Make a case for your faith/belief/worldview in 100 words or less

Steve Dougson said:
My belief in 100 words or less:

I currently believe that if I were to become a Megaman villian I would be best served by becoming Dive Man. I think I have the most to gain by becoming a skilled aquatic robot as I'm not a particularly strong swimmer. My knowledge as a terrestrial being would be greatly complemented by the screw and propulsion systems. It should go without saying that being able to launch missiles from my chest is a highly useful feature both for positive and destructive endeavors.

Obviously this is not a decision I would make lightly, and so I have put a great deal of thought into becoming Dive Man. There are many other capable boss forms to be taken and I run a serious risk of great opportunity cost. Perhaps I would be a more effective cyborg if I were to choose a power that didn't complement skills I am currently without but were to greatly improve my abilities to unheard of levels. For instance, given my high metabolic rate I can live advantageously in cold snowy climates. If I were to become Blizzard Man I would be able to compound this physiological benefit with snow-related abilities (Blizzard Man won three gold medals in consecutive robot Olympics).

Truth be told Blizzard Man was my first choice when I began to consider whose powers I should take. It was only when I factored in global warming and how that would depreciate the value of my cold climate abilities that I figured Blizzard Man was not for me. If global warming destroys the world as we expect then having mastery of water becomes of greater importance with each intruding inch of shoreline.

Just because I have decided to take Dive Man's powers does not mean I have stopped studying this question. I have recently begun considering if I would be able to reap the benefits of a cold climate robot like Freeze Man while being able to negate global warming. His power, in case any reader has forgotten, is to split normal temperatures into high and low extremes. If I can figure out a way to reverse the power, and it may be possible, I could be a powerful robot and also save the world.

Anyway, that is what I believe.
Click to expand...

Nice. I enjoyed it.
 
Malas said:
No, what I regard as attention worthy is fact. Whether it is or not is subjective, that's the difference.

TS asked for views, I gave one. Even if size was my primary method of judging significance, what could possibly make your subjectivity better than my subjectivity? We could argue about semantics for a very long time, and the rest of the universe does not notice.

The universe isn't lively, it simply can not and does not attach significance to anything that goes on here.
Click to expand...

It's begging the question. If we're insignificant because we're too small and don't live long enough or whatever, consider if we were huge and lived a very long time.

Why would that change anything? The question of where the significance arises from still hasn't been answered. Unless of course you are beholden to the idea that size or longevity are significant in themselves, which seems somewhat absurd.
 
Malas said:
No, what I regard as attention worthy is fact. Whether it is or not is subjective, that's the difference.

TS asked for views, I gave one. Even if size was my primary method of judging significance, what could possibly make your subjectivity better than my subjectivity? We could argue about semantics for a very long time, and the rest of the universe does not notice.

The universe isn't lively, it simply can not and does not attach significance to anything that goes on here.
Click to expand...

Significance is a matter of perspective. There are many ways to judge significance. You said X is more significant than Y, and called that statement a fact. It isn't a fact. That's all I'm saying.
 
JonesBones said:
Significance is a matter of perspective. There are many ways to judge significance. You said X is more significant than Y, and called that statement a fact. It isn't a fact. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

No, I called Sagan's statement fact because he never offered any subjectivity.

What I said afterward was my view/conclusion.
 
You don't know shit and you are insignificant in the best possible way. That is still no reason to be a dick.
 
Steve Dougson said:
My belief in 100 words or less:

I currently believe that if I were to become a Megaman villian I would be best served by becoming Dive Man. I think I have the most to gain by becoming a skilled aquatic robot as I'm not a particularly strong swimmer. My knowledge as a terrestrial being would be greatly complemented by the screw and propulsion systems. It should go without saying that being able to launch missiles from my chest is a highly useful feature both for positive and destructive endeavors.

Obviously this is not a decision I would make lightly, and so I have put a great deal of thought into becoming Dive Man. There are many other capable boss forms to be taken and I run a serious risk of great opportunity cost. Perhaps I would be a more effective cyborg if I were to choose a power that didn't complement skills I am currently without but were to greatly improve my abilities to unheard of levels. For instance, given my high metabolic rate I can live advantageously in cold snowy climates. If I were to become Blizzard Man I would be able to compound this physiological benefit with snow-related abilities (Blizzard Man won three gold medals in consecutive robot Olympics).

Truth be told Blizzard Man was my first choice when I began to consider whose powers I should take. It was only when I factored in global warming and how that would depreciate the value of my cold climate abilities that I figured Blizzard Man was not for me. If global warming destroys the world as we expect then having mastery of water becomes of greater importance with each intruding inch of shoreline.

Just because I have decided to take Dive Man's powers does not mean I have stopped studying this question. I have recently begun considering if I would be able to reap the benefits of a cold climate robot like Freeze Man while being able to negate global warming. His power, in case any reader has forgotten, is to split normal temperatures into high and low extremes. If I can figure out a way to reverse the power, and it may be possible, I could be a powerful robot and also save the world.

Anyway, that is what I believe.
Click to expand...

Wow, I don't often find enlightenment on Sherdog, but when I do, it's really worth it.

Would you say "Shooting missiles on people's chests is a good thing" is accurate as cliffs?
 
Malas said:
No, I called Sagan's statement fact because he never offered any subjectivity.

What I said afterward was my view/conclusion.
Click to expand...

You said:

it's a fact-fueled statement regarding our world's significance relative to the universe.
Click to expand...

That statement is based on size being the judge of significance to the universe. That is merely one perspective of significance.

What is the most significant thing in the universe in your opinion?
 
MortalWombat said:
Wow, I don't often find enlightenment on Sherdog, but when I do, it's really worth it.

Would you say "Shooting missiles on people's chests is a good thing" is accurate as cliffs?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I attempted to explain my beliefs in 100 words and less but it looks like I went way over that mark. That's because it's a such a complex and important issue that it seems to be impossible to sum up in such few words.

To try to write cliff notes I fear you'll succumb to the same mistake and end up writing a novel.
 
Steve Dougson said:
I don't think so. I attempted to explain my beliefs in 100 words and less but it looks like I went way over that mark. That's because it's a such a complex and important issue that it seems to be impossible to sum up in such few words.

To try to write cliff notes I fear you'll succumb to the same mistake and end up writing a novel.
Click to expand...

Okay, okay, no shooting missiles on people's chests. That'll appeal to a lot of potential converts coming from sex-negative religions.
 
Yompton said:
3 way tie: matter, anti matter, and conscientious intelligence

IMO
Click to expand...

That's actually a good point. The most complex thing in the known universe is inside our skulls. That could be a measure of significance. Organisms are the most complex things in the universe.
 
Faith Fighter said:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Specialists agree that the universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe apparently has a cause.

But the cause of the universe must exist without space and time and is thereby immaterial. But the only immaterial causes we know of are minds. The cause is thereby a timeless, spaceless, mind with unparalleled power.

Secondly, Jesus plausibly rose from the dead, as indicated by His physical appearances after His crucifixion. Even skeptical scholars concede such appearances and typically admit of no good naturalistic explanation.

Thus, we have a Creator who manifested Himself in Jesus.
Click to expand...

believe.jpg
 
JonesBones said:
You said:



That statement is based on size being the judge of significance to the universe. That is merely one perspective of significance.

What is the most significant thing in the universe in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Nothing is of any significance relative to the universe because the universe does not judge it. Is that what Sagan was remarking upon? I don't know, which is why I said that he offered no subjectivity. I admit that I made a mistake by wording it exactly the way I did. Everything in that quote that Sagan said was fact, there's no denying that part.

When I say "in regard to the universe", I never meant size necessarily. I only meant that every event that has ever occurred here, has occurred here and only here, which is another thing that is hard for me to imagine an argument against. Clearly it would be inconsequential to the rest of the universe. Then, what system could you use to declare Earth/us significant, when it/we is/are inconsequential(uninfluential)?
 
HillRaiser said:
It's begging the question. If we're insignificant because we're too small and don't live long enough or whatever, consider if we were huge and lived a very long time.

Why would that change anything? The question of where the significance arises from still hasn't been answered. Unless of course you are beholden to the idea that size or longevity are significant in themselves, which seems somewhat absurd.
Click to expand...

Significance arises from those that place significance onto a thing which would be a matter of perspective.

I think it CAN be argued however that on the cosmic scale Earth and life on Earth is insignificant. If the universe is teeming with intelligent life on countless other planets would we still be considered significant by those that consider us so? On the cosmic level, life arising on some planet in some corner of some part of a galaxy that isn't particularly interesting to some is similar to a insect traversing a grain of sand on a beach. It's not the size that counts:D it's when you look at the whole, which we can't in this situation, you may see things from a perspective that changes how you'd view yourself, humanity, and earth.
 
People are inherently motivated by self interest in all things. There is no such thing as true altruism. Pretty much what Hobbes said. Examples: human history
 
Raiman said:
I would argue these premises and their conclusions never mind the Jesus argument.The first argument contains the appeal to authority fallacy. Not all "specialist" agree how the universe began nor do they agree that it "began". Whom are these specialist anyway? The first premise in the second argument is strikingly bad. If time and space began with the big bang that by no means is equal to there being no material thing before it. How do(es) immaterial thing/s give rise to material things? Because it is "a timeless, spaceless, mind with unparalleled power"? Where does this "unparalleled power" come from? You rush to that conclusion without justification. The dualistic premise is also horrible. Prove minds are immaterial causes independent of a brain or some physical thing.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I thought.
 
The Bible is horseshit.

That, of course being my opinion, I will not say that is a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,078
Messages
55,466,158
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top