towards you. Shocking I know.Aurora Firestorm said:Sigh.
Nobody here actually *understood* the original question. Or if they did, they were too busy snarking and trolling. I don't like posting in anti-religion-flamebait threads, but here I go anyway, just to give you the answer I haven't seen other people give without a lot of "hurr hurr hurr religion is stupid but maybe I'll answer your question." (Sorry. I'm bitter, yeah. But really, people, aren't we all tired of taking potshots at some people's entire livelihoods? Oh wait, this is the Internet, nobody cares about anyone.)
And that is a typical Argument from Ignorance. The "I don't know how it could've been done, so God Did It" argument.Aurora Firestorm said:I'm religious, but hey, let me put aside my Christian hat for a bit and think, if I had to assume that only one event *ever* was the work of God, I would say the creation of the universe. Even if I take the most utterly soulless (in a literal sense, as in "lack of spirit" and so forth) view of how the universe works, the fact that it's here at all is not something I ever expect science to explain. (And yes, I am also very scientifically educated.) Even if we could explain the whole universe's working, I'm not so sure we'd ever know how it got here and why it has the parameters that it does. Any attempt to explain it to me so far has been...eh, lacking.
No, sorry you don't get to give yourself props for this. The OP's post is logically flawed, and since he specifically targeted the question to athiests and skeptics, we're going to call him on the idiocy of his post and it's structure. The very question is illogical, and is contrary to our method of thought. It's like asking "So tell me the one thing you think the Purple Narble Fairy didn't vote into existance by taking a poll of her sentient fingernail clippings." It is a flawed thing to ask, that makes no sense.Aurora Firestorm said:(Props from me for trying to get people to look at things from another point of view! Sorry it went so damn poorly.)