Support NeoGAF

[Dsal]

I don't think it's possible to prove 100% that a deity exists or not. I also don't think it matters at all one way or another, given how things work. If there is a deity it's a very non-involved one.

My gut belief is that there is no deity at all.

Not sure what category of atheism that falls under, but there it is. I used to be a hardcore fundamentalist christian earlier on in life. What changed my mind? Nothing too dramatic. I was just sitting on my bed thinking one day and I changed my mind.

 

[Hitokage]

Not sure what category of atheism that falls under, but there it is. I used to be a hardcore fundamentalist christian earlier on in life. What changed my mind? Nothing too dramatic. I was just sitting on my bed thinking one day and I changed my mind.

That strikes me as amusingly abrupt. You woke up one morning and thought, "hey, today I'll become an unbeliever"?

 

[Chony]

Deist.

It's the most logical to me.

 

[BigGreenMat]

I don't think it's possible to prove 100% that a deity exists or not. I also don't think it matters at all one way or another, given how things work. If there is a deity it's a very non-involved one.

My gut belief is that there is no deity at all.

Not sure what category of atheism that falls under, but there it is. I used to be a hardcore fundamentalist christian earlier on in life. What changed my mind? Nothing too dramatic. I was just sitting on my bed thinking one day and I changed my mind.

A man of thought we have here! I am surprised more people don't suddenly wake up like this.

 

[Outcast2004]

Im a weak athiest for sure. I dont doubt there's higher powers out there, I just live my life placing importance on things that demand my reaction in some capacity. If something exists outside that sphere of influence fuck it. None of my business.

That my stance as well and implicitly worded... Bravo!

 

[Zaptruder]

That my stance as well and implicitly worded... Bravo!

It's explicit.

And explicit is been used in the wrong context.

The correct word to use in the context would be impeccable... impeccably.

 

[Instigator]

It's explicit.

And explicit is been used in the wrong context.

The correct word to use in the context would be impeccable... impeccably.

 

[krypt0nian]

But Isamu implied he had knowledge of something happening. Surely, he wouldn't simply pull the old Apocalypse scare on us.

The only Apocalypse we'll be seeing within 25 years. :|

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei

Brilliant.

 

[Boogie]

Brilliant.

Yeah, but what does that quote have to to with atheism?

 

[krypt0nian]

Yeah, but what does that quote have to to with atheism?

Everything.

 

[Spencerr]

Just using your post as an example, so I am not starting shit with you personally, but to all agnostics here: Are you agnostic about Santa Clause, Invisible Pink Unicorns, Zeus, Magic Elves? If yes, then fine, carry on..

That is what we call rediculous generalization.

 

[Outcast2004]

It's explicit.

And explicit is been used in the wrong context.

The correct word to use in the context would be impeccable... impeccably.

Sorry, didn't realize this was Grammar 101. I must have stumbled into the wrong class room. But in this case teacher, you are wrong.

Oh and I knew exactly what I wanted to say. And I phrased it correctly. So kiss my oversized ass.

2 : being without doubt or reserve : UNQUESTIONING
- im·plic·it·ly adverb
- im·plic·it·ness noun

 

[Raven.]

The only Apocalypse we'll be seeing within 25 years. :|

Nice!!! I sure hope so!!!

PS Anyone know if there's been any hints lately in comic-dom/land of his possible return?

 

[Virgin Wii]

Some of the characteristics from the world of KULT may deceivingly appear to be similar to our own, but don't be fooled. Behind every tenement door may be an entrance to hell. Turning down the right ally at the right time may lead to a forgotten neighborhood where time stands still, and occupants feast on living flesh. Demons hide in the shape of man, and magic is devastatingly real. We are prisoners in a false world, the captives of an uncaring God, and we are at the mercy of our invisible custodians.

Read more here. Take that, take that. Non-believers.

 

[Dsal]

That strikes me as amusingly abrupt. You woke up one morning and thought, "hey, today I'll become an unbeliever"?

It was a little abrupt. I do remember the room filling up with an extra deep blue from the growing summer twilight outside as I was thinking, as if that influenced me any. But it happens abruptly the other way too; lots of people suddenly get religious out of nowhere. It's a two way street.

 

[DaMan121]

I call false dilemma on this. None of these are comparable with the possibility of an external creator of the universe. Not even Zeus, who wasn't claimed to have created the universe, but was a God.

I think it's pretty safe to say that most agnostics find any sort of interfering god as unlikely to the point of false. At the very least, such a god must have stopped interfering at some point or there'd be nothing to be agnostic about.

Agnosticism borders on a tautology - We cant know anything about a sumpreme being' who never interacts with the universe , but who created its laws to work fine like it never existed, and makes it impossible for us to detect him with our senses : Well DURR!

Why hold this being to a higher standard of proof than any of my examples? That was my point.

Edit: Stupid grammer.

 

[iapetus]

GAF Atheists: A Question

I see myself more as a GAF agnostic - I believe that the existence or otherwise of GAF can not be proven.

 

[Hitokage]

It was a little abrupt. I do remember the room filling up with an extra deep blue from the growing summer twilight outside as I was thinking, as if that influenced me any. But it happens abruptly the other way too; lots of people suddenly get religious out of nowhere. It's a two way street.

Did you have much invested in your previous line of thought? I dunno, I just kinda expected that people who do a complete 180 on things to have some sort of provocation and/or some amount of time to mull it over... I know I did.

 

[maharg]

Agnosticism borders on a tautology - We cant know anything about a sumpreme being' who never interacts with the universe , but who created its laws to work fine like it never existed, and makes it impossible for us to detect him with our senses : Well DURR!

Why hold this being to a higher standard of proof than any of my examples? That was my point.

Er, I think you're confused. The point is, given a choice between the random creation of the universe and deliberate creation of it, an agnostic chooses neither side, considering both to be equally unprovable claims. You seem to have agnostics confused with deists, who believe in a non-intervening god. Agnostics just refuse to make judgement on that which is impossible to judge (things external to the existing universe).

 

[Boogie]

I see myself more as a GAF agnostic - I believe that the existence or otherwise of GAF can not be proven.

I post, therefore GAF am?

 

[Deku]

Atheists are just as annoying as the next bible thumping christian or Koran worshipping muslim. They're exacting in their standards, fervent in their beliefs and increadibly intolerant of people who don't agree with them. As has already been pointed out, Atheism is in many ways a religion in itself.

As for myself, I generally reject the different versions of Gods preached by the various religions, but I tend to see that there is a God, a creator or something we don't quite understand yet. It's ironic but I'm actually a gung-ho science person, and the more I learn about science and the universe, the more I'm certain, we know very little about our universe and there are going to be some massive surprises in store for the human race if we ever live that long to discover it.

And I don't mean the above in the context of intelligent design either which deals specifically with evolution, I'm talking far more broadly in terms of a God to the Universe, of which Earth is but a tiny part.

 

[Zaptruder]

Sorry, didn't realize this was Grammar 101. I must have stumbled into the wrong class room. But in this case teacher, you are wrong.

Oh and I knew exactly what I wanted to say. And I phrased it correctly. So kiss my oversized ass.

2 : being without doubt or reserve : UNQUESTIONING
- im·plic·it·ly adverb
- im·plic·it·ness noun

*edit*

Actually, I think I'll withdraw my ass kiss and take you to task on that definition.

In the context you use it, I don't believe implicit is the correct term... that type of implicit is reserved for something like say... implicit trust; a trust without doubt or reserve...

as opposed to say a speech made implicitly, which would mean the speech wasn't said at all!
It would be more correct to describe the speech as well said, unhesitatingly said, or what not.

The method in which you used it is actually a direct contradiction of the idea of implicit, which is basically something left unsaid, unmentioned but assumed.
In that said, the idea without doubt or reserve can still correspond with implicit, but not with your usage of the word.

If I am proven wrong though, I will once again kiss ass.

 

[Rorschach]

I'm also an Agnostic.

I find Atheists to be as annoying as the religous. Both groups are largely faith based. No one knows shit, so stop acting like you do.

IAWTP

 

[Zaptruder]

Er, I think you're confused. The point is, given a choice between the random creation of the universe and deliberate creation of it, an agnostic chooses neither side, considering both to be equally unprovable claims. You seem to have agnostics confused with deists, who believe in a non-intervening god. Agnostics just refuse to make judgement on that which is impossible to judge (things external to the existing universe).

But don't guess us wrong. We're able to pass judgement on some Gods still, especially those that contradict the evidence within this universe.

For those Gods, you'd have to stick the idea that they essentially rearrange the universe in such a way they not only not leave evidence of themselves but point towards otherwise.

But doing so on an arbitary basis doesn't make the God any realer.

So the likes of Zeus, Apollo even Jehova can still be rejected by agnostics.

The real idea of agnostics is that; we're not sure if there's a God or not, and if there is a God, we have no idea what he's like...
Given the infinite configurations a God can take and still not contradict the body of evidence in the universe.

 

[Outcast2004]

*edit*

Actually, I think I'll withdraw my ass kiss and take you to task on that definition.

In the context you use it, I don't believe implicit is the correct term... that type of implicit is reserved for something like say... implicit trust; a trust without doubt or reserve...

as opposed to say a speech made implicitly, which would mean the speech wasn't said at all!
It would be more correct to describe the speech as well said, unhesitatingly said, or what not.

The method in which you used it is actually a direct contradiction of the idea of implicit, which is basically something left unsaid, unmentioned but assumed.
In that said, the idea without doubt or reserve can still correspond with implicit, but not with your usage of the word.

If I am proven wrong though, I will once again kiss ass.

You defined it yourself!
His statement was made without dounbt, unquestionable..... implicitly.
Hell i posted the second definition of the word. I knew exactly what context I wanted to use, so do me a favor and play grammar police somewhere else, ok?

Stop being such a smarmy, elitist grammar prick and just post your thoughts on the topic at hand instead of trying to derail it. It's the internet, there's no place for proper grammer here anyway.

 

[Dsal]

Did you have much invested in your previous line of thought? I dunno, I just kinda expected that people who do a complete 180 on things to have some sort of provocation and/or some amount of time to mull it over... I know I did.

I had my whole life and soul invested in the previous line of thought. On a subconscious level, one I tried to not think about for years and years, I probably knew that something was wrong. It was all unraveled when I actually sat down and let myself think about it.

 

[Zaptruder]

You defined it yourself!
His statement was made without dounbt, unquestionable..... implicitly.
Hell i posted the second definition of the word. I knew exactly what context I wanted to use, so do me a favor and play grammar police somewhere else, ok?

Stop being such a smarmy, elitist grammar prick and just post your thoughts on the topic at hand instead of trying to derail it. It's the internet, there's no place for proper grammer here anyway.

Look, someone is going through pains to inform you better. Submerge your pride a little. This *is* the internet. If someday, you're in a corporate boardroom, and you use words in a manner that's incorrect and confuses people, it'll reflect much worse for yourself then, then if you just swallow that pride now and understand it.

Hell, I don't mind swallowing my pride if I'm wrong, but if I'm right about something, it would be an extremely poor show for me to back down.

The deal with english, even though it's often times a shitty and confusing language, is it rarely puts together definitions that are contrary and uses the same word for them. They'll be times when definitions become used sarcastically, contrarily, but generally that rule is reserved for empowering words or degrading words...
Neither definition of implicit that we provide has to do with that kinda stuff though.

The dictionary.com definition states "without doubt, unquestionable" in some of its definitions, but cites the example "implicit trust" following such definitions. In that sense then, it doesn't contradict the original idea of implicit... that is something (so bleedingly obvious that its) assumed.

On the otherhand, your usage of implicit... is wrong; a statement made out loud is explicit. The very opposite of implicit. Thus its a logical error to say that any actually voiced, written or spoken statement has been made implicitly.
If a statement is said to be implicit, then we take it to mean that it's implied, unsaid, but assumed among all parties.

For your usage... it can't be said his statement is implied, in the sense that it's clearly written and distinguished. If we use the idea that its implied, then its often used in reference to the fact that statement just made explicit something so bleedingly obvious that it should be implicit... As in, "Is it also against the rules of monopoly to kill your opponents?" "Umm... that's kinda implied."

Finally, I correct you for the sake of the person you quote. To provide support for someone, while erring knowingly or not, isn't a great show of support for that person. It has a tendency to (erroneously) relate your abilities to the other persons.

 

[Hitokage]

I had my whole life and soul invested in the previous line of thought. On a subconscious level, one I tried to not think about for years and years, I probably knew that something was wrong. It was all unraveled when I actually sat down and let myself think about it.

Ahh ok. That's not nearly as abrupt as you first made it sound.

 

[Zaptruder]

Ahh ok. That's not nearly as abrupt as you first made it sound.

Still impressively abrupt.

I had to take a philosophy or religion class... twice! And post on GAF for a few years before it finally wore away... where things crumbled away to the point where I can form congent logical responses against the beliefs I did hold.

 

[Hitokage]

True, but sitting on a huge pile of cognitive dissonance that suddenly unravels itself is fairly believable.

 

[acidviper]

There are two types of atheists, weak (also known as implicit or negative) atheists whom simply have the absence of belief in the existence of deities and strong atheists (explicit or positive) which is the belief that no deities exist.

My question to you is, which type of atheist are you? How did you come to this belief?

I have yet to meet anyone who is a strong atheist, one who not only doesn't have a belief in a deity but also strong conviction that there is not one.

Jedi religion is strong in the force.

 

[Mumbles]

There are two types of atheists, weak (also known as implicit or negative) atheists whom simply have the absence of belief in the existence of deities and strong atheists (explicit or positive) which is the belief that no deities exist.

My question to you is, which type of atheist are you? How did you come to this belief?

Strong. The complete failure of humans to present any evidence for the 33+ million gods they've come up with, the incoherent descriptions they give of many of their gods, their widespread disagreement about anything concerning gods, and their tendency to come up with "supernatural" beings to explain natural phenomena is more than enough reason to stick the gods alongside the elves and ghosts. And honestly, I'd consider this strong enough to be called "knowledge", since it's about as good as we get for just about every other incorrect idea that people have cobbled together.

I have yet to meet anyone who is a strong atheist, one who not only doesn't have a belief in a deity but also strong conviction that there is not one.

I can't help but note that you've switched definitions here, but whatever.

edit - oops, misread that last paragraph, nevermind.

 

[Outcast2004]

Look, someone is going through pains to inform you better. Submerge your pride a little. This *is* the internet. If someday, you're in a corporate boardroom, and you use words in a manner that's incorrect and confuses people, it'll reflect much worse for yourself then, then if you just swallow that pride now and understand it.

Hell, I don't mind swallowing my pride if I'm wrong, but if I'm right about something, it would be an extremely poor show for me to back down.

The deal with english, even though it's often times a shitty and confusing language, is it rarely puts together definitions that are contrary and uses the same word for them. They'll be times when definitions become used sarcastically, contrarily, but generally that rule is reserved for empowering words or degrading words...
Neither definition of implicit that we provide has to do with that kinda stuff though.

The dictionary.com definition states "without doubt, unquestionable" in some of its definitions, but cites the example "implicit trust" following such definitions. In that sense then, it doesn't contradict the original idea of implicit... that is something (so bleedingly obvious that its) assumed.

On the otherhand, your usage of implicit... is wrong; a statement made out loud is explicit. The very opposite of implicit. Thus its a logical error to say that any actually voiced, written or spoken statement has been made implicitly.
If a statement is said to be implicit, then we take it to mean that it's implied, unsaid, but assumed among all parties.

For your usage... it can't be said his statement is implied, in the sense that it's clearly written and distinguished. If we use the idea that its implied, then its often used in reference to the fact that statement just made explicit something so bleedingly obvious that it should be implicit... As in, "Is it also against the rules of monopoly to kill your opponents?" "Umm... that's kinda implied."

Finally, I correct you for the sake of the person you quote. To provide support for someone, while erring knowingly or not, isn't a great show of support for that person. It has a tendency to (erroneously) relate your abilities to the other persons.

Good God (no pun intentended), just shut up already.

I ran it past my editor (I work for a major newspaper) the way I have it stated is fine. I think I'd trust his opinion over yours. So do me a favor, stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Now shut up about it. It was used as an adverb.

Oh here's anopther usage.

Definitions of implicitly on the Web:

without doubting or questioning; "I implicitly trust him"
without ever expressing so clearly; "he implicitly assumes that you know the answer"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Take your pick. I'm right, so chew on it.

That my stance as well and implicitly worded... or as the definition says
That my stance as well and unquestionably worded.
That my stance as well and worded without a doubt.

So take the gammar policing somewhere else. This is an internet forum, take your grammar teaching to a class room. It has no place here.

 

[maharg]

Rule of thumb: After the 3rd exchange of replies, people Arguing Over The Internet -- regardless of what side they're on -- lose the right to tell the other to "shut up" without looking like a douchebag.

 

[Zaptruder]

Good God (no pun intentended), just shut up already.

I ran it past my editor (I work for a major newspaper) the way I have it stated is fine. I think I'd trust his opinion over yours. So do me a favor, stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Now shut up about it. It was used as an adverb.

Oh here's anopther usage.

Definitions of implicitly on the Web:

without doubting or questioning; "I implicitly trust him"
without ever expressing so clearly; "he implicitly assumes that you know the answer"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Take your pick. I'm right, so chew on it.

That my stance as well and implicitly worded... or as the definition says
That my stance as well and unquestionably worded.
That my stance as well and worded without a doubt.

So take the gammar policing somewhere else. This is an internet forum, take your grammar teaching to a class room. It has no place here.

But the examples you give are all erroneous (the manner in which you present them implicitly shows the way in which you understand them). I'd say both you and your editor misunderstand the application of implicit regardless of your strawman argument from authority complex.

The princeton example you gave is correct; without doubt, without question. Nothing is said, but the trust exist, because it's implicit.

Your stance can't be implicit worded. It CAN be implicit, but not worded as well. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE EXPLICIT.

English can accept: Undoubtedly and unquestionably expressed.

And that would be taken to mean that it's been expressed clearly in such a fashion that the argument leaves no doubt in a persons mind.

However english doesn't accept the substitution of implicit in that situation... as using it would render the meaning thus:

implicitly expressed; where a message is expressed in an indirect manner.

i.e. "The glare from my supervisor implicitly expressed that this would be my last chance to get things right."

>>without ever expressing so clearly; "he implicitly assumes that you know the answer"

That means, WITHOUT expressing it clearly... i.e. a message expressed indirectly or some such. i.e. not explicitly.

>>That my stance as well and implicitly worded... or as the definition says

That doesn't even make grammatical sense.

 

[Outcast2004]

But the examples you give are all erroneous (the manner in which you present them implicitly shows the way in which you understand them). I'd say both you and your editor misunderstand the application of implicit regardless of your strawman argument from authority complex.

The princeton example you gave is correct; without doubt, without question. Nothing is said, but the trust exist, because it's implicit.

Your stance can't be implicit worded. It CAN be implicit, but not worded as well. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE EXPLICIT.

English can accept: Undoubtedly and unquestionably expressed.

And that would be taken to mean that it's been expressed clearly in such a fashion that the argument leaves no doubt in a persons mind.

However english doesn't accept the substitution of implicit in that situation... as using it would render the meaning thus:

implicitly expressed; where a message is expressed in an indirect manner.

i.e. "The glare from my supervisor implicitly expressed that this would be my last chance to get things right."

>>without ever expressing so clearly; "he implicitly assumes that you know the answer"

That means, WITHOUT expressing it clearly... i.e. a message expressed indirectly or some such. i.e. not explicitly.

>>That my stance as well and implicitly worded... or as the definition says

That doesn't even make grammatical sense.

Whatever lets you sleep at night princess, I don't care anymore.

 

[Zaptruder]

Whatever lets you sleep at night princess, I don't care anymore.

And I too can only say so much before I stop giving a damn. Well, I can't be faulted for not trying.

 

[Outcast2004]

And I too can only say so much before I stop giving a damn. Well, I can't be faulted for not trying.

Then do all of us a favor... keep the English lessons to yourself. This is not a thesis, this is just a forum. Nothing worth acting like a smug little bitch and pointing out what may or may not be grammatically correct. in the grand scheme of things it's not important and you only succeeded in riling me up and taking the thread completely off it's original topic.

You want to teach English? Fine do it in a class room.

Give it a rest, seriously.

 

[Zaptruder]

Then do all of us a favor... keep the English lessons to yourself. This is not a thesis, this is just a forum. Nothing worth acting like a smug little bitch and pointing out what may or may not be grammatically correct. in the grand scheme of things it's not important and you only succeeded in riling me up and taking the thread completely off it's original topic.

You want to teach English? Fine do it in a class room.

Give it a rest, seriously.

I don't care that you're not getting what implied actually means... but I rarely take unjustified insults sitting down, so...
Fuck you. This is a forum, this *is* the internet. Where more than bad spelling or grammar you'll find a wide diversity of people and personalities.

If I come of as a smug little bitch that's only because you're taking it as a little whiney defensive bitch.

In part I correct others to make sure my understanding of something is correct, not because I want to pwn some faceless retard on the otherside of the globe.

I've provided reasoning to backup my assertions, all I've seen you provide is a good dose of idiocy, defensiveness and the kind of ego that makes the world a bitch of a place to be in.

As for contributing to the original thread, I've posted a few times about the original topic, and what have you done? You've just agreed with someone while making a glaring mistake in that agreement which makes both you and him look like idiots. Then you've replied to my tangent about 4-5 times. Good fucking work hypocrite. If you were that concerned about the direction the thread took, you'd have just held it in after my second post.

You really think the only place you can learn things are in a class room? How fucking old are you dipshit? Honestly, you come off as a punk teenager that just doesn't like to be corrected.

 

[maharg]

Get a room.