3,004 Forum Posts by "Peter-II"
At 3/9/07 03:51 AM, Imperator wrote: Why is it everytime I see this shit, atheists are the 12-17 year old kids, and the theists are of the older generation?
My theory that atheism is simply a phase kids go through is becoming truer and more accurate.
I've noticed that too. Having talked to a few people about it, I think it's a combination of 12-17 years olds wanting to be nonconformist and rebel and the younger generation being less afraid of the idea of death.
It may well be connected to the fact that when people realise that there's no point in rebelling as it'll get them nowhere, they seek to find, I suppose, a "quiet spirituality" to keep them going.
Where the fuck are Togukawa, Ravariel, Peter-Il, and SolInvictus? We need to create a private religion thread, invite only......
Now THAT would be awesome.
These threads, they're like magnets of stupidity...
At 3/7/07 02:56 PM, Imperator wrote: VERY least. I think belief in the supernatural is an innate behavior hardwired into our brains as well. Where and how I dunno, but it brings up the fact that we are born with the ability to believe in God and religion, a seemingly worthless behavior in Darwinian survival thoughts.....
Psh, there'd be a lot more suicides if everyone thought that life was, "in the grand scheme of things", essentially pointless.
At 3/6/07 08:18 AM, Sigma-Lambda wrote: That doesn't change the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't care if it's ad hominem, you are a rich teenager, there is no way that you can possibly comprehend what fascism really is. Don't pretend you do.
Leave him be. Judging from the link in his profile, he's one of those neo-nazi alts. He's not worth the effort, really.
That's an incredibly odd news story.
At 2/28/07 06:45 PM, JakeHero wrote: The reason I do not find macroevolution is the fact it leaves too many holes in creature developements or the reason why certain creatures are the way they are. An example I can think off on the top of my head is the tapeworm.
The tapeworm? Could you elaborate on that?
All the other theories do the same -- leave too many damn holes.
Ah well science isn't infallible.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htmTwo flaws: the creature they listed could be another example of the of an animal related to the Mudskipper.
I doubt it. Take the first one, panderichthys for instance. When compared to the mudskipper, it's an incredibly distant relative, being that they're only part of the same phylum Chordata and aren't even related by class.
Or even the earlier phase of an amphibian which is developing appendages for it's adulthood; such as the transition between tadpole and frog.
Panderichthys, being 90cm in length at the least, is much bigger than an amphibian between the transition between a tadpole and frog.
At 2/28/07 05:53 PM, JakeHero wrote: Yes. Abiogenesis is like trying to prove an invisible man in the sky, but what kinda annoys me is when they teach it in science classes as if it's proven fact.
Taught as proven fact? Well whatever, I never was but I don't know how it is in America. Still, it's the best we've got. It's a valid, plausible hypothesis and I stand by it even though it can't be proven in the traditional, empirical way.
Macroevolution is logical, but it doesn't seem plausible at the same time.
Fish - fish - bigger fish - lizard wtf?
Haha, not quite....
At 2/28/07 05:40 PM, JakeHero wrote: I think mutation is proven, abiogenesis and macroevolution isn't. The closet thing we have to proving macroevolution are ambiguous fossils.
Abiogenesis basically can't be proven. It's very much possible though.
The fossil record is hardly ambiguous. Given the fact that the earth isn't in a totally steady state, why macroevolution wouldn't occur as a result of continuous microevolution is beyond me, given that microevolution is a result of a species adapting to its environment.
Hypocrisy in politicians? HOLD THE MOTHERFUCKING FRONT PAGE!!!!
But yeah, a lot of so-called eco-friendly people, particularly if they have a lot of money, are severe hypocrites. Chris Martin, frontman of the popular band Coldplay, for instance.
Never take what these people say at face value, is the bottom line.
At 2/26/07 07:38 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:At 2/26/07 06:15 PM, Peter-II wrote:Im in High Scool... am i discluded?At 2/26/07 05:38 PM, Imperator wrote: maybe you can hang with Dre and swap baseball cards to put in your spokes before coming here to tear apart the big bad college man.....LOL
*wipes tear from eye*
I love you Imperator....
Well you don't seem to insist on being able to tear apart college students working in fields relevant to the argument, so no.
Why, we can all laugh at Dre together!
At 2/26/07 05:38 PM, Imperator wrote: maybe you can hang with Dre and swap baseball cards to put in your spokes before coming here to tear apart the big bad college man.....
LOL
*wipes tear from eye*
I love you Imperator....
I hate it when fat people take digs at my physique.
Seriously, how motherfucking hypocritical can you get.
At 2/24/07 10:08 PM, g4smart wrote: cause all the athiests are like "Where's teh proof?" and the Believers are like "You don't have teh Faith, fuck off"... well that's what they should say, but they keep posting what they believe and the athiests that reply are always dickheads that deserve to be shot in the mouth.
You haven't even read the thread, have you?
At 2/24/07 05:07 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: It was logic that led people to believe that the sun went around the earth
Er, yeah, that was before the invention of objective empirical observation. People probably just looked and saw that the sun appeared to be going around the earth, rather than testing it and ruling out any other possibilities.
The Greeks used logic to determine that the earth travels around the earth rather than the other way round.
At 2/23/07 07:25 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:At 2/23/07 07:10 PM, Peter-II wrote:Do you know why he was banned?At 2/23/07 06:41 PM, Imperator wrote: WHOOO HOOOO!Keep us updated, dude.
THANKS PROTEAS!
Proteas = MY HERO!
I thought he might have left when he realised he couldn't fight against every freaking politics reg and win. Yet, he's just banned. Damn my wishful thinking.
You'll have to ask Proteas, but from what I've gathered from the reg. lounge, he started telling one of the other members, having stalked them and found pictures of them on the internet, that they were fat and that it'd be good if they committed suicide.
I'm a little hazy on the info though.
At 2/23/07 06:41 PM, Imperator wrote: WHOOO HOOOO!
THANKS PROTEAS!
Proteas = MY HERO!
Keep us updated, dude.
I thought he might have left when he realised he couldn't fight against every freaking politics reg and win. Yet, he's just banned. Damn my wishful thinking.
At 2/23/07 06:08 PM, Imperator wrote: Interesting.....
I'd be curious as to what that theory says as to why intelligence has grown in humans, but not chimps (as the opposite then holds true).
Wonder what factors they think are the right mix for the development of intelligence.....
Hm, now that's definitely something to be considered...I have to admit, I really don't know about that one, or even if our current model of evolution has a coherent answer to it.
I'll have to think about it some more...
At 2/23/07 05:56 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: I diddnt know that Peter-II held me in such a negative light, i respected him...
Aw I'm just kidding, besides I find it hard to hold someone over the internet in a negative light...
...unless that person happens to be Dre-Man....
Also you say that particles made up the gas that made up the big bang that made the universe, but where did that come from?, you are not solving anything but turning one unsolved question into many smaller unsolved questions.
See my post, I cited the Higgs mechanism which allows particles to attain a mass. As for where the particles come from in the first place, I don't really know the specifics that well so it'd be extremely difficult to explain it to someone else, however this wiki should be able to explain it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
For reference, the cosmic inflation state of the early universe was when the fundamental particles first formed.
At 2/23/07 05:25 PM, Snerd wrote: You are so goddamn stupid it bears pointing out.
Thank you Snerd, you've said what I was too civil to say...
At 2/23/07 05:13 PM, Imperator wrote: Actually science has done a good deal to explain the nonrandomness of life as well.
Damn you Imperator! I was inviting that kind of discussion with Zoraxe. In fact I was directly trying to lead him into asking how I accounted for this nonrandomness. Ah well, guess you ruined it for me. :(
The question really is why did we develop this way? Why did we gain that 2% brain difference from chimps that allows us to fly, explore the deep sea, go to space, and build A-bombs?
Well, why not? There's a hypothesis that where intelligent life can grow, it will. I agree with this in that intelligence gives creatures manipulative abilities over other creatures, and thus will ensure better rates of survival. In fact I wholly agree with the postulation that higher intelligence is favoured within natural selection over lower intelligence because of these manipulative abilities, along with the other advantages it allows.
Anyway, I think that the things that we've done that you name are byproducts of this intelligence. It's interesting to think about how such "unnecessary" (from a naturalistic standpoint) traits and abilities that we've grown to relate to natural selection, i.e., how does solving problems in quantum mechanics allow us to survive, etc. With intelligence, comes the all too human thirst for knowledge, with which comes curiosity...with which comes science and exploration, among many other things.
This rabbit hole is often way too deep for any sort of conclusion, and it's very circular.
Indeed. The specifics Big Bang theory aren't even complete yet. It's a very "difficult", very theoretical area of physics.
The religious minded will inquire where this singularity came from, where the dust and gas came from, etc.
Well since time is a characteristic of the universe that didn't exist before the singularity rapidly expanded, the singularity may well have always been there. There's even a speculation that if the singularity was always there, anything that could have possibly happened, did happen - even it exploding into this exact universe. It's a strange thing to consider, since time as such didn't exist - but then that opens a whole new area of discussion, such as whether time is an arena in which things are enabled to happen, or if time is just a name we give to what allows events to occur and doesn't actually exist par se.
It's all very confusing indeed.
As for the dust and gas, from what I've read, because of the nature of the expansion, the dust and gas formed just as a result of particles forming due to the Higgs mechanism or a similar mechanism. Then the particles would have attracted due to gravity, and so on and so forth.
(Somebody correct me on this, I'm no physicist and this is a rather difficult area of the Big Bang theory of which I am unfamiliar.)
Learning is what it's all about baby! Shit, I've done this so much that I'm pretty sure I could argue from the atheist side and STILL give someone a run for their money......
Same here, except for me it'd be the theistic side...heh, I'm probably coming off as arrogant as well. Whatever, I'm young and I'm allowed to be overconfident. :)
Shit, this is like a big breath of fresh air for the whole atheism vs theism thing for me. It's honestly been a while since I've had a remotely intelligent discussion regarding the subject.
At 2/23/07 03:09 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Im logging out, maybe latter when i eat something i wont post stupid posts, but for now lets get back to the subject.
'kay, since Dre-Man isn't here maybe we can actually start an intelligent discussion here.
I think there is a god, this world was created with laws that govern it, if there was no God than the universe would have no laws such as gravity that made the world as we know it possible
Since god is an article of faith, I don't think that faith is needed to account for the laws that govern the universe. Denying these laws would be self-refuting since without them the universe would be in a chaotic state of flux, so why is any god needed here at all? I disagree that a deity is required to have a rational basis for laws and the nonrandomness of the universe.
also if there was no god than were would the energy and matter come from?
Ah, an interesting question. I assume you're talking about the Big Bang here with the energy and matter thing. The thing is, the Big Bang theory doesn't state that the universe exploded out from nothing, but rather a singularity. The singularity exploded into an incredibly dense, hot state (naturally) from which dust and gas flew and the universe formed.
Moast people just dont see things through the eyes of some one els, and that proboble includes me
It sure does - but hell, disagreement invites debate.
Yesiree, Richard Dawkins is indeed an asshat. But he does a good job of restoring the balance between outspoken religious people and outspoken atheists, since you don't really get that many outspoken, evangelical atheists.
Plus, he's a respectable biologist and an excellent writer. So I take my hat off to Richard Dawkins, arrogant as he is.
At 2/21/07 07:32 PM, Pontificate wrote:
Great god, a vaguely intelligent person! We need more of those on here.
At 2/21/07 10:10 AM, Tal-con wrote: I would like to know what kind of warped high power told him to kill 6 million jews.
Hey, gods don't have to be benevolent. Just look at Zeus
I think it's plain retarded to think atheists never started a war, or at least systematically destroyed people. I mean really. What, communists never started trouble? Berlin Wall never existed? Come on.
I wholeheartedly agree. Atheists have started conflicts and wars in the past just as theists have.
At 2/21/07 01:34 PM, Jarv2ie wrote: Scientists don;t even know exactly what electricity is, sure they know how to trick it into doing usefull things but we're just as far as finding an answer to that as we are to finding the answer to god.
Sorry, couldn't leave this one alone....
We do know precisely what electricity is. Electricity is the flow of electric charge, which is the interaction of protons and electrons in an electromagnetic field.
At 2/20/07 10:52 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Oh, so you didn't claim that I do nothing but repeat the same thing over and over again until my opponent simply gives up? Short term memory, I guess.
Yeah, short term memory...funny. No, because you implied that what I was saying was that you had won the argument, but that since you are repetitive, your opponent gave up. Hence:
"You completley pwned him in every way imaginable, but you're just repetetive, and that's why he gave up."
Your words, not mine.
But yes, I did claim that you do nothing but repeat yourself over and over again until your opponent gives up. There's no "pwning" involved, however.
Incorrect. My arguments generally orbit around "oh, well they're just theories" and "oh, well you worship the saints so you're not a Christian." but I tend to introduce new discussions in every post. Simply because I do not change my opinions does not mean that I do not refresh my arguments.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Like I say, being wrong 2% of the time is better than being wrong 98% of the time, eh Dre?
You don't debate, you just like to throw in an occasional "Dre-Man's an idiot and a fag." while other people debate.
What? I do debate. I haven't contributed that much to this particular discussion or even to this particular thread, but you and I have debated before. Most of it took place in other threads, which of course have now been deleted.
I don't see a quote. Just your miserably failed attempts to jab me for supposedly repeating arguments.
Dude...taking an actual quote would involve me quoting entire posts from this argument several times, which would have taken too much space in my post. Would it really have been worth it?
Like I said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because I don't have the time to prove or disprove the allegation that you've introduced new topics into the argument.
I've seen more than you ever will in a lifetime, meaning the majority of Europe. And in 3 months, I'm moving BACK to Europe, to see even more than I already have. I am more cultured and experienced than you could ever even dream of being. You may have been through High School, you may have been through college, but you will not have seen or done as much as I have done at the age of nearly 15, when you are on your death bed in your 70's or 80's.
lol, what is this shit? I'm talking about EDUCATION and KNOWLEDGE, not how much you've freaking travelled...why did you even write this? Did you run out of vaguely circumstancial ad hominem attacks and so attempted to formulate your argument around how much you've seen versus how much I've seen?
So, remind me why you supposedly having travelled more than me somehow puts you at a higher position to talk about the philosophy behind Roman Catholicism than Imperator again?
My assumption of Imperator's years of Catholic education is that he learned jack shit, because he clearly knows nothing about the Bible, probably hasn't read half of it, but likes to call my interpretations bullshit and fundamentalist, when he hasn't even read the book enough to have his own interpretations.
A fairly amibiguous hypothesis, I have to hand it to you...
Ah but of course I'm forgetting that you've travelled Europe, and therefore you know more about Imperator's Catholic education than he does.
As for MY knowledge of Catholicism, it comes from my family. Both sides of my family were born and bred Roman Catholic, and were intelligent enough to actually read the Bible, and see for themselves that they were being misled by their own church. New Orleans, the epicenter of Catholicism, is where half of my bloodline originates. Much of my family retains its early Catholic beliefs, but many of us have seen the truth.
Well obviously if the majority of your family converted away from Roman Catholicism then you aren't going to get an unbiased view of it from them. Sure, since "much" of your family remain Catholic, you'll hear about it in a more positive view. But how is you hearing / discussing (I assume) Catholicism with your family making you more qualified to talk about Catholicism than Imperator? I still fail to see your logic here.
Once again, I have seen, done, and know more than you could ever hope to.
From which unholy region of your ass are you pulling this supposition out of? Dude, you don't know anything about me. You don't know what I've seen, what I know, what I've done and how cultured I am. I honestly don't know why you're assuming this. All you seem to have is "I've travelled Europe". And why should that be relevant to the debate in the first place? If you had a PhD in Catholic theology, then I might see where you're coming from....
And, as rare as it is to note my location on the internet, I live in Europe, so I somehow doubt you've seen more of it than I have,
You may be slightly more educated in certain areas, but clearly not to the extent of being able to call me uneducated or unexperienced.
Of course not - I never called you uneducated or unexperienced. I just said that, at the age of 14, it is highly improbable that you know more about Catholicism than Imperator, who has been educated about it for several years.
At 2/21/07 10:22 AM, lapis wrote: Heh, and how exactly did you find that link, mr. Girllover?
Shit, I'm busted! *runs*
I have to say, the website doesn't really bother me either, at least not hugely...at least they're not condoning rape or sex or anything. However, it's still pretty fucked up. I have never once in my life come across a small child that was genuinely attracted to adults and wanted to have relationships with them the same way that paedophiles are attracted to children.
Also, check out some of the mail they respond to...
"OK hi im Nicole. I'm in fourth grade and a friend of mine told me to check out the place where i got yur email from. I'm confused 'cause my mom says its bad if an adult like touches me or something but i kinda like it. He's an awesome kisser and your web place says like its OK if he does as long as I like it.
So what do i do?
—Nicole"
Pretty obvious that it's fake.
At 2/21/07 09:39 AM, Tal-con wrote: Hitler was atheist.
No, he wasn't. Just because somebody isn't following the laws of Christianity doesn't mean they aren't theistic.
"The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." -Goebbels
So, in other words, Hitler wasn't a Christian but should still be considered a theist.
Just thought I'd share this with you...
Lol, Dutch people.
At 2/20/07 06:09 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Okay, I'm so fucking tired of you saying that, it's like the 10th time. "You completley pwned him in every way imaginable, but you're just repetetive, and that's why he gave up."
Alright, what? That's not what I said at all...
The truth is I introduced quite a few new things in that post, and both Imperator and you know that.
I have a life outside of these forums. I don't have the time to read every single, incredibly extensive post by you, Togukawa and Imperator. However, every time I attempt to read the debate fully, it's always the same things from you...ranging from "oh, well they're just theories" all the way to "oh, well you worhsip saints so you're not a Christian". And they render your argument meaningless every time, without fail.
So when you say "ah, well you ignored my post on page 17", I think I'm allowed to make a few assumptions without taking the time to read whatever you put on page 17. If I'm wrong, whatever, better being wrong 2% of the time than being wrong 98% of the time....
Whatever, Imperator's responded to your post now.
He just happened to conveniantly overlook what I said, so that he could continue to spew insults and flames at me to make himself feel like he's winning. Then he actually was stupid enough to start a poll on who's the more intelligent person, clearly showing his own immaturity and stupidity.
Yeah, but it was damn funny.
:D
And if you'd be so kind, why don't you actually show someone who's "given up" arguing with me. Togukawa, Sollnvictus, Imperator, etc. All of them have been continually arguing with me, without relent, for as long as I've been here. No one seems to be giving up the epic war against the ass hole known as Dre-Man.
Imperator's done so a few times, but he usually comes back. There's also me, I'm trying to leave this debate...'course, temptation gets the better of me sometimes.
And I'm DEFINATELY not the one you should be calling repetetive.
Well done with the ad hominem there. It really made your argument more credible.
While I admit I'm wrong when I'm proven to be so, and frequently introduce new material in a debate, these two assclowns seem to be incapable of doing the same. Call me repetetive for the 11th time now, I beg you.
You're repetitive! They wouldn't be saying the same damn things over and over again if you didn't keep repeating the same damn arguments! It's like:
Dre-man: Argument 1
Togukawa: Disproves argument 1
Dre-man: Oh yeah? Well argument 1
Dre-man: Argument 2
Imperator: Disproves argument 2
Dre-man: Oh yeah? Well argument 2
I wonder when you're going to realise that age doesn't mean jack shit and that the only reason you enjoy repeatedly referring the already known fact that I'm 14 is because you don't have anything else in that pitifully tiny vacant space in your head.
Okay, let me make it clear that the fact that you're 14 doesn't automatically make your argument(s) invalid. However, the fact that you think you can discount YEARS of education in Catholicism with NO relevant education whatsoever on your part just because you're incredibly self-assured and think you know everything (two traits that, as it stands, often go hand in hand with people of your age) DOES make your arguments at least ridiculous.
Young people are allowed to debate. Young people can, in many cases, debate well. Young people, however, should accept that they still have a lot to learn and don't know more about subjects that other people have spent years studying.
See what I'm getting at now?
At 2/20/07 02:37 PM, Dre-Man wrote:At 2/20/07 02:28 PM, Togukawa wrote: Soo... which questions didn't he answer?It just happens to be on page 17 on the thread, the only one of my posts he has succeeded in to completely overlook.
Yeah, well, there's a certain point when debating someone in which you lose the will to respond to all of their points individually and stating exactly why they are wrong when the person in question never listens and just repeats the same bullshit over and over again.
The thing is, a quick dismissal such as "you're a dumbass" works so much better. Too bad it usually just makes your opposition even more self-assured. For instance there's you, who is insisting they didn't respond in the proper manner because they were "pwned". Heh, yeah, pwned...I wonder when you're going to realise that your 14-year-old aura of omniscience isn't all you crack it up to be.
