Yeah Way

A split brain has twice as much free will as normal brains! ^^

Is it right to say we aren't aware of our choices? It implies that "we" are not the part of the brain that makes these decisions, after all. I suppose if one takes that position, we have no free will: we are being "controlled" by that faster part of the brain. Would it be reasonable to say that "we make up our minds before we are aware of it?" Somehow, it does & doesn't fit...

Up until now, the others have been doing that for me. If I bothered, I'd merely be repeating exactly what they're telling you; so I'm honestly content with just passing remarks on you, who have pretty much wasted the time of all involved and taken up space on what was otherwise an interesting topic.

Haha, them tags tho. VN looks gas.

Obviously, this guy has no understanding of secondary school physics.

wat You've already been told why the whole sex thing isn't a good argument. You're point is just lost on me and, it seems, yourself at this stage.

wat

Maybe you shouldn't be surprised when no one agrees with you in a discussion about free will, then? In all seriousness, this is a subject that requires coherent speech in order to express your views and be taken seriously. Thanks for saving me the effort, Flutterz.

Um, okay? All I was saying was that your argument was terrible. You're tripping over yourself a lot and don't seem to know much about what you're talking about at all. If you can't see that, perhaps it's best I just leave you be.

I'll be honest here: I haven't read all the posts here, due to the amount of terrible rhetoric *cough* Okami *cough*, so I'm not sure if someone's already brought this up. Apologies if they have. About determinism, does the whole probability-factor of quantum mechanics not completely debunk it? I honestly just always assumed it did.

SnowSakura's hilarious.

Even if his smile is 100% fake, and no one knows what he's really like, he's just such a sound lad.

As we all know, many anime, VNs, etc. feature at least one other male character secondary to the main protagonist: a "bro" type character, or the character's best mate/friend. What I'm asking here is who everyone would want their best mate to be if they were in an anime. ^^ I would definitely want Itsuki Koizumi! Seriously, I could just listen to this guy talk forever; so the opportunity to actually talk with him is one I'd never ignore. Just being friends with this guy would be better than 3 waifus, to me.

Oh wow, that is pretty different. What language is this? In English, 'atheism' literally means "without god(s)".

Hahaha, that game looks fucking brilliant! xD Man I'm so glad that you shared that with us! ^^ Also, welcome to the dark side! xP

Since so many others are posting their personal beliefs here, I'll do the same. I am an ignostic. I had been a catholic at first, and then a deist; but began questioning my beliefs again after watching a load of debates with Richard Dawkins. For a brief time I considered myself atheistic until I first came across the term "Igtheism" in an article on faith. Basically, ignosticism or igtheism is the belief that every religious/spiritual term has to have a coherent definition, and that such terms or concepts must be falsifiable before a position on God's existence can be taken. If the theist, atheist, etc. cannot provide a coherent definition (ie. a giant man literally floating above the Earth in a cloud), or use some non-falsifiable rhetoric ("God exists, but can't be seen," or "God can be 'experienced', but not measured"), the argument they are trying to make is meaningless. The difference between atheism and ignosticism is that ignosticism acknowledges the fact that saying "God doesn't exist" is just as meaningless as saying "God exists." Pantheism is, basically, the belief that the universe itself can be considered "God". If so, then an atheistic position on such a God would mean that the atheist doesn't believe in the universe.

It's unfortunate, but one can only put so much blame on the extremists without at least critiqueing their holy text. I think/hope that the majority of today's Christians choose not to believe Leviticus, when it says that "if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination". However, when a child is told this as unquestionable fact for their entire lives, it becomes a feat of will to challenge this belief. Had such a rule not been made part of doctrine in the first place, this problem wouldn't exist. Is the doctrine, or rather, its author(s), not at least partially at fault? Shall I do the honours, or shall I leave it to you? ^^

True. However, would you not agree that it functioned, at that crucial time, much like totalitarian state rule? In that it was fundamentally opposed to criticism and disagreement? While it had a stabilising effect on populations, this is, at best, a mixed blessing.

It certainly does depend on the policies of the communists in question. Personally, I believe a gradual approach via secularism is the only way to go. Otherwise, the religious become the oppressed; and we're right back to square one. A form of universally accepting religion is certainly possible; but for that to happen, there must be reform. Perhaps it would have been wiser of me to have written "Religion, in its current form," in previous posts? On the second part of your post, I wonder if a thread about personal beliefs would be interesting.

TL;DR I can't explain stuff properly, I just repeated the same sentence 3 times with different wording Q_Q But I mean that people created gods, and other people took advantage of it, since thousands of years ago. Gods weren't created by the leaders, but the leaders did make use of them to their own advantage. I did make a mistake when I said 2000 years of history, though. I meant thousands of years. You do have a point. Its origin was most likely not as a tool. Though, even these incredibly early stages can be hijacked. Consider the shaman, medium, or other spiritualist who claims to be able to communicate with the animals/spirits. While I do agree with you, my point is that good intentions don't justify the continuing existence of organised religion.

You're right, and I apologise for not considering such. It wouldn't be quite right to say that such atrocities were for the sake of atheism in itself though, would it? They're to prevent dissident beliefs that go against, in this case, party doctrine. Religious atrocities are the same. I don't deny that. Militant atheism is just as bad as religion, in that it can be used to justify atrocious acts. I never advocated such a thing before, anyway: I support free thought. Also, just because I don't want to be seen as a defender of atheism, I myself am ignostic.

No, but there is a requirement for equality, which you will find is incompatible with major world religions. Never has there been a war waged in the name of atheism. If I'm wrong, tell me and I'll redact that statement. I've been under religion's torturous grasp myself. I do know. Please explain to me how I'm wrong to make me change my mind.

Apologies, but that's a terrible historical summary. Religion was put to use by rulers long, long before people were even capable of challenging it logically. Religions such as those of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia centred around the political leaders, giving them unquestionable authority over their peoples. Though I suppose justifying the rulers' right to rule could be classed as "explaining the unknown."

State communism. If you want to see real socialism, socialism that has worked, look into anarchism.

Religion is, and always will be, a hindrance to the development of society. All religions inhibit free thought and action by indoctrinating us when we're young and limiting our ability to think for ourselves. We see this most clearly in its approach to apostasy and cultural diversity. Christianity says that its adherents are God's "Chosen People", and that it is every Christian's duty to spread Jesus's message in order to save them, with no consideration for the non-Christian's beliefs/rights. Islam's doctrine orders its adherents to "Slay the Idolators." And apostasy is, under sharia law, to be punished by death. Even the supposedly "peaceful" Buddhism has been used to rally armies and slaughter peoples of differing faiths, all for the expansionist wishes of the ruling class. See for yourself if you refuse to believe me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhism_and_violence Religion is no more than just another tool humans have invented to exercise control over the thoughts and actions of the masses.