-
All responses Most smiled responses
-
As in, hypothermia or hyperthermia? Or just having the temperature gauge a few degrees on either side of "room temperature"? Because when really cold, I can put on layers. And when really hot I can take them off. I suppose it's a matter of scale. But I'd probably rather be hypothermic than hyperthermic if forced to choose how to nearly die.
-
My short list is Dirk Manly, Brock Samson, or Penis Largehuge.
-
Formspring Question of the Day
asked by Formspring"*grumble grumble* coffee. Wait, first, need to pee."
-
asked by moxthezebra
Saying "I'd do anything for you" to someone that, in retrospect, didn't deserve it.
-
asked by aniskamarol
I was 16. The girl I fell for was a compulsive liar. Not a very happy end. First loves never work out quite right.
-
asked by aniskamarol
Every woman I've met is pretty in some way or another. Physical attractiveness isn't everything. (Well, okay, there have been some women with absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever, but I'm trying to be optimistic here.)
-
First, you'd be dangerously nutritionally deficient if you only ate one kind of vegetable, and second, you're trying to turn me off of that vegetable after saying it's the only thing I can eat. I call shenanigans.
-
Fall, when it's still warm out but the leaves start to turn.
-
Horror: Army of Darkness. I don't go in for anything gorier than that.
Sci-Fi: Firefly/Serenity. If you limit me only to movies, it's difficult to just say Serenity, but I'll stand by that.
Comedy: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Pure AWESOMESAUCE.
Drama: Casablanca.
Indie: Don't watch them often enough. Last good one I saw was Diary of a Nymphomaniac. Though, Run Lola Run was really good.
Overall: The Princess Bride. It's got it all! :D -
Brush my teeth. Well, technically, immediately after that I get undressed, and immediately after that I pull the covers back so I can get in bed.
-
I love this quote. The next time someone calls their religion a relationship, I'm so using it. Great find!
-
I believe the evidence is insufficient for any specific god(s) that people have postulated. Atheism is pretty much just the fallback position -- if you can't prove your god exists, and if the evidence contradicts your specific god, then why believe in any god at all?
I do still have mental traps wherein the concept of god that I'm talking about, is often the monotheistic Abrahamic god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Because that's the framework I was brought up in, that's, to me, the most easily disprovable god. I am agnostic about gods like pantheism or panentheism, mostly because no evidence is presented either for or against, but I default to "why worship such a being" when presented with no evidence for. I'm atheist about specific gods, like Yahweh the Abrahamic god, because certain things have to be true for such a god to exist that just plain aren't true. -
Because then I'd be the founder of some sort of dogmatic religion, and then my opinions would be inherently worth less. Seriously, what kind of passive-aggressive bullshit is this? I don't want everyone agreeing with me! I'm sure I'm wrong about stuff, I just want people to bring proof when they say so.
-
No, my parents were both religious. I believe my mother was raised Baptist in her hometown, and my father Catholic in his, which if you weren't aware are both splinters of Christianity. My mother moved to live with my father in another province, and I was brought up Catholic in my hometown, which was 95% Catholic. My father is still pretty religious, and I only told him that I'm an atheist last year. My mother broke contact with us when she divorced my father and left to live in the States with some guy she knew from the internet, and I've been ignoring her attempts to restore contact since, so I don't know what she is any more, as far as religion is concerned.
-
I'm going to assume you're earnest in your question, and that you're not merely smearing me specifically with perceived slights by other people. There's a number of possible answers for this question. From most to least likely:
1. You're on the internet. People are generally douchier than in real life, when behind a screen of anonymity. It's possible if you were to debate them in person, they'd be more civil.
2. It's also very easily possible to misread tone on the internet as it's pure text. You may be mistaken about their perceived superiority. Some people aren't as good as others at being diplomatic in pure text, where people
3. If you've spent a lot of time on the internet debating with atheists (and I notice you're using a capital A so I think this possibility is a good one), they may feel that you're claiming that an atheist is an Atheist, e.g. that they subscribe to a religious view of atheism, the same way that a person can be a Christian or a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Jew. The thing is, it's also possible (and much more likely) that they are atheists because atheism is the default position for someone unconvinced by any specific dogma -- it is merely a lack of theism. Getting on someone's nerves is not a good debating tactic -- it's just a good way to ensure you'll end up incurring harsh feelings. And once you've gotten someone's enmity that way, forget civility.
4. They could recognize specific arguments from battles past, and they may have already heard and feel they have already sufficiently countered them. This is especially true if you're going to an atheist's blog, and you haven't taken the time to search it to see if they've specifically addressed your exact argument before.
5. They could feel you've mischaracterized something they've said, and are offended. It's not a matter of feeling slighted by your not "believing' their argument, but rather that you've either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood what they're saying in order to make a point of your own. When having a debate with someone, read their argument more than once before you start your rebuttal. They've likely done the same, so its's only fair.
6. Understand that just because they don't agree with your position, doesn't mean they haven't thought it out. And it certainly doesn't mean they are intentionally disrespectful of yours.
There's more possibilities than just these, but these are the ones off the top of my head. -
I've never been all the way out to the west coast. Since I live on the east coast, and that's where I keep all my stuff, I'd have to say the east coast. I am open to being shown the error of my ways though, should I ever manage to head out west.
-
Heh, mostly because you've never gotten into a debate with me. I'm blunt, often to the point of seeming like I totally lack empathy, when it comes to people's personal beliefs. This stems from my personal belief that beliefs do not deserve special dispensation (including my own) and should be discussed in much the same way that one might discuss the relative merits of going for Chinese or Italian food for dinner.
Also, I suck at large social situations. It's easier to tell people that I'm an asshole, than that I just don't get some social conventions.
Plus, if *I* say it, it dampens the blow when *someone else* says it. :) -
I'm not nearly as l33t as you. Whenever I play competitively, I tend to hang back, defend against attacks and build up a "Hulk Smash" level of army for one big final invasion. I'm not smart enough or fast enough to pull of Zerg Rushes or even to conduct multiple attacks or armies simultaneously.
Suffice it to say, you'd probably crush me. -
asked by aniskamarol
That's right. The question comes down to mind-brain duality, and I am a monist -- which means, I believe there is only one kind of "stuff" in the universe, being matter. The consciousness you and I enjoy is entirely made up of the electrical impulses in your brain, and your personality would be completely different if your brain was changed even a bit. That means your "soul", the thing that is "you", is an emergent property of those electrical impulses.
Let's say you live to be 90, and you start to undergo brain degradation and dementia at 60. Your "you" will be different. If you believe in an afterlife, would the "you" that lives on, be the dementia "you", or would it be you at your prime? Would it be you at 59, when you'd had lots of life experiences but haven't degraded your brain at all? Or would it be you at 70, retaining all the experiences you had from 60-70 but before dementia really starts to kick in? Or would it be you in your 20s, when you were at your healthy prime, but without having had any of the life experiences that shape you as being you?
Because I don't believe in an afterlife, and I believe that there's no such thing as a "soul" and that it's just your brain working, I don't have to answer tough questions like this.
The reason they're tough is because you don't have enough information. And the information that you took in, saying that there IS a soul and there IS an afterlife, is obviously without any kind of corroboration by way of evidence -- only "faith". Therefore, because there's only "faith" to buttress those claims, there's also more questions that need to be answered so that you more fully understand exactly what it is you believe in. When you cut out everything that doesn't have evidence, your life is much simpler, and more satisfying when you DO discover evidence and DO understand the real way the universe works.
I hope that helps!
-
Loading...
Jason Thibeault’s Bio
Skeptic, gamer, computer geek, atheist, asshole, and damn good looking to boot
