Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Remember kids,

If you've got kiddie porn on your computer always... ALWAYS... keep your high powered electro-magnet handy.

Scan or photograph the image or something and show us the thing.

Well... if you decide to come back...

Is there a difference between correct and true? If so, what is it?
> with reference to "I'm NOT trying to say my beliefs are correct."

What of a belief that has a basis. Is it just as valid as a belief with no basis?

How can a belief be *just* your own if it proposes relationships between things beyond you?

At 9/27/09 10:21 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: Yeah that's because that part wasn't about you (there are other posters you know).

Well then understand my confusion due to the following...
1. It was part of a response underneath my quote. So I took it as directed at me.
2. You used my analogy (which I was under the impression was a refutation) to further the point of falsifiability.

In the future it would help if, when you address everyone, you do it above my quote or after a set of asterisks or something.

You're not being receptive at all. Whatever I say gets translated into what you want me to say,

I don't see it. Show me. One instance for now. It's possible one instance will be enough for me to see the rest. I'm being hopeful.

and comes out in a diarrhea dump of random jargon that has nothing to do with any of this.

It's not random at all. Do you mean that or are you just trying to insult me? Cause I could talk more plainly...

You said: "They're just mine" to the effect that they are "as valid as anyone elses"

Yes?

You said: "[Your belief (and I think beliefs in general?)] doesn't have to be based off of anything."

Yes?

At 9/27/09 09:55 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: Yes. I'm talking to a brick wall, and you're talking to a brick wall. I think we can both agree on that.

Actually I was under the impression I was being rather receptive.

Do you realize I'm not trying to falsify reincarnation?

Dear Greg,

Maybe this will clear something up... since you mention SgtGoose...

If I had asked him what he based his belief on, and he responded that 'belief need not be based on anything because his belief is entirely his own,' or vice versa, or to that effect, I would raise just as much hell (assuming he continued playing that tune several posts through and diverting the conversation to falsifiability).

Would you like to discuss falsifiability?

Love,
Bacc

At 9/27/09 08:21 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: fruitless attempts to disprove one of the few things in this world that can't be proven or not.

I'm trying to disprove reincarnation? Where? When? Was I possessed at the time? Cause I certainly don't remember doing that.

You brought up a totally pointless example of believing the world would end tomorrow. If it didn't, then yeah, that's proven false, but hardly anything religious about that. If you name a date & time something you believe will happen, it doesn't matter what it is, when that time comes around it'll be either proven or not. Do you see where I'm going with this? This example only applies to things with specific time & date.

Analogies function by exemplifying a point of commonality between disparate situations. If the situations were identical... it'd just be an example, not an analogy.

The point of commonality between "in my opinion the world will end tomorrow" and "in my opinion heaven is real" is the play between subjective and objective.

Obviously the former is falsifiable, while the latter is not. That does not change my point at all.

Regardless of whether it's falsifiable, it is impossible to genuinely posit a belief that is solely your own. It's like saying, "no offense, you're ugly."

See look, in the very next paragraph, "It's inherently disingenuous to communicate anything regarding the objective world as primarily subjective, because any statement regarding the objective world establishes relationship (not just to oneself)." Tada.

The analogy is not saying that reincarnation is or will be proven false.

Meanwhile I've been saying over and over that I'm NOT trying to say my beliefs are correct.

Seriously. Where was I proving reincarnation false?

They're just mine.

And that's disingenuous.

that relies on a specific time being given for an event to happen.

You're really latching on to that one huh.

And if you wanna waste time trying to falsify anything in this post or my previous ones on this thread, then fine. But it's just that, wasted time, like talking to a brick wall.

Am I talking to the brick wall or vice versa?

Oh... it seems my post was addressed... pardon the delay.

At 9/27/09 8:55 AM, mrgreg846 wrote: What's disingenuous Is you taking almost all of what I said and turning it around backwards.

That's not disingenuous unless I'm secretly playing devils advocate.

1-2 have nothing to do with any of this. So I'm skipping those.

You said, "If there were "religious facts" [...] there'd be no reason for this thread, or for differing religious beliefs.

You said that. I'm disagreeing.

Key words "If there were"

Actually the key word is "and," qualifying reincarnation as a given rather than a resultant.

Did I just admit a mistake? Oh lordy I did!

Key words, "beliefs", "my own", "as valid as anyone elses",

Keyword is still "and."

the door IS wide open for any other brand of religion.

Regardless of what they believe, do you still believe they undergo reincarnation?

My religion isn't even a brand last I checked they're just my personal beliefs.

Your brand of religion is secular and centered on the concept of reincarnation. It's a brand because there are multiple religions that follow those abstracts (though not necessarily at the same time). As well, there are lots of people that are secular and believe in reincarnation.

? Whatever, aren't all religious views subjective in some way? They're personal views, that's expected.

"in some way" != "through and through"

The fact that a view is personal does not mean that view is automatically positing something valid.

I'll pose the question again. Suppose I say, "In my opinion, the world will end tomorrow."
What's disingenuous about that statement?

Nothing, but what does it have to do with any of this?

Because "it's just my opinion" and "it's just my belief" are facsimiles. If the world doesn't end tomorrow, you were wrong.

It's inherently disingenuous to communicate anything regarding the objective world as primarily subjective, because any statement regarding the objective world establishes relationship (not just to oneself).

Who says they [beliefs] have to be based off of anything?

I'm not saying they have to be. I'm saying they are. And to throw your hands and say "whatever" to that is well... it's ... let's put it this way: you're making sure you get to stay in a very comfortable zone, regardless of validity.

Let's also not forget that the standard human metric for the validity of a statement (that is, when validity is sought), whether you call it opinion, belief, or fact, is both lateral and vertical corroboration.

I live in this place called America, where you can believe in whatever religion you want.

I'm not completely sure where you're going with that. But I'll cover both paths...

1. You also have the freedom to get piss drunk the day before an important meeting.
2. Who's stopping you from believing what you want to?

At 9/27/09 08:05 AM, mrgreg846 wrote: If I answer your post I'd be basically repeating my last post. Something obviously got lost in translation when you were reading I guess. Read the post again, you got me all wrong.

Your last post does not acknowledge the following...

1. If there were "religious facts" there'd still be reason for this thread and differing religious beliefs.
2. You're being presumptuous in assuming "religious fact" would prove your beliefs correct.
3. The validity of your beliefs has next to nothing to do with how "different" or "your own" they are.
4. You have yet to explain exactly what your theories are based on...

... Let's say I say I believe that water can defy gravity, and you ask me what that belief is based on. I respond that, "while water defies gravity, I believe it travels to other dimensions."

You're rationalizing laterally, rather than vertically. You're not exploring what your belief is based on, you're extrapolating (extremely loosely) from your belief a whole set of other related things.

You say it's something you ponder often. What's there to ponder? Where's the substance? Or is it all just a flight of the imagination? (Cause that would certainly explain your position toward belief)

At 9/26/09 08:08 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: You don't like them then blow me,

Oh stop playing the victim. No one's stomping on your soul here.

but don't pretend like you or anyone else KNOWS for sure just how reincarnation or afterlife actually works.

Makes me wonder... (follow the asterisk) *

It's called "religious views" for a reason. If there were "religious facts" and we all knew exactly how reincarnation works there'd be no reason for this thread, or for differing religious beliefs.

1. Facts do not preclude debate.

2. People are well known to disregard facts.

3. Are you positing "religious fact" or reincarnation here? Because it's be awfully disingenuous of you to throw them into the mix simultaneously.

3b. Suppose your religious facts showed reincarnation invalid? The door would still be wide open for any other brand of religion.

My beliefs of reincarnation, religion, etc, are my own, and as valid as anyone elses no matter how different they might be.

Hyper-subjectivity at it again.

I'll pose the question again. Suppose I say, "In my opinion, the world will end tomorrow."

What's disingenuous about that statement?

But never would I be a retard like you and act like I KNOW this is how it works.

* Yet you "definitely believe" in reincarnation. (keep following) *

At 9/26/09 08:54 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: Questions I can only answer with theories though unfortunately.

* And those theories would be based off of what... exactly?

At 9/25/09 04:29 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: If you dont support something the democrats support they say you're a bigot, nazi, racist, i can go on. Republicans are the same way. It's human nature, there's nothin' we can do about it.

... Doesn't that make them all bigots?

Pox, you see, it's his spirit essence that is learning, that carries spirit wisdom from one life to the next.

At 9/25/09 11:26 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Who is the "you" in this sentence? Because I'm arguing AGAINST anyone's life having meaning.

I know. The argument I'm addressing is: "1 divided by 6,500,000,000 IS A REALLY FUCKKING SMALL FUKKKING NUMBER."

It's a statement of novelty (or lack thereof), no?

Or perhaps potency?

Hell no.

You know. What I was originally going to post was this...

You ever read a book? Did it involve people? Did you like it? No, ofcourse, you don't read books. Silly me.

And I thought I was being presumptuous. If you'd indulge my curiosity... what detour would you have taken had I posted that? Or would you have just agreed?

I actually stick to the correct usage for the most part. If I'm quoting a whole bunch of different things though, I use the wrong style, because it's more precise.

At 9/25/09 10:27 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: And that number? THAT FUCKING NUMBER... is the importance of YOUR life.

I can see how you can derive meaning from some concept of novelty. But novelty isn't the sole criteria for meaning.

So you think your life is important, eh? You think your family, your brother, your sister, your mother, your child FUCKING MATTER?!?!

If the audience is an objective nothingness of a scale encompassing the totality of the human race, sure. But what does that matter? How is that a metric for anything? Moreover... people who generally throw their shit around throw it at an audience of human beings.

You ever read a book?

At 9/25/09 10:56 PM, slingshot14 wrote: Spyro to play that don't involve any violence yet can still be fun and relieve stress.

Spyro doesn't have violence?

Jesus christ... and I thought perspectival correction was fancy.

Next time it pops up... make sure the window is active and press the pause button on your keyboard. The pause key should be by print screen and scroll lock. Then read what the hell command prompt is doing.

At 9/25/09 07:58 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: ... and apparently because I'm a horrible person.

Isn't that your shtick?

I don't remember you... but I wouldn't mind seeing you around more.

xoxoxoxoxoxo

Chdonga, Im-A-Pirate, Conspiracy3, and 111122223138...

'Big Bang vs God' is a FALSE DICHOTOMY you jackasses.

Did pox get hacked by sharpnova?

Mr. Fuzzles eats little bugs in your house when you're not looking.

I like jumping spiders... they don't have creepy long legs and they don't make webs.

At 9/25/09 03:20 PM, Sh0T-D0wN wrote: Most religions aren't about throwing down your soul to some invisible Godlike force, they're about morality.

Building a shelf isn't about hammers and nails. It's about storage. Problem is to make the shelf you have to use hammers and nails.

Religion may be about morality, but the moral code is given authority by an invisible Godlike force.

At 9/24/09 03:10 PM, Memorize wrote: Yeah, it's so bizarre that after all the talk of them being held "unconstitutionally" by Obama that he's still making the argument that he can hold at least "some of them" indefinitely.

God damnit Memorize your partisan pissing contests are fucking damaging to the mind.

At 9/24/09 06:05 PM, Exblade wrote: Well yes its moot, but that doesnt mean there is no possibilty of it not being real.

Everything and anything is real!

Problem is this is disingenuous because...

... anything effectively real is defined through relationship. The concept of God is inherently tied to reality by some idea of consequence: God created the universe. In fact, anything supernatural is defined by some relationship it arbitrarily has with reality. So this idea that because it is moot, one can believe whatever they want, is bullshit - because to posit anything is to contextualize it.

Um that was kind of my point?

You can't prove me wrong because my belief posits something functionally irrelevant?

That is exactly what i mean, Its one of the reasons why the Christian god is well improbable ecause why would he need to involve himself in humanity, If he created the universe, wouldnt his only responsibiity be just to create it and let it be?

I thought it was all moot anyway? How do you even begin to formalize supernatural standards such that one concept of the supernatural be more valid than another? Or is it just a matter of finding where you can severe ties with reality?...

Well i shall clarify by what i meant, I meant its that there is no possibility to know the existence of god, meaning its impossible to know if he exists or not

... cause those sure are good grounds for a positive assertion (sarcasm).

At 9/24/09 01:53 AM, Exblade wrote: Although I do agree with you that proving supernatural things are real is a big Leap of Faith, that doesn't really dictate the possibility of something like that happening is untrue.

It dictates the extent to which anything supernatural could objectively effect reality. If we're experiencing it, the supernatural has to interface with reality at some point.

Just because science has proven most theories on certain beliefs wrong doesn't mean that anything supernatural can be real.

It just means the supernatural is functionally moot.

But hey man! This could all be the matrix!

If science every disproved the existence of the possibility of any god, then I would admit I was wrong and I would move on with my life.

Um. It's impossible to disprove something supernatural, because the supernatural is arbitrarily divorced from reality.

No matter the extent to which God is disproven, you can always wedge him somewhere else or cling to however small a role he has these days.

For instance... when God created the earth he just made it look like evolution ;)

Regardless... the onus is on the assertion to be proven, not to be disproven.

I respect your belief in there no being a god, but I disagree that there is any possibility to know the existence of god.

Isn't this my point?

Oh here's a good one.

In my opinion, the world will end tomorrow.

Is that an objective statement or a subjective statement?

At 9/23/09 09:43 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: As a child, did you require scientific proof before you allowed yourself to be confident of the idea that your parents had your best interests in mind?

Children are more "trusting" because they have not followed as many iterations of assimilation and accommodation as their elders.

(Don't confuse that with open mindedness please.)

To answer your question. No. But cognitive adaptation plays a huge role.*

As an adult, do you ask your potential mates for scientific proof of their trustworthiness?

No. But I'd certainly doubt their trustworthiness if they claimed to be able to fly without the aid of machine.

Additionally, their being trustworthy is scientifically possible.

In other words, what gives you the idea that scientific proof is the ONLY means by which to establish confidence or trust?

Oh it's definitely not the only means, nor the only means that ought to be applied. I can't carry around a lab and psychology (and sociology) are soft sciences to begin with.

There are many things for which scientific proof is a perfectly reasonable requirement... but for ALL things? I think not.

* Cognitive adaptation plays a huge role that you're leaving out.

And just because science is inapplicable, doesn't mean it's reasonable to not require science.

In any case, your personal requirements are not the universal metric by which to judge other people's confidence and trust as being either blind or sighted.

Is it still a personal requirement when the other end posits an objective stance?