| 22 Feb 2008 05:59 pm |
Regular Rep: 2  Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Posts: 224 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
No it wouldn’t, learn the difference between neutral and positive. Fuck...
Well, that was hardly a rational argument. :/
In the end, it is as I said. You will reach a philosophical stalemate. You cannot prove your own existence. Using yourself as an anchor point to your reality, you can only believe you exist. Or not.
 Last edited 22 Feb 2008 06:00 pm by Acrosurge | | | | 22 Feb 2008 06:00 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25 Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,034 OFFLINE | ChibiDiscoDhaos wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
ChibiDiscoDhaos wrote:
Acrosurge wrote:
ChibiDiscoDhaos wrote:
I meant, anime character esists in reality, as in real life, like you can actually meet them. The reason I did that is because I wanted to make a ridiculous belief that someone would have to make exceptions to.
My belief in Divine Bovines creating the Earth IS NOT ridiculous! I have a theory and evidence!
*sulks in the corner*
I was not getting at that, I was just getting at what Matt said, beliefs can’t be nuetral because if they were, It would be just as respectible to say, Michael Jackson created the universe with his moon walk dance, this would be on the same level with one that actually had evidence.
No it wouldn’t, learn the difference between neutral and positive. Fuck...
But that belief could not be proven right nor wrong right? Based on your nuetral thing.
Yeah but beliefs still don’t begin right, that would just be stupid. Same with starting wrong. They start off as neither until someone proves or disproves them, not that they cannot be right or wrong.
 | | | 22 Feb 2008 06:02 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,034 OFFLINE | Acrosurge wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
No it wouldn’t, learn the difference between neutral and positive. Fuck...
Well, that was hardly a rational argument. :/
In the end, it is as I said. You will reach a philosophical stalemate. You cannot prove your own existence. Using yourself as an anchor point to your reality, you can only believe you exist. Or not.
That’s why I was saying to start on a neutral, because if we did start on a negative we wouldn’t exist. The idea that we exist has not been proven or disproven.
| | | 22 Feb 2008 06:03 pm |
Thanatos, God of Death Rep: 63 Joined: 31 Jan 2008 Posts: 14,451 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
ChibiDiscoDhaos wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
ChibiDiscoDhaos wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
No, beliefs don’t start on a negative. May I remind you none of you could prove your own existance when I asked you to?
Need I remind you you can’t prove we can’t prove are own existance?
Does that matter? That’s all the more reason for my beliefs shouldn’t start on a negative now isn’t it? Or else I guess you’re all not real. But when it comes to other things they somehow have special laws governing them for no reason? Fuck off.
Someones angry. Wow. So every belief deserves equal credibility. Okay so my belief that Michael Jackson created all life in the universe is just as credible as the Quran then? Or science?
I didn’t say they all deserved equal credibility. And by the way, this statement is talking to people who are saying things like “Muslims are evil” or “Jews are thieves” or “Atheists are Satanists”, it’s not saying “Hey, you’re all right." It’s saying “Can’t you just fuck off and leave us alone unless you want to be treated the same way?“
Okay I get you now. You should probably edit that to say stereotyping then because I misunderstood you. I thought you meant every belief(Like Islamic,Christian,Atheist,etc.) should all stand at the same level.
 | | | 22 Feb 2008 06:05 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,034 OFFLINE | Okay I just have now can you please get rid of your commando baby picture? ---
| | | 22 Feb 2008 06:06 pm |
Thanatos, God of Death Rep: 63Joined: 31 Jan 2008 Posts: 14,451 OFFLINE | Why? ---
| | | 22 Feb 2008 06:09 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,034 OFFLINE | It’s just, ridiculous. I hate things like lolcat and shit like that, it’s so ridiculous and that the fact that something is a baby or small animal doesn’t make it funny. Very annoying. What’s so great about babies anyway? I know they need to be taken care of but they’re not cute because they cry all the time and piss/shit/vomit on everything, including on you. ---
Last edited 22 Feb 2008 06:14 pm by Sean of the Living | | | 22 Feb 2008 06:15 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,034 OFFLINE | Oh nvm, you can keep it that way. I shouldn’t have asked you to change your sig. ---
| | | 22 Feb 2008 06:15 pm |
Thanatos, God of Death Rep: 63Joined: 31 Jan 2008 Posts: 14,451 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
It’s just, ridiculous. I hate things like lolcat and shit like that, it’s so ridiculous and that the fact that something is a baby or small animal doesn’t make it funny. Very annoying. What’s so great about babies anyway? I know they need to be taken care of but they’re not cute because they cry all the time and piss/shit/vomit on everything, including on you.
Happy now? And it’s alright I don’t mind changing my sig.
Last edited 22 Feb 2008 06:15 pm by ChibiDiscoDhaos | | | 22 Feb 2008 06:15 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,034 OFFLINE | (nvm) ---
Last edited 22 Feb 2008 06:16 pm by Sean of the Living | | | 25 Feb 2008 10:55 pm |
Addict (beyond 1337) Rep: 55 Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 5,017 OFFLINE | Gplex wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
1) Beliefs don’t start on a negative, they start on a neutral. If they started on a negative noone could believe in each other because none of us can prove our existance to anyone else. If they started on a positive they’d all be too hard to disprove and we’d have to believe in everything.
I am extremely skeptical of everything. Every belief should be approached with skepticism. If not then your just being gullible.
Sean of the Living wrote:
2) Proving or disproving evolution has nothing to do with God and is irrelevant to Theism, which merely says that there is a diety. In fact, evolution doesn’t even prove or disprove any of the mainstream divisions of Theism, I have not read one scripture which says “Evolution is not real." or “Evolution is real." And this has NOTHING to do with the freaking topic of God.
Evolution disproves creation, You actually think they would modifiy your holy book to add in something most people know wasn’t discovered 2000 years ago? You know how many people will loose thier faith if you did so, knowing that you could just change the book when ever you want.
Sean of the Living wrote:
3) Disproving a religous book or idea doesn’t debunk Theism, it can merely debunk the book or idea in question. Theism states a diety exists and there are many divisions over the other details, yet by debunking divisions you are ignoring the main idea of whether a diety exists or not, which is what you should be trying to prove or disprove.
Yes it does. Your book gives you the idea of theism. Without it you would be a atheist, or looking to another theist book.
Sean of the Living wrote:
4) Just because the followers of a religion are bad, doesn’t mean the idea itself is bad. Religions are just an idea and these ideas need to be judged by teachings, not followers. If I killed someone in your name and you hadn’t told me to, would it be your fault for the murder? No. This isn’t any different. So stop saying bullshit to make us look bad because of few Theists are evil, even if the majority of a belief system is evil, this does not make all the people in it evil or the belief itself evil. Grow up.
It matters when all they are doing is following the religion guidance and they do something “bad”.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics
I take it you’re not going to answer me?
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | | 25 Feb 2008 11:53 pm |
Banned Rep: 51 Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,808 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
Acrosurge wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
No it wouldn’t, learn the difference between neutral and positive. Fuck...
Well, that was hardly a rational argument. :/
In the end, it is as I said. You will reach a philosophical stalemate. You cannot prove your own existence. Using yourself as an anchor point to your reality, you can only believe you exist. Or not.
That’s why I was saying to start on a neutral, because if we did start on a negative we wouldn’t exist. The idea that we exist has not been proven or disproven.
In addition to what you just said being completely false (no sane person believes existence doesn’t exist), I believe that whole “you can’t prove you exist” thing would be a false dichotomy if you try to relate it to god, faith, etc.
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | | | 26 Feb 2008 12:19 am |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,034 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
Acrosurge wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
No it wouldn’t, learn the difference between neutral and positive. Fuck...
Well, that was hardly a rational argument. :/
In the end, it is as I said. You will reach a philosophical stalemate. You cannot prove your own existence. Using yourself as an anchor point to your reality, you can only believe you exist. Or not.
That’s why I was saying to start on a neutral, because if we did start on a negative we wouldn’t exist. The idea that we exist has not been proven or disproven.
In addition to what you just said being completely false (no sane person believes existence doesn’t exist), I believe that whole “you can’t prove you exist” thing would be a false dichotomy if you try to relate it to god, faith, etc.
But if there’s no evidence for our existance being the “real” one why should I accept it as you do? You’re being a bit of a hypocrite there. Your belief that ideas need to start on a negative says we shouldn’t believe in anything without evidence of it’s existance, but when I challenge existance, something which none of you have provided any proof for, and thus debunking your bullshit biased debating rules, you magically make an exception for no reason and just say my idea is stupid.
Last edited 26 Feb 2008 12:40 am by Sean of the Living | | | 26 Feb 2008 12:36 am |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,034 OFFLINE | Gplex wrote:
Gplex wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
1) Beliefs don’t start on a negative, they start on a neutral. If they started on a negative noone could believe in each other because none of us can prove our existance to anyone else. If they started on a positive they’d all be too hard to disprove and we’d have to believe in everything.
I am extremely skeptical of everything. Every belief should be approached with skepticism. If not then your just being gullible.
Sean of the Living wrote:
2) Proving or disproving evolution has nothing to do with God and is irrelevant to Theism, which merely says that there is a diety. In fact, evolution doesn’t even prove or disprove any of the mainstream divisions of Theism, I have not read one scripture which says “Evolution is not real." or “Evolution is real." And this has NOTHING to do with the freaking topic of God.
Evolution disproves creation, You actually think they would modifiy your holy book to add in something most people know wasn’t discovered 2000 years ago? You know how many people will loose thier faith if you did so, knowing that you could just change the book when ever you want.
Sean of the Living wrote:
3) Disproving a religous book or idea doesn’t debunk Theism, it can merely debunk the book or idea in question. Theism states a diety exists and there are many divisions over the other details, yet by debunking divisions you are ignoring the main idea of whether a diety exists or not, which is what you should be trying to prove or disprove.
Yes it does. Your book gives you the idea of theism. Without it you would be a atheist, or looking to another theist book.
Sean of the Living wrote:
4) Just because the followers of a religion are bad, doesn’t mean the idea itself is bad. Religions are just an idea and these ideas need to be judged by teachings, not followers. If I killed someone in your name and you hadn’t told me to, would it be your fault for the murder? No. This isn’t any different. So stop saying bullshit to make us look bad because of few Theists are evil, even if the majority of a belief system is evil, this does not make all the people in it evil or the belief itself evil. Grow up.
It matters when all they are doing is following the religion guidance and they do something “bad”.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics
I take it you’re not going to answer me?
First of all, you didn’t properly debunk my points, second of all I allready had 3 or 4 people to answer to at the time.
For example:
Gplex wrote:
I am extremely skeptical of everything. Every belief should be approached with skepticism. If not then your just being gullible.
Then howcome you’re not skeptical of existance itself? That’s what I’m trying to say, if you take this very skeptical point of view you will debunk your own argument about burdens of proof and whether beliefs start on a negative, neutral or positive.
Gplex wrote:
Evolution disproves creation, You actually think they would modifiy your holy book to add in something most people know wasn’t discovered 2000 years ago? You know how many people will loose thier faith if you did so, knowing that you could just change the book when ever you want.
Most of the Holy Books don’t say evolution is false or true, I thought you said we can’t make assumptions for topics something doesn’t mention without evidence? Besides, even if everything was created to begin with, what would stop it from evolving after it’s creation? Look at Deism, a theistic belief perfectly compatible with Evolution. You are confusing Theism with Religion.
Gplex wrote:
Yes it does. Your book gives you the idea of theism. Without it you would be a atheist, or looking to another theist book.
Didn’t you ever consider that perhaps an idea about God doesn’t need to be written down in a book? Or that all Theists don’t need to follow a book to believe in God? Debunking all the books (something you haven’t done, and when you’ve tried you’ve usually just quoted it out of context, for example Old Testament laws of the Bible that were abolished when Jesus arrived) won’t disprove the idea of God itself.
Gplex wrote:
It matters when all they are doing is following the religion guidance and they do something “bad”.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics
We’re not all bad. Name ONE religion where 100% of it’s people are more evil than good. Hell, even Satanists can be good people. Good and bad will exist with or without belief in God.
And your quote doesn’t prove shit either. Just because someone is a physicist doesn’t mean what they say is right. There are plenty of other things that can turn good people into bad people too, look at alchohol, something you actually support and say there is nothing wrong with and that I am against.
Last edited 26 Feb 2008 12:39 am by Sean of the Living | | | 26 Feb 2008 02:54 pm |
Banned Rep: 51Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,808 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
Acrosurge wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
No it wouldn’t, learn the difference between neutral and positive. Fuck...
Well, that was hardly a rational argument. :/
In the end, it is as I said. You will reach a philosophical stalemate. You cannot prove your own existence. Using yourself as an anchor point to your reality, you can only believe you exist. Or not.
That’s why I was saying to start on a neutral, because if we did start on a negative we wouldn’t exist. The idea that we exist has not been proven or disproven.
In addition to what you just said being completely false (no sane person believes existence doesn’t exist), I believe that whole “you can’t prove you exist” thing would be a false dichotomy if you try to relate it to god, faith, etc.
But if there’s no evidence for our existance being the “real” one why should I accept it as you do? You’re being a bit of a hypocrite there. Your belief that ideas need to start on a negative says we shouldn’t believe in anything without evidence of it’s existance, but when I challenge existance, something which none of you have provided any proof for, and thus debunking your bullshit biased debating rules, you magically make an exception for no reason and just say my idea is stupid.
I’m looking around... wait!! Is that existence I see!!
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | | | 26 Feb 2008 03:16 pm |
Thanatos, God of Death Rep: 63Joined: 31 Jan 2008 Posts: 14,451 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
Acrosurge wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
No it wouldn’t, learn the difference between neutral and positive. Fuck...
Well, that was hardly a rational argument. :/
In the end, it is as I said. You will reach a philosophical stalemate. You cannot prove your own existence. Using yourself as an anchor point to your reality, you can only believe you exist. Or not.
That’s why I was saying to start on a neutral, because if we did start on a negative we wouldn’t exist. The idea that we exist has not been proven or disproven.
In addition to what you just said being completely false (no sane person believes existence doesn’t exist), I believe that whole “you can’t prove you exist” thing would be a false dichotomy if you try to relate it to god, faith, etc.
But if there’s no evidence for our existance being the “real” one why should I accept it as you do? You’re being a bit of a hypocrite there. Your belief that ideas need to start on a negative says we shouldn’t believe in anything without evidence of it’s existance, but when I challenge existance, something which none of you have provided any proof for, and thus debunking your bullshit biased debating rules, you magically make an exception for no reason and just say my idea is stupid.
I’m looking around... wait!! Is that existence I see!!
And also you should point out that there is enough evidence to support we exist. I think therefore I am.
| | | 26 Feb 2008 03:17 pm |
Banned Rep: 51Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,808 OFFLINE | Ok but seriously, your own argument can be inverted into itself. I can say that your argument doesn’t exist because you can’t prove it to me in the same way you want me to prove my own existence to you.
Also, I would just like to point out that your own argument makes you legally insane. Hypothetically speaking, lets say your argument wins. You’ve proven that I don’t exist. But wait... your clearly talking to me! Yet you’ve just proven that I don’t exist, meaning your talking to something that you believe doesn’t exist.
Conclusion: you have schizophrenia; a mental illness characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality or Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.
You can accept one of two:
1. You’re argument is invalid
2. You’re a schizophrenic
so... which one will it be? ---
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement”Last edited 26 Feb 2008 03:17 pm by ramunematt | | | 26 Feb 2008 04:45 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 20 Joined: 19 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,172 OFFLINE | i dont feel like reading that, its too long. ---
 | | | 26 Feb 2008 05:16 pm |
you are smart Rep: 50 Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 16,700 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Ok but seriously, your own argument can be inverted into itself. I can say that your argument doesn’t exist because you can’t prove it to me in the same way you want me to prove my own existence to you.
The argument isn’t used in a serious attempt, merely providing an example as why things shouldn’t be instantly judged as a negative as opposed to a neutral.
Also, I would just like to point out that your own argument makes you legally insane. Hypothetically speaking, lets say your argument wins. You’ve proven that I don’t exist. But wait... your clearly talking to me! Yet you’ve just proven that I don’t exist, meaning your talking to something that you believe doesn’t exist.
That’s not at all what he’s saying. The argument he’s proposing is known as solopsism, the belief that the only thing one can be sure of the existence of is their own mind.
Going by his proposed usage of this, it’s not just you that needs to prove their existence, but everything. As far as anyone knows, reality as they know it is an elaborate illusion created by their own mind. Kind of like the Matrix where the Matrix is you.
It really is impossible to prove the existence of anything, since if you go by the solopist point of view, any “proof” offered can just be a further extension of the illusion of reality your brain creates.
Besides, solopism is a pretty dead-end belief system that really has no reason for existing save for pondering. You can’t prove it nor disprove it, since everything would be an illusion. It’s a pretty useless belief, but a valid one. I stay away from it because of how useless it is, and because it’s one of the top sins in Satanism.
 | | | 26 Feb 2008 10:34 pm |
Addict (beyond 1337) Rep: 55Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 5,017 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
First of all, you didn’t properly debunk my points, second of all I allready had 3 or 4 people to answer to at the time.
For example:
Well you could have atlease said something after I posted.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
I am extremely skeptical of everything. Every belief should be approached with skepticism. If not then your just being gullible.
Then howcome you’re not skeptical of existance itself? That’s what I’m trying to say, if you take this very skeptical point of view you will debunk your own argument about burdens of proof and whether beliefs start on a negative, neutral or positive.
To answer this, Im am here, I am aware, so I must be, how can I be skeptical of something I am?
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
Evolution disproves creation, You actually think they would modifiy your holy book to add in something most people know wasn’t discovered 2000 years ago? You know how many people will loose thier faith if you did so, knowing that you could just change the book when ever you want.
Most of the Holy Books don’t say evolution is false or true, I thought you said we can’t make assumptions for topics something doesn’t mention without evidence? Besides, even if everything was created to begin with, what would stop it from evolving after it’s creation? Look at Deism, a theistic belief perfectly compatible with Evolution. You are confusing Theism with Religion.
Soz, Im use to just dealing with one religion... keep forgetting others are here..
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
Yes it does. Your book gives you the idea of theism. Without it you would be a atheist, or looking to another theist book.
Didn’t you ever consider that perhaps an idea about God doesn’t need to be written down in a book? Or that all Theists don’t need to follow a book to believe in God? Debunking all the books (something you haven’t done, and when you’ve tried you’ve usually just quoted it out of context, for example Old Testament laws of the Bible that were abolished when Jesus arrived) won’t disprove the idea of God itself.
No the only thing that has been universal is athiesm, because no matter what, you are taught, you can always find it on your own.
ps. jesus said to follow the OT.
Jesus orders Christians to follow the Law of Moses in the Old Testament: “Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
It matters when all they are doing is following the religion guidance and they do something “bad”.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics
We’re not all bad. Name ONE religion where 100% of it’s people are more evil than good. Hell, even Satanists can be good people. Good and bad will exist with or without belief in God.
lol, ok I am refuring to christianity, and any religion releated to it. If you follow these religion you will have to do something evil...
Sean of the Living wrote:
And your quote doesn’t prove shit either. Just because someone is a physicist doesn’t mean what they say is right. There are plenty of other things that can turn good people into bad people too, look at alchohol, something you actually support and say there is nothing wrong with and that I am against.
No Ive heard some really stupid stuff from physicist lol, but I got to agree with his point. What people do with their own bodys is none of anyone else business.---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | |
|
Previous Page - Post Reply - Next Page |
|
»
Religion
» Common Mistakes of Atheists
