This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Anybody else got swineflu?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
340646
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
129077
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
That's not so crazy. The idea that a bunch of weakly constructed conspiracies were formed simply to seem so ridiculous that one would more likely believe the opposite of other conspiracies seems pretty intelligent. Plausible deniability - the government can say "Oh, that's just a conspiracy theory" and without much more hard evidence, interest in such a theory would fade and collection of further evidence would become much more difficult to acquire. Hell, the phrase "conspiracy theory" today makes most people think of such a theory as insane rambling.
There are lot more ridiculous theories than that - that we're being secretly watched all the time, and then when we die then some sort of invisible undetectable essence leaves our body, and then we come before some alien being that looks at everything we've done and determines whether or not our spectral being gets to hang out with the residue of other people, or if we get sent down and burned in a pit of lava by some guys who have nothing better to do than poke us with sticks for the rest of time.
this is why i love wowhead <3
reason prevails.
You know, since it was neither proven nor dis proven, there's a chance that it is correct. Evolution, for example, was very much a reality before man kind even suspected it. So, if by some chance, what you just made fun of was real, then you are gonna look kinda silly. Because, you know, absence of proof is not proof of absence and stuff.
Any who, I am not really scared of swine flu, and I probably won't be until I see the death tolls rise significantly higher. I just think that, in it's current form, it's no more of a threat then the normal flu...
Post by
TheMediator
There are lot more ridiculous theories than that - that we're being secretly watched all the time, and then when we die then some sort of invisible undetectable essence leaves our body, and then we come before some alien being that looks at everything we've done and determines whether or not our spectral being gets to hang out with the residue of other people, or if we get sent down and burned in a pit of lava by some guys who have nothing better to do than poke us with sticks for the rest of time.
Not nearly as ridiculous as that one where we're really made of a bunch of randomly arranged balls of energy, and that everything we do is merely a product of the random permutations of said energy; and every so often the universe decides to implode itself to nothingness just for the heck of it, while our balls of energy cause us to sing and dance and pretend we know better than it.
The difference is that there is evidence to support that point of view, and if the evidence begins to point towards another different conclusion, then the theory will change to accommodate it. Huge difference between that, and accepting that there is a soul with absolutely zero hard evidence to support it. There's a reason that religion is referred to as "faith based" and that science is "fact based".
Post by
160947
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The difference is that there is evidence to support that point of view, and if the evidence begins to point towards another different conclusion, then the theory will change to accommodate it. Huge difference between that, and accepting that there is a soul with absolutely zero hard evidence to support it. There's a reason that religion is referred to as "faith based" and that science is "fact based".
As usual...someone who talks about religion without having the slightest clue :P
Did you know there is actually more logical evidence for the soul than there is for quarks? The soul is an object of philosophy.
Let me give you a quick list of philosophers who deal with the soul:
Plato
Aristotle
Aquinas (yes, he did philosophy too)
Rousseau
Descartes
Kant
Hume
If it's one thing that annoys me more than people attacking religion for no reason, it's people who think they are attacking religion but really don't end up saying much at all.
Post by
TheMediator
The difference is that there is evidence to support that point of view, and if the evidence begins to point towards another different conclusion, then the theory will change to accommodate it. Huge difference between that, and accepting that there is a soul with absolutely zero hard evidence to support it. There's a reason that religion is referred to as "faith based" and that science is "fact based".
As usual...someone who talks about religion without having the slightest clue :P
Did you know there is actually more logical evidence for the soul than there is for quarks? The soul is an object of philosophy.
Let me give you a quick list of philosophers who deal with the soul:
Plato
Aristotle
Aquinas (yes, he did philosophy too)
Rousseau
Descartes
Kant
Hume
If it's one thing that annoys me more than people attacking religion for no reason, it's people who think they are attacking religion but really don't end up saying much at all.
Very few of those philosophers understood that conscience was generated by the brain. The soul is an obsolete concept for trying to figure out where personality is stored, just like a lot of other supernatural explanations for things that couldn't once be explained, like disease, or floods, or the sun, etc. Oh, and I suppose I'm glad that you are annoyed.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Very few of those philosophers understood that conscience was generated by the brain. Conscience has nothing to do with this. I can only assume the mean the
conscious
, which obviously is a function of the brain because it's psychological in its very definition.
What any of that has to do with soul is beyond me.
The soul is an obsolete concept for trying to figure out where the soul is stored
^ makes no sense.
The soul is an obsolete concept for trying to figure out where personality is stored
The soul has nothing to do with personality.
Post by
376485
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
142728
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
The soul is an obsolete concept for trying to figure out where the soul is stored
^ makes no sense.
No rly? Its called I had a brain fart while posting. Notice how the post is edited.
Post by
MyTie
The difference is that there is evidence to support that point of view, and if the evidence begins to point towards another different conclusion, then the theory will change to accommodate it. Huge difference between that, and accepting that there is a soul with absolutely zero hard evidence to support it. There's a reason that religion is referred to as "faith based" and that science is "fact based".
As usual...someone who talks about religion without having the slightest clue :P
Did you know there is actually more logical evidence for the soul than there is for quarks? The soul is an object of philosophy.
Let me give you a quick list of philosophers who deal with the soul:
Plato
Aristotle
Aquinas (yes, he did philosophy too)
Rousseau
Descartes
Kant
Hume
If it's one thing that annoys me more than people attacking religion for no reason, it's people who think they are attacking religion but really don't end up saying much at all.
More and more modern philosophers reject the idea of the soul. This has especially come around in the last 50 years. Philosophy has even begun to reject the idea of free will.
However, this idea that religion deals with 'faith' and science deals with 'fact' is an overgeneralized and misleading idea. While science does deal with fact, and religion does deal with faith, the two are not unseparable. I use science to answer as many questions as I can, and then for the unanswerable, I answer based on what I think happened using common sense, and my opinions (just like anyone would, regardless of religion). Religion falls into the latter of unanswerable questions.
If the athiest has been suceessful at anything, it is to make religion and science competators in popular belief. That idea is like making cooking, and physics, competators. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since the two are not really related.
Post by
Patty
I'm just sick of every mother@#$%ing thread turning into a religion debate. I'm pretty sure I read that this thread was titled "Anybody else got swine flu?" and not "Hurr durr i knoz moar aboot reeeligin then u." People have the right to believe what they want. If they wanted to change what they believe, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be checking Wowhead forums first. Get the ^&*! over it. (Yes, profound language was necessary. This kind of ticked me off.)
Oh, how I agree.
Someone in my school got Swine Flu and I was given Tamiflu, but I've not had to use it yet.
Post by
MyTie
I'm just sick of every mother@#$%ing thread turning into a religion debate. I'm pretty sure I read that this thread was titled "Anybody else got swine flu?" and not "Hurr durr i knoz moar aboot reeeligin then u." People have the right to believe what they want. If they wanted to change what they believe, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be checking Wowhead forums first. Get the ^&*! over it. (Yes, profound language was necessary. This kind of ticked me off.)
Oh, how I agree.
Someone in my school got Swine Flu and I was given Tamiflu, but I've not had to use it yet.
I agree that it is off topic, but the reaction here seems to be that religion shouldn't be discussed at all in wowhead. I don't understand why there is such a big push to NOT talk about politics and religion in so many areas of life. Those two seem like the MOST important subjects to me. I think that it should be mandatory to have those discussions. But you know "zomg, ize got da sick" is really cool too, bro.
Post by
Patty
Then why post in it if you didn't think it worthy?
I agree with them though, because Religion shouldn't seep its way into so many other topics. The religion debate got locked, if I recall.
Why wouldn't it happen again? After all, it quickly devolves into flaming.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The religion debate got locked, if I recall.
Orly?
Post by
Patty
I was referring to another one.
I never knew that one existed. I stand corrected.
Post by
142728
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I agree that it is off topic, but the reaction here seems to be that religion shouldn't be discussed at all in wowhead. I don't understand why there is such a big push to NOT talk about politics and religion in so many areas of life. Those two seem like the MOST important subjects to me. I think that it should be mandatory to have those discussions. But you know "zomg, ize got da sick" is really cool too, bro.
Ok, my post might have been a little to generalized. I agree, it's good to talk about controversial issues, like religion, politics, etc. I like to see opinions from people around the world. However, can it please stick to those threads and not every other one? This topic was not about religion (though you could vaguely link it to; however would still be somewhat off-topic), it was about a sick person who thought it would be good to see that other people are have this flu as well.
Also, its comments like these that lead me to make my first post:
As usual...someone who talks about religion without having the slightest clue.
Oh, and I suppose I'm glad that you are annoyed
Was this even necessary? (there were other quotes, just found these two quickly)
Impressions of first quote: "Oh, I know so much more than everyone else. I'm an elitist who thinks that everone else's opinions are wrong." Especially starting out your post with that. Come on... Show some class.
Second quote: Personal attack that has nothing to do with anything. These comments lead to bickering and (usually) locking threads.
Well, your first quote box was quoting me. The second two were other people. The first is Hyperspacerebel, and I don't know who the second one is, but it isn't me. The first quote which IS mine, contains no elitist attitude or personal attacks. All I said was that, although it is off topic in this thread, there should not be a push to eliminate the discussion all together.
I'm not sure if you were trying to link the last two quotes to me, or if you were speaking to people in general, but the opinions quoted are not mine.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
As usual...someone who talks about religion without having the slightest clue.
Impressions of first quote: "Oh, I know so much more than everyone else. I'm an elitist who thinks that everone else's opinions are wrong." Especially starting out your post with that. Come on... Show some class.
Yes, I am an elitist.
Yes, I do know more about religion than most people. I grew up Catholic, was in the seminary for 4 years, took more theology classes in 1 year of college than most people take in their whole lives. That's a bit more than what the usual people get off wikipedia.
No, I don't really give a damn about people's opinions. It's their "facts" that I care about.
No, I won't show some class. Arguments are arguments whether they're dressed up all fancily or not.
No, that wasn't a personal attack.
Yes, it's a fact.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.