Jump to content

Mr. Shiver

VIP
  • Content Count

    279
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mr. Shiver

  1. University is all about being able to work within the paradox of always being open to new ideas and opinions (and you WILL encounter them, whether you like it or not) while being as determined as possible to stick to your goals without letting yourself get side-tracked. If you can find an area of study that you really enjoy, do well in, and are passionate about (and you still have time to decide--I was a science kid throughout IB, now I'm specializing in literature and philosophy) then it'll be much easier to balance both. My advice on that matter is don't worry if your program of interest doesn't seem to give you an immediate financial payoff--if you've performed well enough academically in undergrad, many different doors are open to you in professional or graduate school which will give you the technical competence you'll need.
  2. Yeah, this is all really amusing for me. Have you looked at our Ontario conversions? They're ridiculously generous. Don't bother with the campaign in Ontario, I'd say. It'll only make us look bad.
  3. I got an A in my EE. And both the transfer credits I needed for uni. That's all I care about. :]
  4. We can't be sure of the extent of the cutting he has in mind, though. They could be relatively minor and unnoticeable...after all, it's only supposed to be role-playing, right? If it's more extreme than that, then I agree he must have some other worrisome issues.
  5. Wow, I haven't replied on here in so long. That freaks me out and I think this guy might have a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. No, I think I understand where he's coming from. Although I wouldn't take it to the extent that he does, I'm a bit of a masochist myself and totally think that giving someone power over you like that can be an extreme turn-on. But it's a much more emotional kind...not for everyone...
  6. Yeah, they were definitely doing an experiment on us. It's kind of scandalous, actually.
  7. There's this cool site which I came across the other day called wikipremed. It probably won't be very helpful on its own, but it had practice questions and stuff which might come in handy as you're preparing: http://wikipremed.com/question_server.php?...;game_number=89
  8. I don't know if that was directed to me, but when I said meaningless I meant having no relation to reality.
  9. Well, the burden of proof does rest on the theists in a debate between theists and non-theists over God's existence. As far as I know, there is no "natural state". Hence what I said earlier: In other words, atheists have the benefit of not being able to give proof for their assertion in the same way that theists could, empirically speaking. Rationally speaking neither party is able to prove their case, because even if an argument is completely valid (see Anselm's ontological argument), it could still be meaningless. I personally think certainty or anything close to it is impossible here, but that atheism, epistemologically speaking, is a more consistent position to take than theism (and therefore perhaps more attractive to intellectuals). I'm agnostic though.
  10. I would argue with reasonable confidence that the design of the education system has little or nothing to do with it. The nature of secular education is more of a factor, I think. If people find themselves moving away from dogma, it's because they have determined those beliefs to be incompatible with the realities that they've discovered through various subjects and paradigms of learning. Take biology, for example. The education system doesn't tell you that when you die you cease to exist. Atheists have made that connection on their own when they realize that the matter comprising their bodies (including their brains and perhaps therefore their "souls") cycles through the ecosystem right here on planet Earth, giving new life to other organisms in place of their own. The idea of an immaterial spirit also begins to seem less likely to them when they consider the possibility that, biologically, humans are no different from other living organisms in terms of what constitutes being alive or dead. As another example, someone who studies history could be far less inclined to believe that the development of religions lies in divine revelation rather than sheer human ingenuity. These are just generalizations, of course. People can make it through the education system completely unchanged in their beliefs. But doing so requires a willful ignorance of the implications of your learning. And that's where I think the use of the word "intellectuals" is more appropriate to describe the phenomenon we're talking about here.
  11. Well, no. Because while language is the source of all meaning, perception is the source of all experience, reason the source of all understanding, and emotion the source of all intuition. So they all kind of work together to give us knowledge. But I mean, I'm just giving a rough approximation, so take that framing of terminology with a grain of salt. The point is that they're not discrete (which is what IB tends to make us believe with the categorization), but rather intertwined.
  12. Everything we know is through language, dude. It's a way of knowing because language is the source of all meaning. You can see something, or feel an emotion, or rationalize something in your head, but by definition it's not knowledge until it can be recognized--which is what language allows us to do.
  13. Nah, I think 1-2-3's got it right. Most psychological experiments don't tell me anything I couldn't have already intuitively understood. I often think they're wasting their time, but I guess even obvious things need to be proved sometimes.
  14. Oh, in other words he's saying that about a fifth of the Qur'an is not remotely clear. That could mean variously that it's ambiguous, ambivalent, and/or self-contradictory, among other things. Or that the style of language used seems to come from sources other than traditionally believed. Oh hey Shark, I only just noticed your post. I was in a rush when I replied this morning, haha. It's gotten better over the months, I think. Our Valentine's issue was pretty good too. The thing is, though, my best friend in Chicago does most of the editing and administration on her own, and it's been taking a toll on her. So I would suggest that if you want to write something, you should consider doing it sooner than later because the April/May issue might be the last one for a while.
  15. So my best friend started an online magazine sometime last year and we've been trying to promote it for a while now. It's called "Word!" and it's sort of like an avenue for young opinions. I have a feeling some of you here would find the zine of great interest. The most recent March issue is our best one yet. It has articles on abortion, tween sexualization by the media, and democracy, among other things. If you have the time, I'd also love for you to check out my article on Islamic history revisionism, I'm really proud of it. Feel free to write something for us! http://wordwebzine.com/ Discuss.
  16. Yeah, get the Cambridge one. It explains things really well.
  17. Notice how atheists call it a lack of belief, whereas non-atheists call it denial. Who gets to decide on the actual definition? Now there's something to think about.
  18. Permit me to defend Jake (SharkSpider) for a minute here. By "fundamentalist atheism", I think he's referring to a branch of atheists who no longer adopt their position because of a lack of evidence for the existence of God (upon which the burden of proof still lies, last I checked) but because they take the nonexistence of God to be the de facto truth, thus becoming no less dogmatic than the organized religion to which they vehemently object. Even though I think he's also a bit dogmatic with his rationalism, all he's really doing is trying to liberate science from the God question, and understandably so. And like it or not you can't really blame him for being logical about it (unless you're a postmodernist or something, because I guess they actually do have a bone to pick with logic).
  19. I believe the context of the person's question had to do with averaging, in which case I'm correct. But it's true that .5s can't be given on individual assessments.
  20. Sorry for the late response, but it gets rounded up.
  21. I applied for ArtSci at Mac. Saw the one at McGill but I didn't really get around to properly exploring it. I'd love to know more about it through here.
  22. Effect/affect is pretty annoying, yeah.
  23. That can't be right. If that's the case, your school has some serious teaching issues.
  24. I haven't posted anything in this thread for the last few pages. But I do feel compelled to point out one thing. If one were truly serious about learning, understanding, and analyzing the aspects that govern human behaviour and influence human thought and perspective, and truly appreciating the the role these aspects play in shaping our conception of God, discussion about the existence of God on an objective level would seem like a completely futile endeavour other than for pragmatic implications. And I have encountered no compelling arguments to suggest that this isn't the case. So if social usefulness is the only real outcome of this whole debate, then what makes theorization about God's existence, in its crudest form, anything other than ever-more-refined mythology? Keep in mind that we humans are probably the only creatures on Earth that have consciously questioned our own existence. That alone should indicate that we're pretty darn arrogant for even trying. But if the perspectives we have on the matter are themselves subject to the factors influencing our existence, then the amount of superiority we take for granted when we assume we can talk about God objectively really is, in my opinion, absurd. There is, of course, practical value in trying. But humility is of the essence. In fact, I find the most internally consistent approach is to not even make the attempt. I'd rather put my efforts into understanding, among other things, how limited by our nature and experience we really are.
×
×
  • Create New...