Share some things that make you smile!

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,283
11,046
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Eh, i have things in the "Watch Later" playlist for years now. And they get recommended back to frontpage until watched. "Uh, a "The Question"- fan film. Why does it get recommended to me? Eh i can't possibly dedicate a full 20 minutes to something like that - what if it's bad. What if it is good? Better to watch someone doing a long-play of a game i already beat while browsing private island i can't buy. Also: Keep the fan-film bookmarked for later (7 years in my playlist now?)"
20 minutes of a fan film won't kill you. I can think of worse things in a stand film of The Question. I'll take 20 minutes of that over an hour and a half of any Uve Bowell or any live action Resident Evil movie.


 

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,167
4,446
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male

I'm agnostic. I sit on the fence between the extreme theistic/atheistic beliefs/assumptions given neither side is objectively provable, and this has got to be the most poignant argument an agnostic can make. Next time I find myself in a discussion about this subject, I'll just show them this video; I can't really discuss it much better than this.
 

hanselthecaretaker2

Flask restoration in progress
Jun 11, 2023
1,637
1,224
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male

I'm agnostic. I sit on the fence between the extreme theistic/atheistic beliefs/assumptions given neither side is objectively provable, and this has got to be the most poignant argument an agnostic can make. Next time I find myself in a discussion about this subject, I'll just show them this video; I can't really discuss it much better than this.
Jokes aside, I never understood why science and faith needed to be mutually exclusive. Generally speaking that which can’t be understood or proven is “magical”. Until it’s understood/proven which falls under science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xprimentyl

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,167
4,446
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Jokes aside, I never understood why science and faith needed to be mutually exclusive. Generally speaking that which can’t be understood or proven is “magical”. Until it’s understood/proven which falls under science.
They’re not mutually exclusive to anyone but the most militant theists/atheists. Some believers think science is somehow an afront to the magic and wonder of thousands of years old books that “clearly” explain everything about creation and our place in it. Some non-believers think because some smart guys throughout the years have been able explain things from the size of our universe to the existence of protons, electrons and neutrons, all without objectively observable proof of a “god,” it’s evidence of the absence of any “god.” What I’ve always thought was it might just be possible that what science observes could be the work of something it can’t.

I mean, science itself points to the completely perfect and unlikely conditions necessary for us to exists as we do; conditions that are hard to dismiss as chance. That’s where belief steps in to say “maybe it wasn’t chance?” I use the analogy of an analogue watch: I could take it apart to understand how all the gears and cogs work in harmony to make a machine that can tell me the time of day precisely… that doesn’t disprove the existence of the person who created the watch. Things exist. They came from somewhere. Until I know for sure why and from where, I can’t tell anyone else they’re wrong for believing anything as long as they don’t radicalize those beliefs and burn down a church, synagogue, or mosque, or take to killing innocent people simply because they’re not like-minded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hanselthecaretaker2

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,486
3,475
118
They’re not mutually exclusive to anyone but the most militant theists/atheists. Some believers think science is somehow an afront to the magic and wonder of thousands of years old books that “clearly” explain everything about creation and our place in it. Some non-believers think because some smart guys throughout the years have been able explain things from the size of our universe to the existence of protons, electrons and neutrons, all without objectively observable proof of a “god,” it’s evidence of the absence of any “god.” What I’ve always thought was it might just be possible that what science observes could be the work of something it can’t.

I mean, science itself points to the completely perfect and unlikely conditions necessary for us to exists as we do; conditions that are hard to dismiss as chance. That’s where belief steps in to say “maybe it wasn’t chance?” I use the analogy of an analogue watch: I could take it apart to understand how all the gears and cogs work in harmony to make a machine that can tell me the time of day precisely… that doesn’t disprove the existence of the person who created the watch. Things exist. They came from somewhere. Until I know for sure why and from where, I can’t tell anyone else they’re wrong for believing anything as long as they don’t radicalize those beliefs and burn down a church, synagogue, or mosque, or take to killing innocent people simply because they’re not like-minded.
Ok, you've touched on the Anthropic principle there, I stand with the weak Anthropic principle.

I'd also add, that it's impossible to disprove the existence of a God, in a vague and nebulous sense. But, does anyone actually believe in a God that way? Every major religion at least gives various details about their God/s, enough information that those specific ones can be disproven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xprimentyl

hanselthecaretaker2

Flask restoration in progress
Jun 11, 2023
1,637
1,224
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Ok, you've touched on the Anthropic principle there, I stand with the weak Anthropic principle.

I'd also add, that it's impossible to disprove the existence of a God, in a vague and nebulous sense. But, does anyone actually believe in a God that way? Every major religion at least gives various details about their God/s, enough information that those specific ones can be disproven.
The biggest issue with religion IMO is when people claim “their” beliefs are the “one truth” or treat them as an absolute, which renders other people’s beliefs or lack of any as falsehood. It’s what happens when people take their spirituality too far.


David Bowie has an interesting take -

Religion is for people who’re afraid of going to hell. Spirituality is for those who’ve already been there.


Kinda puts a spin on things and begs the question of, “Well then, who’s really more enlightened?”
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Xprimentyl

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,167
4,446
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Ok, you've touched on the Anthropic principle there, I stand with the weak Anthropic principle.

I'd also add, that it's impossible to disprove the existence of a God, in a vague and nebulous sense. But, does anyone actually believe in a God that way? Every major religion at least gives various details about their God/s, enough information that those specific ones can be disproven.
Welcome to the grey. Religious belief is nothing if not a broad swath of grey.

Example: fundamentalist Christians believe Eden is a real place, Adam and Eve were real people, a serpent enticed Eve with a literal apple, and from thus sprung all of humanity, and the burden of original sin we all carry. Less zealous believers understand the metaphors of the Bible, and believe its accounts might be based on less scientific understandings of natural events, or recountings by those of the more zealous nature simply written down by those like a detective who jots down (for the record) that a suspect said he ate his wife because the dog told him to do so.

Every major religion gives details about their god(s) that can be disproven on their face value; sure, I agree. But in the most honest moving of the goal posts, I'd simply argue disproving the easy "how" will never negate the bigger "HOW" where a god, God, or an intelligent intent might exist. That said, I dismiss people who suggest the bigger, unanswerable "HOW" somehow propagates downwards to validate the factual nature of the smaller "hows." Because I can't precisely articulate the Big Bang does not lend default credence to the story of creation in the book of Genesis; doing so would be basic logical fallacy. Conversely, if I were able to pinpoint beyond doubt the exact time and place of the beginning of the known universe using observable, verifiable, and peer-reviewed data, I cannot say without doubt that there wasn't a Thanos who snapped his fingers who started it all.

Hence my agnosticism. As long as we don't know who's got it right, anyone could be right. Hell, we all find out eventually, don't we? ☠
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,486
3,475
118
Every major religion gives details about their god(s) that can be disproven on their face value; sure, I agree. But in the most honest moving of the goal posts, I'd simply argue disproving the easy "how" will never negate the bigger "HOW" where a god, God, or an intelligent intent might exist. That said, I dismiss people who suggest the bigger, unanswerable "HOW" somehow propagates downwards to validate the factual nature of the smaller "hows." Because I can't precisely articulate the Big Bang does not lend default credence to the story of creation in the book of Genesis; doing so would be basic logical fallacy. Conversely, if I were able to pinpoint beyond doubt the exact time and place of the beginning of the known universe using observable, verifiable, and peer-reviewed data, I cannot say without doubt that there wasn't a Thanos who snapped his fingers who started it all.
That's certainly true, but I'd argue that a God that only does things that can't be proven or disproven is an irrelevance and may as well not exist regardless. It's taking the concept of God and thinning it down to being close to non-existent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xprimentyl

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,167
4,446
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
That's certainly true, but I'd argue that a God that only does things that can't be proven or disproven is an irrelevance and may as well not exist regardless. It's taking the concept of God and thinning it down to being close to non-existent.
Sure; that's true. But that contrary argument is contingent upon beliefs that its existence is somehow pertinent to our own in an affective manner, i.e.: promise of heaven or hell, hearing prayers, paying strict attention to the things we do and orchestrating everything in a way that makes our life simple, easy, and make sense.

A couple of decades ago, I was driving a 1990 Honda Accord. One day, it broke down on the side of the road, and my gut was thinking "transmission, engine, radiator, etc.," y'know, multiple thousands of dollar repairs. Nope, it was a $0.15 bolt that helped hold a belt taut so the moving pieces could interact and make the car function. I'd never given a single thought to that bolt, yet its apparent insignificance to the functionality of my car turned out to be extremely significant to the whole.

I say that to say, my willingness to believe in a "god" doesn't mean I think any religious text/belief "has it right." I simply believe it's possible intelligent design is feasible in my mind. What that design is? Good question. We might just be a $0.15 bolt in a machine doing our part, a role we have no comprehensive way of understanding.
 
Last edited: