Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 10:02 |
stonebeard wrote:
Textbook wrote:
Mike/Ivan: Seriously guys, just have sex already. |
|
It would be a problem though... The religious differences here will cause trouble deciding the kind of protective measures to be employed....
|
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 11:01 |
They'd never agree on what teapot to fly the children in.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 12:39 |
The T wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Textbook wrote:
Mike/Ivan: Seriously guys, just have sex already. |
|
It would be a problem though... The religious differences here will cause trouble deciding the kind of protective measures to be employed....
|
The only think they'd really want is a gag to keep from arguing during the act.
Edited by stonebeard - November 10 2010 at 12:39
|
|
Nightshine
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 210
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 12:58 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Your position is just as I described it - and a laughing emoticon doesn't change the fact that it's you who have the reading comprehension problem here. Have a look at the underlined parts. You're essentially saying that there are some things that you may believe in not because they can be demonstrated to be true, but just because they haven't been proven false beyond any doubt. And if "some" includes the claims of Catholicism but not leprechauns, sky pixies and orbiting teapots (and thousands of other more serious claims, called "religions"), you are making special pleading, and you don't have any objective reason for doing that.
|
Mike, even when religion can't be demonstrated |100%, I feel I have enough evidence (personal, biblical, faith, etc) to believe in it, flying teapots is simply something stupid taking from Bertram Russell that some atheists use to make mockery of religion and leprechauns are just a legend.
I simply don't compare them as you, there are not thousands if not millions of documents and experiences that may lead us to believe in God, that's not the case of flying teapots, which as Eric Reitan said teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable
Iván
|
Faith is not concrete evidence. Personal thoughts aren't concrete evidence. The bible is a simple work of fiction.
How's your flying teapots and leprechauns doing in terms of saving you from life's hardships?
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 19:02 |
Nightshine wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Your position is just as I described it - and a laughing emoticon doesn't change the fact that it's you who have the reading comprehension problem here. Have a look at the underlined parts. You're essentially saying that there are some things that you may believe in not because they can be demonstrated to be true, but just because they haven't been proven false beyond any doubt. And if "some" includes the claims of Catholicism but not leprechauns, sky pixies and orbiting teapots (and thousands of other more serious claims, called "religions"), you are making special pleading, and you don't have any objective reason for doing that.
|
Mike, even when religion can't be demonstrated |100%, I feel I have enough evidence (personal, biblical, faith, etc) to believe in it, flying teapots is simply something stupid taking from Bertram Russell that some atheists use to make mockery of religion and leprechauns are just a legend.
I simply don't compare them as you, there are not thousands if not millions of documents and experiences that may lead us to believe in God, that's not the case of flying teapots, which as Eric Reitan said teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable
Iván
|
Faith is not concrete evidence. Personal thoughts aren't concrete evidence. The bible is a simple work of fiction.
How's your flying teapots and leprechauns doing in terms of saving you from life's hardships? |
YOu are of course, welcome to your opinion, but I think your insistence on what you term concrete evidence and what you classify as such is misguided. Most believe believe in things without concrete evidence, and I bet you do too in some form or another. I believe in free will, love, truth, justice and that reality is not an illusion (the matrix!) None of those can be objectively proven to exist, but I believe them because of personal experience. How is this different from someone believing in God due to their personal experiences? Of course, maybe you're one of those crazy people like Textbook who doesn't believe in any of the things I mentioned, but if so you are in an extreme minority and I just plain think you're wrong.
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 19:04 |
TheLlama: Shut up and kiss me you mad impetuous fool.
*violins swell as Llama and Textbook embrace against a brilliant sunset*
|
|
Nightshine
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 210
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 19:14 |
thellama73 wrote:
Nightshine wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Your position is just as I described it - and a laughing emoticon doesn't change the fact that it's you who have the reading comprehension problem here. Have a look at the underlined parts. You're essentially saying that there are some things that you may believe in not because they can be demonstrated to be true, but just because they haven't been proven false beyond any doubt. And if "some" includes the claims of Catholicism but not leprechauns, sky pixies and orbiting teapots (and thousands of other more serious claims, called "religions"), you are making special pleading, and you don't have any objective reason for doing that.
|
Mike, even when religion can't be demonstrated |100%, I feel I have enough evidence (personal, biblical, faith, etc) to believe in it, flying teapots is simply something stupid taking from Bertram Russell that some atheists use to make mockery of religion and leprechauns are just a legend.
I simply don't compare them as you, there are not thousands if not millions of documents and experiences that may lead us to believe in God, that's not the case of flying teapots, which as Eric Reitan said teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable
Iván
|
Faith is not concrete evidence. Personal thoughts aren't concrete evidence. The bible is a simple work of fiction.
How's your flying teapots and leprechauns doing in terms of saving you from life's hardships? |
YOu are of course, welcome to your opinion, but I think your insistence on what you term concrete evidence and what you classify as such is misguided. Most believe believe in things without concrete evidence, and I bet you do too in some form or another. I believe in free will, love, truth, justice and that reality is not an illusion (the matrix!) None of those can be objectively proven to exist, but I believe them because of personal experience. How is this different from someone believing in God due to their personal experiences? Of course, maybe you're one of those crazy people like Textbook who doesn't believe in any of the things I mentioned, but if so you are in an extreme minority and I just plain think you're wrong.
|
Let's go back to grade 2 and talk about adjectives and nouns now shall we?
"Good" is an adjective. "Just" is an adjective. We know of these concepts because of the fact that we use them to describe the self and our observations.
"God" is a noun. Nouns have to be proven in existence by matter or proof of matter existing thereof.
There ya go. Any questions?
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 19:15 |
Parts of speech, that's what you're using to disprove god?
Seriously?
I mean I don't believe in god either but this is pretty lame.
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 19:20 |
Nightshine wrote:
"Good" is an adjective. "Just" is an adjective. We know of these concepts because of the fact that we use them to describe the self and our observations.
|
And justice is a noun. What did this grammar lesson achieve, exactly?
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 19:20 |
Nightshine wrote:
i) In English, all individual words are divided into particular groups according to their function. These groups are called parts of speech and each group has its own particular properties and uses.
ii) Therefore, there is no god.
|
This would be awesome expanded to book length.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 19:25 |
Nightshine wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Nightshine wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Your position is just as I described it - and a laughing emoticon doesn't change the fact that it's you who have the reading comprehension problem here. Have a look at the underlined parts. You're essentially saying that there are some things that you may believe in not because they can be demonstrated to be true, but just because they haven't been proven false beyond any doubt. And if "some" includes the claims of Catholicism but not leprechauns, sky pixies and orbiting teapots (and thousands of other more serious claims, called "religions"), you are making special pleading, and you don't have any objective reason for doing that.
|
Mike, even when religion can't be demonstrated |100%, I feel I have enough evidence (personal, biblical, faith, etc) to believe in it, flying teapots is simply something stupid taking from Bertram Russell that some atheists use to make mockery of religion and leprechauns are just a legend.
I simply don't compare them as you, there are not thousands if not millions of documents and experiences that may lead us to believe in God, that's not the case of flying teapots, which as Eric Reitan said teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable
Iván
|
Faith is not concrete evidence. Personal thoughts aren't concrete evidence. The bible is a simple work of fiction.
How's your flying teapots and leprechauns doing in terms of saving you from life's hardships? |
YOu are of course, welcome to your opinion, but I think your insistence on what you term concrete evidence and what you classify as such is misguided. Most believe believe in things without concrete evidence, and I bet you do too in some form or another. I believe in free will, love, truth, justice and that reality is not an illusion (the matrix!) None of those can be objectively proven to exist, but I believe them because of personal experience. How is this different from someone believing in God due to their personal experiences? Of course, maybe you're one of those crazy people like Textbook who doesn't believe in any of the things I mentioned, but if so you are in an extreme minority and I just plain think you're wrong.
|
Let's go back to grade 2 and talk about adjectives and nouns now shall we?
"Good" is an adjective. "Just" is an adjective. We know of these concepts because of the fact that we use them to describe the self and our observations.
"God" is a noun. Nouns have to be proven in existence by matter or proof of matter existing thereof.
There ya go. Any questions? |
I didn't mention any adjectives in the list of things I believe in without concrete evidence, so I'm not sure what your point is. Read my post again, all of those are nouns.
|
|
|
Nightshine
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 210
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 19:35 |
thellama73 wrote:
Nightshine wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Nightshine wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Your position is just as I described it - and a laughing emoticon doesn't change the fact that it's you who have the reading comprehension problem here. Have a look at the underlined parts. You're essentially saying that there are some things that you may believe in not because they can be demonstrated to be true, but just because they haven't been proven false beyond any doubt. And if "some" includes the claims of Catholicism but not leprechauns, sky pixies and orbiting teapots (and thousands of other more serious claims, called "religions"), you are making special pleading, and you don't have any objective reason for doing that.
|
Mike, even when religion can't be demonstrated |100%, I feel I have enough evidence (personal, biblical, faith, etc) to believe in it, flying teapots is simply something stupid taking from Bertram Russell that some atheists use to make mockery of religion and leprechauns are just a legend.
I simply don't compare them as you, there are not thousands if not millions of documents and experiences that may lead us to believe in God, that's not the case of flying teapots, which as Eric Reitan said teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable
Iván
|
Faith is not concrete evidence. Personal thoughts aren't concrete evidence. The bible is a simple work of fiction.
How's your flying teapots and leprechauns doing in terms of saving you from life's hardships? |
YOu are of course, welcome to your opinion, but I think your insistence on what you term concrete evidence and what you classify as such is misguided. Most believe believe in things without concrete evidence, and I bet you do too in some form or another. I believe in free will, love, truth, justice and that reality is not an illusion (the matrix!) None of those can be objectively proven to exist, but I believe them because of personal experience. How is this different from someone believing in God due to their personal experiences? Of course, maybe you're one of those crazy people like Textbook who doesn't believe in any of the things I mentioned, but if so you are in an extreme minority and I just plain think you're wrong.
|
Let's go back to grade 2 and talk about adjectives and nouns now shall we?
"Good" is an adjective. "Just" is an adjective. We know of these concepts because of the fact that we use them to describe the self and our observations.
"God" is a noun. Nouns have to be proven in existence by matter or proof of matter existing thereof.
There ya go. Any questions? |
I didn't mention any adjectives in the list of things I believe in without concrete evidence, so I'm not sure what your point is. Read my post again, all of those are nouns.
|
Chemicals and ethics. Whoop de doo. Survival instinct tells us these things and we all fly with it because we inherently find them to be beneficial to our poor and selfish race. And those words? Just something to describe our selfish needs in the way that we wish to describe them.
'Sup, dood?
Edited by Nightshine - November 10 2010 at 19:35
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 19:38 |
ITT Nightshine attacks unjustified assumptions using unjustified assumptions.
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Nightshine
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 210
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 19:39 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
ITT Nightshine attacks unjustified assumptions using unjustified assumptions. |
These forums aren't -worth- proper arguments, dood. I can just make a statement and watch everyone fly and cry.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 19:41 |
Nightshine wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
ITT Nightshine attacks unjustified assumptions using unjustified assumptions. |
These forums aren't -worth- proper arguments, dood. I can just make a statement and watch everyone fly and cry. |
Sounds like an excuse from someone who doesn't have a proper argument to make ot me.
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 19:43 |
Nightshine wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
ITT Nightshine attacks unjustified assumptions using unjustified assumptions. |
These forums aren't -worth- proper arguments, dood. I can just make a statement and watch everyone fly and cry. |
But they're worth talking about parts of speech and making hypocritical arguments?
Dood!
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 20:25 |
Nightshine wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
ITT Nightshine attacks unjustified assumptions using unjustified assumptions. |
These forums aren't -worth- proper arguments, dood. I can just make a statement and watch everyone fly and cry. |
Seems like a troll definition.
In internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response |
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 10 2010 at 20:26
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: November 10 2010 at 20:35 |
You'd never guess Ivan was a lawyer would you.
It's the sense of humour that gives him away though.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: November 11 2010 at 01:40 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Your position is just as I described it - and a laughing emoticon doesn't change the fact that it's you who have the reading comprehension problem here. Have a look at the underlined parts. You're essentially saying that there are some things that you may believe in not because they can be demonstrated to be true, but just because they haven't been proven false beyond any doubt. And if "some" includes the claims of Catholicism but not leprechauns, sky pixies and orbiting teapots (and thousands of other more serious claims, called "religions"), you are making special pleading, and you don't have any objective reason for doing that.
|
Mike, even when religion can't be demonstrated |100%, I feel I have enough evidence (personal, biblical, faith, etc) to believe in it, flying teapots is simply something stupid taking from Bertram Russell that some atheists use to make mockery of religion and leprechauns are just a legend.
I simply don't compare them as you, there are not thousands if not millions of documents and experiences that may lead us to believe in God, that's not the case of flying teapots, which as Eric Reitan said teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable
Iván
|
The concept of the orbiting teapot is not a mockery at all ... it's simply an analogy to any supernatural claim. Another good analogy is the invisible dragon in the garage from Carl Sagan's classic book Demon Haunted World.
Of course I know that you object to comparing your belief to profanities like orbiting teapots or leprechauns ... but that's because of all the special pleading that you're engaged in. You claim to have personal evidence and faith, and I don't contest that ... I'm sure that you honestly believe in Catholicism. However, I don't think that the arguments actually hold any water once you examine them closely. For example, you once mentioned a paranormal experience you had regarding a relative who supposedly sensed the death of a friend or something like that. How is that evidence of Catholicism? For all I know about the Catholic church, they would call that black magic.
What I promote here are principles like skepticism, rationality and the scientific method. These are based on real, tangible, demonstrable evidence. And that's because I think that they trump personal evidence and faith, and positions based on them trump positions based on personal evidence and faith. It's not a matter of "me" being right, or "me" winning the debate, it's about rationality winning.
BTW: I'm sure that I myself also hold some beliefs that are based on personal evidence ... I'm human, and our brains are prone to do that. The proper thing to do is to occasionally try to re-assess your positions. In some cases it may be possible to recognize a bias and correct it.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: November 11 2010 at 02:19 |
Mike: I would believe in god before I believed that arguing with Ivan had any point.
|
|