/jp/ - Otaku Culture

Like semen mostly

Some of them are canonically sweet

>>10872757
Yes, apparently you can eat Marisa's danmaku.

Salty coins.

Are they called danmaku in-universe? Are Sanae, Maribel, Renko, or Yukari aware of STGs?

The potential for meta is making my head hurt. Maybe Sakuya was being a smart aleck when she talked about making Reimu waste a bomb in EoSD.

>>10872738
It's a magical bullet that hurts a lot when it touches somebody, but isn't harmful and doesn't break things.

And you can eat Marisa's danmaku. Because she's cool like that.

>>10872860
>It's a magical bullet that hurts a lot when it touches somebody, but isn't harmful
Is this really canon?

>>10872815
Yeah they're called danmaku. I remember some video game references but not STG ones. I don't think they should be taken seriously. But it does make you wonder if Yukari got the spellcard idea from playing arcade games.

>>10872879

Yeah, it says so in Marisa's Grimoire. Apparently it hurts your soul, which translates to you being hurt without physical damage.

>>10872738
plasma

>>10872958
Also danmaku varies in gender, not every danmaku are magic bullets, some of them can be just common objects.

>>10872879
Where did you read that part? I can't remember it.

>>10872860
Let's keep in mind that it appearently can kill you if you don't bother dodging it like Moukou.

>>10875847
Probably they used deadly danmaku rules against Mokou since they went in there with the goal of killing her.

>>10875848
IN confirmed for most badass touhou game

It is just graphical simplification, because ZUN doesn't have resouces to create realistic spells. Just like any of roguelike games with ASCII-graphics.

>>10875847
>>10875848
Mokou blabs about her immortality when facing Reimu in IN. Reimu cheerfully responds that she doesn't need to hold back if her opponent can't die. So Reimu (and the other teams) are most likely using lethal magic during that fight, explaining why Mokou kerplodes between each spellcard.
Either that or Mokou has Stage 1 mid-boss tier stamina and can only keep up the fight because the Elixir rejuvenates her strength each time.

>>10872972

That explains the hitbox both ingame AND in lore, it might not hurt your body (much) but it does do damage keep in mind that Reimu threatened to burn of Reisens clothes

>>10875858
The first one then, because the Elixir just heals her from dying and being hurt, but she still feels the pain and the stress, that's why she gives up after dying a couple of times.
Like Piccolo from DB that can heal his body parts but can't heal his stamina and strenght drop from a fight.

>>10872972
>>It's a magical bullet that hurts a lot when it touches somebody, but isn't harmful
>Yeah, it says so in Marisa's Grimoire. Apparently it hurts your soul, which translates to you being hurt without physical damage.
Then how do you explain that some youkai violently explode when you defeat them? Is Orange alive?

>>10876201
Characters in HM also explode violently upon losing.
It's probally just a magical firework effect which is supposed to show that this person lost

>>10876216
Could be. I did not really expect ZUN to explain every gameplay element and special effect he has put in his games, including these explosions and the disappearing non-boss enemies that you shoot. But it is very-very nice of him to make it explicit that no one gets really hurt or mortally wounded. I wish all other developers were this nice to their characters.

>>10875871

There are the odd spell that isn't an actual Danmaku and can cause actual damage, these are specifically listed.

>>10876228

Nobody who isn't immortal ever dies in Touhou. All those fairies and Youkai? That just get re-born, that's fairies are so retarded, because they never needed brains to survive.

>>10876412
The only real way to kill youkai is to stop believing in them, in a way we are more succesful youkai exterminators than Reimu

>>10876423
This is just way too meta, dude!

>>10876423
but /jp/ has a very "firm" belief in youkai

>>10876423

Well yeah, but I meant in context of the game, none of them get killed.

>>10876511

It sounds stupid, but I believe in them just in case Gensokyo really is real.

>>10876511
I'd stick my "firm" belief in youkai.

>>10876513
I don't care if you're joking, but I actually believe in it too.

>>10876518

Life is more fun if you believe in little things, even you know them not to be true, YouTube Atheists be damned.

>>10876513
>>10876518
I think you need a childlike believe in magic to be on /jp/ in the first place.
Well, who knows?
Maybe magical beings has been hiding all this time and used all the media about them as a cover

>>10876527
Maybe my dick is really a rocketship that'll take me to Mars.

>>10876467
That's not meta, it's said a lot of times during the printed works.
Also we can say that Reimu "heals" the youkai by exterminating them.

>>10876513 >>10876518
I believe that infinite instances of all fictional worlds existed, exist, and will exist at some time-space coordinates in our (or some other) universe and some of these instances had, have, will have me (and some others you) in them.

>>10876523
If all gods are man-made, and we have a propensity for mystical thinking, what's wrong with making your own god? If your beliefs pull your strings, you should at least be able to make your own puppet-master, right?

>>10876548
So, somewhere out there, my dick is on Mars?
I truly believe!

>>10876549
>we have a propensity for mystical thinking
You and your mom?

>>10876548

Yeah, I suppose, just remember that if parallel Universes are real, then all the bad stuff is happening too, like Reiumu getting fucked by a load of black guys.

>>10876537
> it's said a lot of times during the printed works
Meta in meta is still meta, dude.

>>10876553
An atomically indistinguishable copy of your dick on the planet atomically indistinguishable from Mars, yes. Though it must decompose very quickly due to its harmful atmosphere.

>>10876562
Yes, that's why we should strive to minimize the bad things as much as possible at least in our own time and place, so that there would be a little less "bad" things happening in all times and places.

>>10876581
But there's an infinite number of universes, so there must be an infinite number of bad things happening.

Plus, just think, maybe in one of those universes you're one of the black guys pounding away at Reimu.

>>10876589
> But there's an infinite number of universes, so there must be an infinite number of bad things happening.
So what. You happen to exist in this particular "place", so do other people around you. Why should you care how many other "places" there are if you know there is a chance (even if it's next to zero) for other people to exist in your "place" and you can make their life better.

>>10876201
Orange even has a post-fight dialogue, very rare for 1st stage bosses.

>>10876513
>>10876518
Touhou is the biggest reason why I'll never be calling myself an atheist. I may not believe in YHWH or whatever it is that people keep being told to believe in, but magical girls are another matter entirely.

When I read about Dawkins' favorite argumentation against religion, I always snicker. I wish some of his followers approached me one of those times, just so I can proudly inform him that, yes, I do believe in fairies.

>>10876644

I believe in fairies, but believing God is just retarded.

It does actually make more sense, because little flying girls with abilities that we don't know about is less of a stretch imagination than Everything being an old fogey with a white dressing gown.

>>10876661
>I believe in fairies, but believing God is just retarded.

>>10876644
>I'll never be calling myself an atheist
I don't believe in the canonical God and soul (so I'm an atheist, I guess?) but I do believe in magic and fairies, even if they don't exist on Earth, and life after death and all nonsense like that. I think it's all quite easily explained and doesn't have to contradict to the modern scientific advances.

>>10876644
>I'll never be calling myself an atheist
I don't believe in the canonical God or soul as something separate from the physical body (so I'm an atheist, I guess?) but I do believe in magic and fairies, even if they don't exist on Earth, and life after death and all nonsense like that. I think it's all quite easily explained and doesn't have to contradict to the modern scientific advances.

>>10876644
>I'll never be calling myself an atheist
I don't believe in the canonical God or soul as something separate from the physical body (so I'm an atheist, I guess?) but I do believe in magic and fairies, even if they don't exist in this universe, and life after death and all nonsense like that. I think it's all quite easily explained and doesn't have to contradict to the modern scientific advances.

>>10876691
Wouln't that make you an agnostic or something?
Well, people say that's basicly the same and it's just a stupid label anyways so whatever

>>10876696

I believe your internet presence is the closest thing to a soul we have in the Universe. Is immaterial, immortal (provided the servers your footprint is saved on don't die), its your essence, the (thoughts and feelings that make you different from any other animal and not attached to your physical body, basically you in your purest form) and it can influence other people.

>>10876697
>Well, people say that's basicly the same and it's just a stupid label anyways so whatever
I think the mankind we will never be able to comprehend our universe, even if it gets (or already got) the right idea what it is, because there will never be a way to confidently test it without any possible false positives. So yes, I guess I'm an agnostic, though I don't care about these labels.

>>10876697
>Well, people say that's basicly the same and it's just a stupid label anyways so whatever
I think the we(the mankind) will never be able to comprehend our universe, even if we get (or already got) the right idea what it is, because there will never be a way to confidently test it without any possible false positives. So yes, I guess I'm an agnostic, though I don't care about these labels.

>>10876697
>Well, people say that's basicly the same and it's just a stupid label anyways so whatever
I think that we(the mankind) will never be able to comprehend our universe, even if we get (or already got) the right idea what it is, because there will never be a way to confidently test it without any possible false positives. So yes, I guess I'm an agnostic, though I don't care about these labels.

Good thread

>>10876667

I hate to sound like some cocksucking superedgy fedora-wearing enlightened redditor, but I find it a bit sad that you believe in fairies and all that stuff.

Science is great, with technology and computers some things almost seem magic, and this trend will keep accelerating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfs4Rd5f_IQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXvar-4M6VA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyOtIsnG71U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zoTKXXNQIU

>>10876782
What's the difference between since that is advanced beyond our comprehension and magic?

>>10876793
The degree of your stupidity.

If everything we imagine exists in some place or another (label that "Gesokyo" if you want to), and we imagine a girl, powerful enough to cross the boundary between that place and our world, then everything that keeps us from entering Gensokyo is stopping to think that this logic is impossible.

>>10876782

-Just because you believe in fairies you can't follow science and must live in complete ignorance of it

Hindus still agree computers, VR ect exist, they just also believe in things science doesn't say exist. Shit, most Japanese still follow small traditions like believing in charms and shit whilst simultaneously being good at science.

>>10876782
>Science is great, with technology and computers some things almost seem magic
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." The term "magic" I've seen in this thread was used mostly in the meaning of something we cannot comprehend.
> I hate to sound like some cocksucking superedgy fedora-wearing enlightened redditor
You do indeed, because instead of trying to comprehend what people are saying, stating your own opinion and arguing, you are throwing some shitty youtube links as if this will explain everything and render other peoples' opinions invalid.

>>10876818
I didn't imply that. I think it's pointless and irrational to believe in things that can't be proven by science, but that's just my opinion and I don't expect other people to think the same.

>>10876823
I just put those videos as examples of amazing scientific experiments, not to render other people's opinions invalid.

I think we will eventually understand how the universe fully works.

So where do the touhous purchase their Neuropozyne and experience points upgrade kits?
Yukari, correct? Since if you have spell cards you can shoot wave after wave of magic fireworks all over the screen

>>10876876
Reimu

>>10876859
> I think it's pointless and irrational to believe in things that can't be proven by science
But isn't science is all about grasping for the stars and trying to advance by making experiments about things which seemed irrational at first?

>>10876859
> I think it's pointless and irrational to believe in things that can't be proven by science
Can you give an example of something that cannot be proven by science, so that you don't believe it?
>>10876859
>I think we will eventually understand how the universe fully works.
My claim is that you may probably get it right, but you will never be fully certain. Suppose you found out the universal equation or whatever that explains everything in this universe. How can you prove it is 100% valid and will work just as god a year or (10^100 years) later?

>>10876782
>I find it a bit sad that you believe in fairies and all that stuff.

Let's put it that way: one day, science will create fairies for us. Real fairies, flying with their fragile transparent wings and doing various little magic tricks, because no law of physics prevents creatures like that from existing.

And then we'll rejoice, and you will feel really, really stupid.

>>10876554
As a race. "Magical thinking" is a well-documented tendency for humans to form irrational beliefs, often as a result of a post-hoc fallacy. Horoscopes, the idea of luck, omens and portents, belief in demons, spirits, etc are all examples of magical thinking.
Humans have invented gods and fey creatures no matter what society you choose to look at. As a race, this is a thing that we keep doing.

>>10876859
> I think it's pointless and irrational to believe in things that can't be proven by science
Science doesn't "prove", it observes and tries to generalize the observations by introducing or modifying physical laws. (I had edit my post now that >>10876887 pointed out this very weird claim of yours)
>>10876859
>I think we will eventually understand how the universe fully works.
My claim is that you may probably get it right, but you will never be fully certain. Suppose you found out the universal equation or whatever that explains everything in this universe. How can you prove it is 100% valid and will work just as god a year or (10^100 years) later?

>>10876901
>Real fairies, flying with their fragile transparent wings
I think they call those dragonflies.

>>10876902
That's called schizotypical personality disorder.
The more you know.

mythbusters
>>10876902
So what about tengu, then?

>>10876902
Magical thinking? That sounds extremely derogatory, and unfairly so. I'd call it a necessary and valuable skill of finding patterns in the wild chaotic universe unavoidably returning false positives.

>>10876911
I don't want to repeat the same arguments that have been said elsewhere on the internet over and over, so let's just stop derailing the thread.

>>10876911
Ah, the good old problem of induction+criterion for justification. Go stuff your childish desire for capital-K-Knowledge where it belongs.

>>10876918
No, fairies are not insects. Fairies are humamoid in shape.

>>10876901
There's a difference between believing in fairies as magical beings and thinking science will create them one day.

>>10876859
Ultimately, it's pointless and irrational to do anything that isn't self-sustainment and procreation. Yet we do.

If I'm already spending a significant portion of my life playing Touhou games and exploring its lore, I may as well believe in it actually existing. It changes literally nothing, especially since I'm not a pretentious kid who's going to feel worse about himself if he's not being 100% "rational".

>>10876930
>I don't want to repeat the same arguments that have been said elsewhere on the internet over and over, so let's just stop derailing the thread.
You are asking to stop because you have no answer to my critique, just as I knew. You are just one of those modern Internet kids worshipping Science like yet another almighty god without understanding its nature and limitations.

>>10876929
It returns a hell of a lot of false positives. And you only find it derogatory because you don't believe in magic, right?
I won't argue that jumping to conclusions and forming patterns quickly wasn't possibly of great benefit in our early evolutionary history - but I'd say that magical thinking, like the appendix or our neonatal gills, is just evolutionary baggage. Not all baggage weighs the same, though - magical thinking may have been necessary and valuable for the survival of the race then, but it's effects now are often quite far from having those qualities. Gods, demons, magic, monsters are hardly necessary to a belief system, and yet billions of people think these things are real. Not to mention the damage magical thinking has caused our society in terms of lives, knowledge and social welfare.

>>10876943
> fairies as magical beings and thinking science will create them one day
They will stop being magical beings if you can explain how you can create one, that's all. They don't need to be "different".

>>10876943
While I was collecting my thoughts to make a reply, >>10876978 nailed it. There difference is only there for you because only when science creates and explains them you will deem them worthy of existing.

>>10876201
Danmaku overloads the soul with energy, and when it cannot hold any more, it releases the excess in the form of that explosion, causing the target become mentally and spiritually exhausted.

>>10877018
>only when science creates and explains them you will deem them worthy of existing.
Only when science creates them will they exist, you mean. They don't now.

>>10877039
What you really mean is that you haven't seen one.

>>10877046
You've never seen a magical sky unicorn that farts rainbows and created the universe either. Doesn't mean you should be open to one existing.

>>10877054
There's a difference between being open to possibility and not holding a belief.

But yeah, the guy you're replying to is being an idiot.

>>10877039
> Only when science creates them will they exist, you mean. They don't now.
What happened earlier: the formation of the heliocentric planetary systems or people on Earth believing in it? What about the Big Bang (if it really happened)?
> science creates
By the way, you must mean people, not "science". "Science" is neither a god or a living being to create them.

>>10877054
Why not?
If people can believe in a god why should I not believe in this?
It's not much of difference.

Also you have to take stuff like fokslore into account.
I find it suspicious that there are many creatures in the folkslores of different countries which are so similar.

In a hypothetical universe where magic exists, magic would probably be distinguished from science in that it cannot be fully described by mathematical laws.

>>10877086
Science isn't concerned with beliefs. The Big Bang is a theory that has been tested and seems to be accurate, as far as we can determine. Nothing in that involves believing in anything unfoundedly.

People via the application of the scientific method, then. Pedantry instead of easy colloquialisms is fun!

>>10877092
You can believe in it, sure. Doesn't make you any less wrong, though.

>>10877054
You should always be open to things you haven't seen existing.

>>10877092
>I find it suspicious that there are many creatures in the folkslores of different countries which are so similar.
(I'm another anon and I'm not here for discussing whether touhous or mystical creatures exist on Earth or not.) But I think this argument is easily explained by people's migrations and similar physiology and psychology among all people worldwide which will make them come up with similar explanations for similar "magical" observations.

>>10877101
His belief is unfalsifiable. Some would consider that not wrong (or "not even wrong," as you might have it.)

>>10877100

But it can (or could).

>>10877104
I perhaps worded it wrongly. If evidence that holds up to scrutiny were presented that implies the existence of such a thing, then yeah, by all means say that it does. But until then, the default nature of things people make up is nonexistence, and it makes no sense to live one's life as if they do exist.

>>10877110
That's cool. I consider that useless.

>>10877119
>I consider that useless.
Your opinion has been noted.

>>10877120
Thanks.
Have fun with your magical sky unicorns, friend.

>>10877101
>Science isn't concerned with beliefs.
It is, although they are usually called "hypotheses" and, if proven on multiple occasions, "theories". I don't know if you're the one who I replied to, but I gave this comparison only to contradict to this ridiculous thought that unless humans make something using Science(tm), it can't exist.

>>10877128
I do love a unicorn from time to time.

>>10877131
>It is, although they are usually called "hypotheses" and, if proven on multiple occasions, "theories".

No, that's not what a scientific theory is. It has nothing to do with belief.

> A theory explains how nature works

That's it. No belief.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

>>10877101
>Science isn't concerned with beliefs.

Precisely. Science is only concerned with experiments and observations. I'd call them facts but then you'd misunderstand it as "things that are being true" instead of "things that were recorded".

Science is just a method of exploring the universe. It never tells you what's true or false, existing or unexisting. It only tells you what works, or, as you put it, what "seems to be accurate". Of course now you're going to say that just because I understand exactly what it is, I'm belittling it. Because a "rational" person needs to treat it like a gospel and a replacement for religion like you. Sorry, no, and I'm getting my own spiritual placebo elsewhere.

>>10877117
It probably could, since it obeys the rules of logic (unless you can conceive of a system that doesn't,) but it might not be so easy as boiling it down to a simple set of physical equations. You can probably create a mathematical theory of literature. Doesn't make it easy or useful.

>>10877145
> Theory:
> 6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence
Explanation = non-contradictory belief, a hypothesis. What do you understand as a belief, if you are disagreeing that a non-contradictory belief cannot be a hypothesis or explanation?

>> A theory explains how nature works
Yes, and this explanation is based on an experimentally justified hypotheses.

Also, from the page you are quoting:
> both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so.

By the way, is there any particular point you find wrong in my previous conclusions or do you just want to argue about terminology?

>>10877153

Maybe not, but Magic is a Human construct in fiction. No matter how hard we try, we subconsciously make things logical. If souls were found to exist, like they do in Gensokyo, then saying danmaku is from soul energy would be perfectly valid if you could prove there;s a link. Look at this way, magic is often untangable, and just "appears" from energy or some other bullshit right? Well, when you push something, you using the magnetic force down at the very lowest level. And can you explain or imagine magnetism? No, you can describe it with mathmatics, but there's no way for a Human to really imagine what it is, its just there, non-physical yet still able to influence things. That's magic. Magic these days just seems like another for something that doesn't exist in the real world.

>>10877198
It can obey logical principles without being scientific, in the sense that approaching things from a scientific perspective might not give you particularly useful results.

Also danmaku, to the best of our knowledge, is made from spirit (soul energy, I guess), which comes in orbs of five, and can be crushed, and so on.

>>10877119

Wow, you really a fedora wearing-robot faggot. His beliefs don't have to be useful you autist, the world doesn't revolve around being a Gay Liberal Atheist Scientist. Science is just a helpful we have to find things out. If you have a magnifying glass, and you look at a leaf, you don't just say that whatever you can't see through the magnifying glass is made up or useless.

I've always thought that I'm a class A spergnerd but I've never had any interest in arguing about definition of the scientific theory. Why do you guys do this? Did someone tell you to or is it a tradition in some parts of the world?

Please, tell us about your special interests and their applications.

>>10877221
>Please, tell us about your special interests and their applications.
I'm interested in arguing about dumb shit over the internet.

>>10877147
What the hell are you talking about? Stop putting words in my mouth, I don't treat science as anything like that in the slightest.

>>10877221
Because arguing about things you don't actually really care about is fun

>>10877235
You said people are wrong believing in things science hasn't described. Most of what I ascribe to you logically follows from this statement alone.

>>10877145
I deleted my previous post because I was wrong saying that a belief and a hypothesis are the same things. So I agree that my claim that a belief and a hypothesis are the same was invalid.
However, look at my initial post >>10877086 you disagreed with. As I already said, the post >>10877039 I replied to claims that things don't exist until people create them. I gave an example of things that existed before humans and it took humans a lot of time to believe in them and adjust their scientific world view by making appropriate theories. By saying they did not believe in them I implied that they did not have a scientific theory for them, either, so I looked at the word "did not believe" as a generalization of "did not believe and did not have a scientific theory". You decided to took the word "belive" out of context and nitpick and I did not notice it in my previous reply.

>>10877229
Get a woman. They like it.

>>10877263
You have no understanding of logic, apparently.

>>10877282
Tell that to my professors, maybe they'll revoke all my passing grades.

>>10877270
>the post >>10877039 I replied to claims that things don't exist until people create them.
No, it means that things that don't exist now (fairies and magical space unicorns) don't exist until people create them. I in no way implied that nothing existed until people created them, how in the world did you even think that I would ever say that? That's an atrocious statement.

>>10877291
this fuckin' guy

>>10877291

>>10877287
>No, it means that things that don't exist now (fairies and magical space unicorns) don't exist until people create them.
How can you prove that fairies have never ever existed in the universe and will never exist until Humans From Earth create them? Why couldn't they be artificially created by some other intelligent race many years before, or appear evolutionary?

>>10877307
There's no reason that's impossible, but what exactly is the point of operating under the assumption that on planet Micron V there's a magical clan of fairy maidens that shower animals in glitter? By all means, make stories of this happening, but it's foolishness to trick yourself into believing it's true.

>>10877320
Does there have to be a point? And if there has to, is making me feel better not good enough?

>planet Micron V

You mean Gensokyo. Let's stay on-topic, okay?

>>10877335
If being delusional makes you feel better, then I suppose ignorance is indeed bliss. I can't really argue against that, so sure.
>You mean Gensokyo. Let's stay on-topic, okay?
Same shit different letters.

>>10877341
>ignorance

See, this is where you're wrong.

>>10877341

You've deluded yourself into believing science is a worth while endeavour. Sure, it gives you knowledge, which makes you live longer, but so what. That's not the point or reason for us being here, there is none. If you were truly rational, you do what you're to do, which is nothing and kill yourself.

>>10877320
>it's foolishness to trick yourself into believing it's true.
Doesn't matter if you call it foolish or not, your bold claim that only humans can make fairies is invalid unless you can prove it. I also think that humans are the first ones interested in making Touhou fairies real, but you can't just claim this is an only way.

By the way, to my knowledge science has no evidence that there is nothing outside of the things produced by the big bang. If the Universe is boundless, fairies more than certainly exist somewhere as the result of a random fluctuation.

>>10877352
Science has no evidence that YHWH doesn't exist, either.

>>10876548
Bah that can't possibly work. Think about it. If there are an infinite number of parallel universes, that means that there are an infinite number of possibilities. Thus, there are an infinite number of universes where people have found a way to destroy parallel universes, and an infinite number of them where they used it on us.

However, we're still there. Our being alive proves the infinite parallel universes theory wrong.

>>10877360
Which doesn't stop people like you from claiming they know that it doesn't.

>>10877360
>no evidence that YHWH doesn't exist
Neither that our universe is not simulated. I actually think it is quite possible, as well as that we can simulate other non-trivial universes with different physical laws and be "gods" in them with sufficient computing power.

>>10877362
Our being alive only proves it was some parallel universe that got destroyed.

>>10877363
I said stop putting words in my mouth, idiot.

>>10877369
So you don't claim to know that YHWH doesn't exist. How about fairies?

>>10877362
Unless there are an infinite number of universes that countered that destruction. But then there are an infinite number that countered this counter, and that countered this counter of the counter, and so on.

>>10877377
It's not possible to prove that they don't exist, no.

>>10877380
Next question: Does it matter to you whether they exist or not?

>>10877362
>there are an infinite number of universes where people have found a way to destroy parallel universes
Provided that "universes" are connected and you can destroy other universe. I really don't think you can contradict with this claim with simple logical reasoning without going into deep specifics about how this parallel universe business works.

>>10877347
Not him, but science, like anything else, is a worthwhile endeavour if you think it is. I think by "worthwhile endeavour" you meant what Nietzsche considered gods/idols, any third-party ulterior cause that gives meaning to life: God, Science, the Socialist Revolution.

>That's not the point or reason for us being here, there is none. If you were truly rational, you do what you're to do, which is nothing and kill yourself.
I disagree. There is no point or reason for us being here, but we can elevate ourselves and create our own values from the vacuum of nihilism, thus giving our own meaning to our life.

>>10877402

And he wants to believe in faeries. That's the meaning he's ascribed to his life, just like Mr. Fedora over there has ascribed science to his. I'm arguing that he's deluded, just like we all are.

>>10877402
>third-party ulterior cause
Gensokyo! Gensokyo! Gensokyo!

>>10872738

It's just a force that is driven by the mighty underground semen. If any touhou rubs it's skin on Gensokyo's grass, it'll obtain the power of danmaku and it'll be able to shoot. The skin is sticky after the rubbing though.

>>10877409
I would remind you once again to stop putting words in my mouth, but it seems you lack the honesty or integrity, or perhaps even the capacity to do so.

>>10877409
I doubt the entire point of that guy's life is believing in fairies. And even if it were, it can be criticized.

>>10877409
But to what effect? All the values are not equal. Some elevate yourself, the society, civilization, or the vast pool of human knowledge ; other makes you miserable, pertains to your mediocrity, slows you down, causes you to post in 4chan.

Here, in the vast blackness of the utterly horrible world we live in, it's sometimes difficult to understand that there is things worth believing for.

>>10877360
I take exception to this. Treat religious beliefs like any other hypothesis, and you'll find yourself able to disprove a great many gods.

>>10877429
>it can be criticized
On what grounds? Epistemic or ethical?

>>10877434
>things worth believing for

Fairies.

>>10877438
Many gods, yes. Not the modern omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent interpretation of YHWH, though.

>>10877450
Both. The thought process can be incorrect or start from false premises.

>>10877463
Unless you're trying to posit an objective good or morality, you shouldn't try to claim his worldview is open to ethical criticisms.
As far as the epistemic justification for his worldview, he can simply claim indifference to reality and neatly side-step any requirements you wish to foist on him in order to prove his beliefs. You could go ahead and argue how wrong he is, but like a pigeon playing chess...

>>10877460
Oh, I'm sorry. I must have missed the memo that let every religious person know that they need to stop believing in any gods that can or have effected reality. I'm glad there aren't people who worship a god they think can answer prayers or punish the wicked or perform miracles. Nope! None of those exist any more!

>>10877484
> epistemic justification
> but like a pigeon playing chess...
Obfuscated dictionary and unnecessary metaphors, the sure sign of shallow and questionable claims.

>>10877496
picking at style over substance, the mark of a guy whose main goal in a conversation is to be as much of an insufferable douche as is possible

>>10877505
>picking at style over substance
Picking is reasonable, though, if the former interferes with the latter.

/jp/ - ESL exam training

>>10877496
>Obfuscated dictionary
Unless I only used terms common to philosophy and you're trying to tell me I'm trying to confuse you because I'm using big words. Which I think is what is happening here.
>unnecessary metaphors
I'm saying (1) he won't care he's wrong, and (2) you'll waste your time arguing with him, you under-exposed fuckwit. Sort of like how (1) you don't care that you have no actual response to anything I said besides a vague implication that my claims are questionable, and (2) I'm starting to feel I'm wasting my time talking with you.

Step up your game, or I'll start to think you're trolling me on purpose by pretending to be stupid.

>>10877484
I'm not really sure how you being angry at people believing in gods addresses its undisprovability.

>>10877529
> you're trying to tell me I'm trying to confuse you because I'm using big words. Which I think is what is happening here.
Yes, there is no real need for using these specialized terms in a general discussion like this one. I'm having a feeling you are obfuscating your speech to limit the amount of criticism and look like a smart guy. If anything, use the terminology from the scientific theory, as it is much more appropriate here.
>you'll waste your time arguing with him, you under-exposed fuckwit
I'm not even not him, you delusional dickhead. Stop swearing, by the way.

>>10877484
Actually, scratch my previous post, as will I in a moment. Behind the emphatic language, there's a simple mistaken belief that a god that can intervene and affect reality is inherently disprovable. Unfortunately, it's not, unless you're willing to claim to know the exact cause of everything that happens in the universe (and it's possible to construct ones that would be defensible even then). Only those that claim to know in exact detail how their god will react to prayers can have their belief disproven that way, but as far as I know, no religion actually does that.

>>10877542
Aaand now I know you can't follow an argument. For those following along at home, the discussion has run thus:

CLAIM:
>Science has no evidence that YHWH doesn't exist, either.
I'm going to go ahead and assume this takes into account the fact that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence (except when it is).

OBJECTION:
>I take exception to this. Treat religious beliefs like any other hypothesis, and you'll find yourself able to disprove a great many gods.
Note the "great many". The implicit statement here is that there are some gods whose existence or nonexistence cannot be verified.

RESPONSE:
>Many gods, yes. Not the modern omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent interpretation of YHWH, though.
This is what is known as "Moving the Goalposts". It's not enough to point out that gods can be disproved, he now tries to shove the burden of disproving this "modern YHWH".

REFUTATION OF LEGITIMACY OF RESPONSE (sans sarcasm):
>Nobody believes in that god. People believe in gods that do things.
What I should have said was:
>The potential existence of a single god
(which nobody believes in) has no impact on the falsifiability of other deities which are supposed to do things.

RESPONSE:
>I'm not really sure how you being angry at people believing in gods addresses its undisprovability.
Which I cannot even parse into this discussion at all.

>>10877581
>Yes, there is no real need for using these specialized terms in a general discussion like this one.
Right, because metaphysics and the verifiability of claims definitely isn't within the domain of philosophy, which has developed a vocabulary to deal with this "general discussion".
>delusional dickhead. Stop swearing
No.
>I'm not even him!
Don't care. Everything I said still makes sense when applied to a person besides the one I was initially responding to.

>>10877617
>Only those that claim to know in exact detail how their god will react to prayers can have their belief disproven that way
I disagree. All you need to show is that sustained prayer has effects indistinguishable from a similarly administered placebo. If you ask people who believe that prayer works if hospital patients who are prayed for will do better, and they respond "yes", then you have a testable hypothesis.
Get some Christians and some grad students (who will do anything for money). Let the grad students promise to random patients that they'll pray for them. Half of these will be the control group who either don't believe, or do believe - but won't pray.
Then introduce the people who actually will pray to some other random patients. This is group 1.
Finally, introduce a third group of random patients to a group of grad students who don't claim to believe in the power of prayer, but will pray anyway.

This should prove sufficient to show that prayer is as effective as not praying, regardless of the beliefs of those doing the praying (a pesky additional constraint that often gets tacked on).

So on a side note youkais could canonically rape the whole planet if they want but they don't because gensokyo is such a sweet place for chillin' with da crew and because it doesn't stop them from hunting and eating humans outside and on another side note danmakus only tickle a bit.

So my question here is, do they really suck that much or do all the youkais restrain their powers and make weak somewhat comestible attacks called danmakus in general on purpose while they could Kamehameha each other to death if they really wanted to?

>>10877613
Okay, and now for what actually happened:

1. "Science has no evidence that YHWH doesn't exist, either."

2. "(...) you'll find yourself able to disprove a great many gods"

3. This is me chiming in and pointing out his point was about YHWH specifically (and that YHWH should be defined as it is currently understood, so no pulling some prehistoric view of a local Jewish deity that no-one actually believes in anymore).

4. Your post about something else whatsoever.

>>10877690
And none of this actually addresses the existence of the god itself. Once again: I've never heard anyone claim that prayers will certainly be answered, much less in a specific way.

>>10877694
>youkais could canonically rape the whole planet

Add "Akyuu speculates that" before that sentence and you have a true statement.

>>10877738

Yokais are undeniably dangerous though but how can they be if their main attack couldn't even kill a mere human ? That doesn't make sense at all especially in regards of all the shit that happens with the lunarian.

>>10877728
>3. This is me chiming in and pointing out his point was about YHWH specifically (and that YHWH should be defined as it is currently understood, so no pulling some prehistoric view of a local Jewish deity that no-one actually believes in anymore).
Wait, are you actually saying people don't believe in gods that perform miracles - divine intervention and retribution? Because my post (4.) won't make any sense if you assume that I don't live in the bible belt and personally know people who would disagree with that.

I'm saying people DO believe in gods that perform miracles, and the fact that there is some hypothetical god that doesn't follow their expectations of getting shit done has no impact on my argument that these gods who get shit done - gods that people believe in - can be disproved.

>>10877728
>And none of this actually addresses the existence of the god itself. Once again: I've never heard anyone claim that prayers will certainly be answered, much less in a specific way.
I disagree. People think their god can make sick people healthy at a higher rate when they pray for him to do so. We can show that neither prayer nor belief in this deity are any different than a placebo. This would be strong evidence against their belief that their god answers prayers, and therefore, against the existance of their god.

>>10877636
> Right, because metaphysics and the verifiability of claims definitely isn't within the domain of philosophy, which has developed a vocabulary to deal with this "general discussion".
Okay, I admit it falls within the boundaries of philosophy. But there was still no real need or reason to use them in the context of your post and I still say this is unnecessary obfuscation used for your advantage.
> Everything I said still makes sense when applied to a person besides the one I was initially responding to.
Even if I don't share his views, you insufferable twat?

Please stop talking about God, we've got real things to answer instead like :

>>10877694 or >>10877765 .

>>10877798
>This would be strong evidence against their belief that their god answers prayers, and therefore, against the existance of their god.
Not all people believe in that. Maybe God is waiting for the judgement day and our life is a trial, maybe God does not even notices the humanity, yet exists. You will have evidence against a god that answers to your whim, but you won't have evidence against a god that doesn't do so.

>>10877784
No, I'm saying that people don't believe in gods that act like a vending machine - put 50 prayers in, push button, receive the exact miracle you asked for. (And if some do, they stop the first time their prayers don't get answered, which is usually pretty fast.) They're usually imagining a supreme being who, in his infinite wisdom, watches over them and helps them in a way that they can't truly comprehend, but he must be there and know better. It's inherently unfalsifiable and I wouldn't even bother trying.

>>10877803
>still mad over "epistemic justification"
I didn't realize using that phrase would give me a huge advantage in this discussion (sarcasm). I sort of assumed that since we were arguing over epistemological shit that people would know what those words meant.
Epistemic justification simply referred to >>10877463's, "The thought process [...] premises."
But it also includes the idea of a sufficiently high degree of justification for a belief in general (and avoiding a Gettier situation). But what it really comes down to is that I think the meaning of the phrase was obvious from the context.

>Even if I don't share his views, you insufferable twat?
Uh, yes. That's exactly what I meant. Everything in that post was directed at whoever the responder was. Even if I assumed it was another person, I don't think there's anything in there that implies or relies on the assumption that you're another poster for it to make sense.

>>10877824
>Not all people believe in that.
But some do, and that's my point. For gods that interact with nature, we can for the most part design experiments to disprove them. I was not at all making the case that such an experiment would immediately invalidate belief in all gods everywhere.

>>10877827
>I'm saying that people don't believe in gods that act like a vending machine
No, it's more like a slot machine.

>They're usually imagining a supreme being who, in his infinite wisdom, watches over them and helps them in a way that they can't truly comprehend, but he must be there and know better.
If this was true, then fewer people would pray for their god to do things.

>It's inherently unfalsifiable and I wouldn't even bother trying.
Correction: gods which don't interact with nature in an observable way are unfalsifiable. You seem to think most people who believe in gods believe in this sort of god, and I disagree. They may say their god works in mysterious ways, but will not deny that their god works. And if a god does work, we should be able to detect the ways in which he does, even if we can't comprehend its motivations or level of intelligence or interest in humanity.

>>10877863
> I didn't realize using that phrase would give me a huge advantage in this discussion (sarcasm).
On a multinational board, using specialised terms may give you an advantage, believe it or not, and should be avoided if possible.
>Even if I assumed it was another person
... this would make no sense to me, because you were trying to paraphrase your early claim directed at someone else. Your response was devoid of context and meaningless to me.

>>10877905
>But some do, and that's my point. For gods that interact with nature, we can for the most part design experiments to disprove them.
Keep in mind that religion has taken the scientific approach recently and adjusts its claims as new "experiments" confirm or disconfirm certain hypotheses, like the moment when they adjusted Christianity to the Big Bang. So you won't be able to invalidate all modern religions this simply, unless it's some small group of fanatics that cannot be argued with.

>>10877905
>They may say their god works in mysterious ways, but will not deny that their god works.

But with a god that works in mysterious ways, it's simply impossible to construct an experiment demonstrating his actions. That's all. You don't know what it'll do, so you don't even know what to look for.

>And if a god does work, we should be able to detect the ways in which he does

I don't really see how you'd wish to detect him, especially if he's truly omnipotent and, all else aside, can just make his actions undetectable if he wishes to do so.

>>10877917
Okay, I'm dropping the "epistemic justification" morass, because you're right.

>>Even if I assumed it was another person this would make no sense to me,
>because you were trying to paraphrase your early claim directed at someone else.
>Your response was devoid of context and meaningless to me.
How fortunate the offending post wasn't directed towards you, then. Since it is clearly lacking the context which is... the posts clearly laid out and made obvious by the chain of comment links, wherin no post had more than one response (until now), making it clear the exchange of ideas taking place?

For your convenience:
>>10877429 I doubt the entire point of that guy's life is believing in fairies. And even if it were, it can be criticized.
>>10877450 On what grounds? Epistemic or ethical?
>>10877463 Both. The thought process can be incorrect or start from false premises.
>>10877484 Unless you're trying to posit an objective good or morality, you shouldn't try to claim his worldview is open to ethical criticisms. As far as the epistemic justification for his worldview, he can simply claim indifference to reality and neatly side-step any requirements you wish to foist on him in order to prove his beliefs. You could go ahead and argue how wrong he is, but like a pigeon playing chess...
>>10877496 Obfuscated dictionary and unnecessary metaphors, the sure sign of shallow and questionable claims.
>>10877529 I'm saying (1) he won't care he's wrong, and (2) you'll waste your time arguing with him, you under-exposed fuckwit. Sort of like how (1) you don't care that you have no actual response to anything I said besides a vague implication that my claims are questionable, and (2) I'm starting to feel I'm wasting my time talking with you.

Now that you've been brought up to speed, does this make more sense in the context you didn't bother examining, but somehow assumed was necessary for understanding the post in question?

>>10877936
In that case, by invoking the "god of the gaps", they've inadvertently made themselves open to the most obvious of rebuttals (why believe in a god who keeps dying to progress?).

>>10877976
If a god's actions are impossible to interpret as being anything but nature functioning as normal, how does one justify positing belief in such a god in the first place?

>>10876644
>Orange even has a post-fight dialogue, very rare for 1st stage bosses.
It does? Why do people keep saying she is dead, poor Orange?

How can yokais be dangerous to human if danmaku can't kill or even hurt physically ?

I guess it has to do with the fact most if not every fights are mock up fights and that they could throw final flashes everywhere if they wanted to but do we have any sources on that ?

>>10878068
Maybe the youkai can kill humans without using danmaku. Like, with their hands and claws and fangs and poison and bad luck and so on. You know, the way the youkai plagued humans in traditional japanese myth?

>>10878051
Because in Reimu's route, the exchange goes:

>I don't want to die yet~. (sweat)

>You should give up. This is your fate.

Go figure.

>>10878044
>how does one justify positing belief in such a god in the first place?

First of all, you're now shifting the burden of proof, in a discussion that was, by this point, specifically and exclusively about proof of god's inexistence.

Second of all, belief does not need to and is not required to be justified.

To cut the whole discussion short: all you're going to achieve by applying science to the concept of god is proving that science does not need it. This only affects your belief system if you base it exclusively on science.

>>10878138
> "justification"
I was asking why posit the god, not justification for the belief, but for the necessity of the god - even within the belief system that assumes the god's existence the deity is extraneous.

>First of all, you're now shifting the burden of proof, in a discussion that was, by this point, specifically and exclusively about proof of god's inexistence.
I disagree. I was responding to this particular breed of god which is not falsifiable. The point was that because the god is not necessary for the rest of the belief system to remain intact, and the god itself is similarly not even remotely justified by evidence, we can dismiss these sorts of claims out of hand. Unless somebody says something about being the idea of a god being justified some other way - like revelation or logical necessity - which hasn't been mentioned at all.

> Second of all, belief does not need to and is not required to be justified.
Ah, here we go. But, in your own words a "discussion that was, by this point, specifically and exclusively about proof of god's inexistence" would necessarily require some sort of justification, right? No, according to your next point:
> To cut the whole discussion short: all you're going to achieve by applying science to the concept of god is proving that science does not need it. This only affects your belief system if you base it exclusively on science.

Which brings us RIGHT ROUND BABY RIGHT ROUND to >>10876523 and >>10876902 and subsequent posts which spawned this whole discussion of god being an example of magical thinking based false positive. Congratulations, you've brought this discussion to a nice close.

it's finger lickin good

>>10878098

I've always imagined danmaku fight are to real battle what fancy fencing was to real battle in the 17th and 18th century. It is artistic, traditional and with a lot of rules and you may be hurt or even killed but it is unlikely while in real battle you basically charge with bayonets into heavy shrapnels fire. The same is probably true about yokais fighting capabilities, if I remember well the former Miko had to crush them with her bare fists so they probably counted on physical prowess mainly, they could probably also use their inner capability (like being a crow fused with a fusion reactor of doom or even being death incarnate) and why not a few beams of energy but not mainly like it is now the case.

I also hardly doubt a master spark thrown at you with the intention to kill you would only "hurt" and not disintegrate you and your surroundings. Picture related that's why I'd expect from a "real" danmaku aimed at you by someone strong like Yukaa with the intent of killing you and not just dueling.

>>10878193
>I was asking why posit the god

Which changes a perfectly clear and specific topic all the same.

And long story short, you're demanding of religion to employ scientific reasoning in shaping its belief system. Unsurprisingly, it does not and will continue not to.

>Which brings us RIGHT ROUND BABY RIGHT ROUND to >>10876523 and >>10876902 and subsequent posts which

...were not disputed by anybody and never a part of the actual discussion. What's your point?

Bump