/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2272190
>ignosticists
do you mean "agnostics"?

>>2272190
Almost 100%

>>2272202
I actually don't know the proper word, but one who believes in ignosticism.

Wikipedia:
" 1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless."

What do you think about the following?

life is a meaningless heuristic distinction muddled with arbitrary determinism

I'm trying to attack the concept that a person should own their life.

I am a Transhumanist Agnostic Atheist.

>>2272220
How many people on /sci/ actually use those aforementioned beliefs to influence their decisions?

>>2272264
a respectable position

I believe that the self belongs to God, not to itself.

>>2272264
You have to pick one. You can't be both an agnostic and an atheist.

>>2272281
I was assuming he was trying to say that he didn't know, but believed there wasn't a god.

>>2272277
Do you believe there is a way that makes sense? like a soul? If so, then I simply am not looking for your opinion.

>>2272290
I know, but I feel the need to troll people who use bone around with the definitions of atheism and agnosticism.

>>2272281
Depends on how you define "agnostic" and "atheist".

But when they are paired like that, the meaning is pretty clear.

im a noncombatant

so, what inspires a belief in ownership if one's self?

>>2272323
self-propelled orgasm

>>2272328
so, it's masturbatory and comforting?

>>2272344

you tell me

Can one think of a better management of resources than that of capitalism?

How would a resource-based economy function without massivelylulztastic methods?

>>2272367
similar to capitalism, but ultimately the market isn't free, the government can do whatever it wants with the resources that we have

>>2272410
Needs more 'We the Smart People'

>>2272445
same problem as any other system, the people in power determine the parameters by which others are judged suitable for having power

>>2272491

what about coops?

or how about democratic judgment of how things should be regulated?


oh wait...

>>2272367
> Can one think of a better management of resources than that of capitalism?

Manage the resources to what end. You have to know what you are trying to achieve to know if resources are being well used.

Capitalism (the textbook kind anyway) is based on the idea that people are economically and emotionally rational. This is sometimes untrue. People sometimes do not know what they want nor what will make them happy. And if they do, they may not understand the best economic way to get what they want.

Capitalism does a poor job of things like protecting the environment.

>>2272587
What is a reasonable thing to call a priority? How would one shift to a system with such a priority?

How would we go from textbook capitalism to a system with priorities on things like ability for humans to live comfortably?