The Post Your Picture Thread

[BlackSwan]

excellent points because you're right, it is a belief unto itself. i guess truth needs to be defined also. i think seeking truth is something we always do; it isn't something that you discover and then you're done. it's something you always work towards like being a good person. your work is never done. plato had some theory that i don't remember the name of and my notes are at home about how somethings are always striving to be a thing; they are constantly in motion. for example, all the particles in a chair are constantly working to be that chair; their work is never done. i feel the same thing with finding "truth" or any knowledge in a general sense; your work is never done. so i guess i don't really know if it's possible for humans to know truth without knowing what truth is, but whatever it is, it is a struggle.

that probably doesn't make much sense though since i'm not a philosophy major or anything, it's something i really want to get a degree in after my current degree though.

It's good that you are open to it. What you are talking about reminds me of a claim by Sextus Empiricus. While it may not be possible to know or know that you do not know, you can continue searching for something that might be knowable. If this kind of thinking interests you, you should look into philosophical skepticism and more specifically Pyrrhonian skepticism, rather than trying to get comfy in agnosticism.

[PotVsKtl]

I've found that like atheists, a view like that is more rooted in your feelings about belief in god than it is in any actual knowledge about the nature of reality.

So the idea that it is not possible to know the nature of reality as it relates to higher powers is not related to knowledge about the nature of reality?

Like atheists, even most agnostics are rooted in some belief.

Everything is a belief. The idea that I won't go plummeting into space on the next rotation is a belief. It's irrelevant.

[menikmati]

You sorta look like Heath Ledger.

[marooko]

my "belief" is that heath is dead.

[Monklish]

and on top of that, agnostic also means that the knowledge of god existing doesn't have any impact on your day to day life anyways. i don't think there's anyway for me to know in my lifetime, nor do i think it would have an impact on my life.

Like I said, I was just citing the original Huxley meaning. Since then it's been redefined and evolved by a number of people. This came up recently in my job because our company claims to be "technologically agnostic," meaning that we don't push Mac or Windows specifically. I pointed out to my boss that he doesn't know what the word means, and that what he means to say is technologically secular.

Technologically agnostic, of course, would mean that we--as a fucking IT consulting firm--don't believe we can have knowledge of the existence of technology.

That addition is similar to what some call apathetic agnosticism. I've found that like atheists, a view like that is more rooted in your feelings about belief in god than it is in any actual knowledge about the nature of reality.



Like atheists, even most agnostics are rooted in some belief. You believe that is impossible for humans to know whether or not God exists.

An important question to ask yourself if you are agnostic and think you know it all because of your belief is... Is it possible for humans to know truth?

Your points here are kind of silly, as Pot pointed out. You're interpreting "belief" in a bizarre way.

[menikmati]

Well he looks like a younger Heath Ledger who is much older now and oh yeah dead too.

[marooko]

he does, doesnt he?

[kitt kat]

So I found a round-trip ticket from Dublin (right?) to LAX on United for $221 + fees!!!!!!! MP, this trip is so doable.

http://www.cheapoair.com/Default.asp...9&tt=ROUNDTRIP

Um. That's so cheap. MP, you have to do it. I'd totally throw in $10 if it meant an epic Coachellapeople breakfast or something.

Yes. On the Kalalau Trail.

Is this anywhere near the dead end road that stops at that crazy beach up by Princeville? My parents always make us go up there, but we have a place on the southshore, so that car ride makes me car sick and I can't even think about it now it's so bad

[Cherita Chen]

I thought you didnt wanna meet people from the boards, katt. It was "too embarrassing" or something

[BlackSwan]

So the idea that it is not possible to know the nature of reality as it relates to higher powers is not related to knowledge about the nature of reality?

No. That is not what I said and if you found it to be implied, that was not what I was implying. I was referring to the reason they believed it, not the belief itself.

Everything is a belief. The idea that I won't go plummeting into space on the next rotation is a belief. It's irrelevant.

If you believe that everything is a belief, then are there degrees to which specific believes are plausible?

Your points here are kind of silly, as Pot pointed out. You're interpreting "belief" in a bizarre way.

It seems more like you are both misinterpreting what I am saying.

[chairmenmeow47]

back to topic...

me and my friend jill at snowbowl last weekend, more to come in the "winter fun" thread



a view from the top. this was taken while i slyly let these guys who were hitting on me on the lift go first and then i secretly waited there & took pictures to delay having to catch up to them

[marooko]

whoa! scratch what i wrote....pretend theres a pic here.

[WhyTheLongFace]

Atheist checking in

[Monklish]

No. That is not what I said and if you found it to be implied, that was not what I was implying. I was referring to the reason they believed it, not the belief itself.



If you believe that everything is a belief, then are there degrees to which specific believes are plausible?



It seems more like you are both misinterpreting what I am saying.

This is because what you are saying is uninterpretable babble.

[kitt kat]

I thought you didnt wanna meet people from the boards, katt. It was "too embarrassing" or something

I have my ones I'd tolerate

[BlackSwan]

This is because what you are saying is uninterpretable babble.

That doesn't really mean much coming from someone who is proud of having a GED.

[Monklish]

I'm proud of having a GED because it helped me avoid dealing with jerkoffs who go around spouting uninterpretable pseudo-intellectual babble, like yourself.

[marooko]

Atheist checking in

ahahaha. nice paper towel roll.

[stinkbutt]

It seems more like you are both misinterpreting what I am saying.

The Frozen Pilgrim defense

[BlackSwan]

I'm proud of having a GED because it helped me avoid dealing with jerkoffs who go around spouting uninterpretable pseudo-intellectual babble, like yourself.

There is nothing convincing about an ad hominem argument.

[Monklish]

There is nothing convincing about an ad hominem argument.

That is not an ad hominem argument. See, this again is why I'm glad I didn't bother going to college. You went, paid tons of money, and don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

An ad hominem attack would be if I said your argument was invalid because you're dumb. Which you are. But that's not what I said. What I said is that your argument is invalid because it is incomprehensible babble. That is a criticism of your argument, not you.

Would you like me to keep pointing out the advantages of a GED? =)

[Monklish]

Now what's even funnier about all this is before you falsely accused me of an ad hominem argument, you yourself were guilty of trying to invalidate my argument on the grounds that I only have a GED. Which, since you supposedly studied argument or debate, you should know is an argument from authority--which IS invalid.

So, so far you've misappropriated ad hominem in your attempt to defend your own argument from authority, all in the interest of proving that what you're saying is remotely knowledgeable logic.

Good work, putz.

[BlackSwan]

That is not an ad hominem argument. See, this again is why I'm glad I didn't bother going to college. You went, paid tons of money, and don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

An ad hominem attack would be if I said your argument was invalid because you're dumb. Which you are. But that's not what I said. What I said is that your argument is invalid because it is incomprehensible babble. That is a criticism of your argument, not you.

Would you like me to keep pointing out the advantages of a GED? =)

I got paid to go to college, but that is not the point here. You are using a simplistic understanding of an "ad hominem argument" to try to serve you own position. By criticizing my argument on the basis that it is "incomprehensible babble", you are in turn criticizing me, my ability to argue and my intelligence in general.

[BlackSwan]

Now what's even funnier about all this is before you falsely accused me of an ad hominem argument, you yourself were guilty of trying to invalidate my argument on the grounds that I only have a GED. Which, since you supposedly studied argument or debate, you should know is an argument from authority--which IS invalid.

So, so far you've misappropriated ad hominem in your attempt to defend your own argument from authority, all in the interest of proving that what you're saying is remotely knowledgeable logic.

Good work, putz.

I wasn't trying to invalidate your argument on the grounds that you only have a GED. There was no point in trying to argue against your post because it was ad hominem, so I took a cheap shot at you.

[Monklish]

A simplistic understanding of ad hominem? I'm sorry, would you care to enlighten me on some other meaning of it? Cause one doesn't exist. Ad hominem means attacking the man and not the argument. I attacked the argument and threw in a commentary on you as a person. My comment on your person was not my argument.

If I explain why your argument is stupid and then say you're stupid, that doesn't make it an ad hominem attack.

maybe you should go back to school.

[MissingPerson]

Yeah, but can you explain that using only pictures of Win Butler and Chris Martin?

[SubBass49]

Yes. On the Kalalau Trail.

I had my honeymoon in Kauai...BEAUTIFUL doesn't even begin to describe it.

Did you ever make it over to Queen's Bath?

[BlackSwan]

A simplistic understanding of ad hominem? I'm sorry, would you care to enlighten me on some other meaning of it? Cause one doesn't exist. Ad hominem means attacking the man and not the argument. I attacked the argument and threw in a commentary on you as a person. My comment on your person was not my argument.

If I explain why your argument is stupid and then say you're stupid, that doesn't make it an ad hominem attack.

maybe you should go back to school.

It not about meaning. It's simplistic because you were defining it to only mean a direct abusive personal attack, like your example of calling me dumb. You attacked the argument by calling it "silly" and said "I was interpreting "belief" in a bizarre way"...

Your points here are kind of silly, as Pot pointed out. You're interpreting "belief" in a bizarre way.

You never explained anything. I tried to clarify, but your attack remained the same.

[ivankay]

Yeah, but can you explain that using only pictures of Win Butler and Chris Martin?

Or yourself. Since the conversation is about thinking and shit:

[locachica73]

Kauai has to be my favorite island. I have been to Maui, Oahu and Kauai, alot of people say Maui is better because it is more of the party island but I can party anywhere, Kauai is just beautiful, and less tourists then the other two islands. Although being afraid of birds all the wild roosters freaked me out a bit.