|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 21, 2009 23:17:50 GMT -5
lf girls are cute. Ironbite-and cockteases. And ambiguously bisexual.
|
|
Goosey
Full Member
Unacceptable and against morality behaviour.
Posts: 176
|
Post by Goosey on Apr 22, 2009 4:25:28 GMT -5
I don't believe in elves, but I do have it on good authority that Icelandic chicks are hot. Yep. Actually I haven't met many Icelandic girls, but my girlfriend is Icelandic. And hot.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 22, 2009 7:28:45 GMT -5
Does she believe in elves?
|
|
|
Post by maanantai on Apr 22, 2009 9:42:18 GMT -5
Interesting subject and funny how the questions that look like the ones that they kinda give same kind of result as Eurobarometer Poll in which there is god instead of elf Maybe it just means that if the questions are "neutral" you are more likely to have positive reaction to anything? Like god, elves or those monster who live in washing machines and eat socks. I haven't even been close to Iceland, but from what I've heard of that place I could be one of those people saying that elves really do exist if I'd live there long enough ;D And yes, I'd still label myself as an atheist. Maybe it's just something in my blood, or maybe it's the dark winters and too bright summers that drive people insane and make me (and them and so one) to think that it's not entirely impossible that pixies, ghosts, elves or Näkkis to exist. *still bit afraid of wells and old bridges*
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 22, 2009 16:29:41 GMT -5
Every country has its own quirky national belief. Ah, Korea and its Fan death. Also, needless, even if the universe is a construct of your mind, it doesn't necessarily follow that your beliefs about its inner machinations are correct. The scientific method corrects for basically any pre-existing sentiment, independent of the actual state of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 22, 2009 19:13:24 GMT -5
The point didn't seem to be about what is *true*, but about what is *believed*. When you come right down to it, what we believe is what we feel is right. Science has more performance to convince people it's right than pretty much anything else, but that doesn't stop fundies from feeling it's wrong and thus believing otherwise... even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 22, 2009 20:00:28 GMT -5
The point didn't seem to be about what is *true*, but about what is *believed*. When you come right down to it, what we believe is what we feel is right. Science has more performance to convince people it's right than pretty much anything else, but that doesn't stop fundies from feeling it's wrong and thus believing otherwise... even in the face of overwhelming evidence. What needless said was "The best way to decide to believe something is to see if it feels right to you." Not, "we believe things because they feel right". Our feelings aren't magical reality sensors, they can be and often are wrong. More often than our reasoning. So, going with what feels right is not the best way to decide what to believe. If needless meant something else, then my apologies, I misunderstood. But that's the only meaning I can extract from that sentence.
|
|
|
Post by needless on Apr 22, 2009 20:04:14 GMT -5
The point didn't seem to be about what is *true*, but about what is *believed*. When you come right down to it, what we believe is what we feel is right. Science has more performance to convince people it's right than pretty much anything else, but that doesn't stop fundies from feeling it's wrong and thus believing otherwise... even in the face of overwhelming evidence. What needless said was "The best way to decide to believe something is to see if it feels right to you." Not, "we believe things because they feel right". Our feelings aren't magical reality sensors, they can be and often are wrong. More often than our reasoning. So, going with what feels right is not the best way to decide what to believe. If needless meant something else, then my apologies, I misunderstood. But that's the only meaning I can extract from that sentence. So I guess we shouldn't believe in our feelings? I am grieving right now because my dog which I have have had for 10 years just died. I guess you don't care about that though, do you? You should care about people's feelings.
|
|
Goosey
Full Member
Unacceptable and against morality behaviour.
Posts: 176
|
Post by Goosey on Apr 22, 2009 20:26:50 GMT -5
Does she believe in elves? I've asked her about general Icelandic belief in elves, but I haven't asked her about whether or not she believes. I don't think she does, though, given what I know about what else she does and doesn't believe. So I guess we shouldn't believe in our feelings? I am grieving right now because my dog which I have have had for 10 years just died. I guess you don't care about that though, do you? You should care about people's feelings. And this is what we call a non-sequitur. Losing your dog sucks, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with belief.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 22, 2009 20:26:32 GMT -5
The point didn't seem to be about what is *true*, but about what is *believed*. When you come right down to it, what we believe is what we feel is right. Science has more performance to convince people it's right than pretty much anything else, but that doesn't stop fundies from feeling it's wrong and thus believing otherwise... even in the face of overwhelming evidence. What needless said was "The best way to decide to believe something is to see if it feels right to you." Not, "we believe things because they feel right". Our feelings aren't magical reality sensors, they can be and often are wrong. More often than our reasoning. So, going with what feels right is not the best way to decide what to believe. If needless meant something else, then my apologies, I misunderstood. But that's the only meaning I can extract from that sentence. My point was pure semantic pedantry, to be honest. I think I did slightly misinterpret the original sentence, but my point was not that feelings tell us what is right, but what we believe. I actually happen to agree with you, but I maintain that "belief" is a word describing an emotional action while "acceptance" is perhaps a more rational action. Like I said, semantics.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 22, 2009 20:40:29 GMT -5
Damn, two pages, and nobody's mentioned this particular form of crack?! DO WANT.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 22, 2009 21:08:54 GMT -5
So I guess we shouldn't believe in our feelings? I am grieving right now because my dog which I have have had for 10 years just died. I guess you don't care about that though, do you? You should care about people's feelings. I'm sorry your dog died, but that has nothing to do with the current discussion. I never said I didn't care about feelings, just that they are a poor way of determining reality.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 22, 2009 21:43:12 GMT -5
What needless said was "The best way to decide to believe something is to see if it feels right to you." Not, "we believe things because they feel right". Our feelings aren't magical reality sensors, they can be and often are wrong. More often than our reasoning. So, going with what feels right is not the best way to decide what to believe. If needless meant something else, then my apologies, I misunderstood. But that's the only meaning I can extract from that sentence. So I guess we shouldn't believe in our feelings? I am grieving right now because my dog which I have have had for 10 years just died. I guess you don't care about that though, do you? You should care about people's feelings. You mourn your dog by trolling boards? Strange behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 22, 2009 22:12:23 GMT -5
So I guess we shouldn't believe in our feelings? I am grieving right now because my dog which I have have had for 10 years just died. I guess you don't care about that though, do you? You should care about people's feelings. You mourn your dog by trolling boards? Strange behaviour. Hey, let the kid mourn in his own way, man. We all have different ways of "dealing" with shit, and lashing out at others can, for some, be part of that. It doesn't excuse the behavior, but it helps us understand that it's not *personal*.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Apr 22, 2009 22:36:52 GMT -5
I would say around 22%. Give or take a few.
|
|