Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/3/11 06:49 PM, TheSporkLord wrote::

No, that would be experiencing those two things. Math, in its conceptual from can not be experienced. I can not feel a two, I can not taste a two, I can not hear a two. Get the idea?

K, so you don't like my example, what about experiencing something that is a direct result of math? Your internet. It's basedo n Binary. A mathematical concept.

The concpet of 1, added to the concept of 2, will always equa the concept of 2. You can go ahead and define these terms, or even rename them completely, however you want, but the concepts are true no matter how you name them.

So what happens when the object that was occupying space gets moved? Does space somehow regenerate?

You're still thinking of space as a 'thing'. Stop doing that and you'll start to understand. Space is just what ISN'T.

Metaphysics.

Pseudoscience. Right. That's not science. Metaphysics is DECIDEDLY not science. Science makes NO comment on anything of a 'meta' nature. Just things that exist in the natural world that we can test and experience.

I know, but my original point was that the empirical OBSERVATION is open to interpretation, much like the sun/work example.

No, you observed the dog biting someone. That wasn't open to interpretation, the dog bit someone, youre just adding new things that have no evidence or basis to it(violating Occam's Razor again).

Transcendental Idealism.

More nonscientific ideas. Awesome. Also, I don't follow transcendental idealism, I follow philosophical realism. Realism beats idealism every time in my book. Of course, that's not a scientific observation, just a preference, based on what I see to be more useful.

No, you explained how the OBJECT can be manipulated.

By using Space as a tool. Which is a form of manipulation.

I'm familiar with solipsism already, it's not what I'm talking about.

Seems like it is, but whatever.

Logic is not objective. It's much like Epistemology, the exact roots of said knowledge should be known before making a claim, something you seem to be doing.

Yes, logic IS objective, that's why something can be considered to be 'logically proven'. That's why people use logic AT ALL. If logic was just subjective, there'd be no reason to use it. fortunately it's not, which is why we can use it to figure things out.

Except that math can't be experienced.

You're experiencing it right now.

So I can't explain anything about god and yet somehow others can explain how he doesn't exist?

It depends on how you define God. Can you explain the mecahnisms God used to defy time and space to 'cause' the big bang? Can you explain how God did anything? When God did anything? Make any predicitons from your hypothesis about God that we could later find out if it were true? No? Then it's a useless hypothesis.

Except that god is in fact part of the reason.

Your answer cannot be your reason. Your reason is independent of your answer. So again, no.

At 9/3/11 06:27 PM, TheSporkLord wrote::

We can't experience mathematics. To discuss this is to discuss epistemology, the root of all knowledge. Do you think we were born onto the earth with the knowledge that 1+1=2? No. some dude just said it with no real evidence behind it. Today's math is just set to a specific set of rules to be more convenient for us.

We can't experience mathematics. Interesting, so I can't put one thing in front of you, and put another of that thign in front of you, and define those two things to be two things. Because...that'd be experiencing math. :)

Right, but the space remains the same.

Great, so I have the useful definition, it doesn't matter if the 'space' remains space, once it's occuppied, it's not space anymore, under my definition.

Except that it does. THat's what scientists do, argue with each other over what the result is.

Mmm, and they arguem, correct? Based on what? The evidence. The more evidence that comes in the more science has to accomodate it. But the fact still remains one idea is wrong, one idea is right, there is no room in science for two scientists to just 'agree to disagree' on what the evidence says.

Not really, It would be an empirical observation that the dog bit someone. However, I could say that the dog bit them because the dog didn't like the shoes they were wearing, or I could say the dog bit them because there was a chemical inbalance in the dog. Open to interpretation.

You're not using empirical evidence behind any of those claims of wHY the dog bit someone.

Also, you're still either right or wrong regardless of your claims, aren't you? It's not interpretation, it's what the best explanation is. If you don't have the best one, you're wrong.

Right, it is not a thing. Meaning it is not tangible to us, hence why I said it cannot be manipulated, which is why it could even be seen as metaphysical. It is out of our reach.

I already explained how it could be manipuated, you didnt' even argue the point, you're just restating something I've already debunked.

That is a nihilistic approach, sadly I forgot the name of the exact belief.

No, a nihilistic approach would be to say it's all an illusion. Solipsism is the word you're looking for.

Not exactly, you said common sense is whatever amkes sense in your head. I said that common sense is what a group of people believe. Hence " common ".

In their heads, which doesn't really matter if they're wrong. Logic is objective, common sense is subjective. That's the major difference and why they CANNOT be the same thing.

How logic works? Logic is so open its ridiculous to say that it could go against it.

If I don't use the pythagorean theorum to figure out the third side of a right triabgle, and I guess at it using my own idea, that was completely unexplanable, and indeed worse at trying to figure out the problem,I'd be going against math, same with logic.

Occam's Razor "The simplest solution is the preferred one" And "God did it" is in no way a simple explanation, it's explainaing a mystery, with another mystery.

An explanation is an explanation, regardless of the validity. Therefore saying " god did it " is indeed the simplest solution and the preferred one.

Nope, it's not. Because, and there's the thing, you can't explain JACK SHIT about God, nor can you provide ANY evidence for the necessity of god.

Simpler doesn't mean the solution that uses less words, it's the solution that uses as least amount of unnecessary entities(god) as possible. Adding god in there, for literally no reason other than guessing, violates the Razor, it violates logic. :)

An explanation should be detailed, it shoudl provide answers, saying 'god did it' provides no such answers that refraining from saying such does.

At 9/3/11 06:25 PM, Autokrator wrote: it's fdr

why is this even a question

everyone knows it's fdr

he undid everything the united states stood for

Mind elaborating?

At 9/3/11 06:04 PM, TheSporkLord wrote: : WHoa wait, what's this I hear About 1+1=2 always being true? Mathematics is a pure form of knowledge with no background experience. I could easily say 1+1=3 and be right.

No you wouldn't, unless, and here's the interesting thing about math, you DEFINE 3 to be the summation of 1 and 1. The thing is, if you did, 3 would just become the new 2. It would still be the same amount, just a different name, which is why we don't do that. 3 is already defined in math, and 1+1 doesn't include it in definition. So, by the current definitions of math, you would in fact be wrong, if only because nobody agrees with your decision of redefining.

At 9/3/11 05:55 PM, TheSporkLord wrote: You can manipulate objects, not the space. Could I manipulate the nothingness in outer space? There has to be a base to build something on. That base being space.

I can manipulate objects BASED on space, which I defined to be in a useful manner, so that I can do so.

First, I'm not against evolution. I might as well take the time to explain my beliefs now... I believe that there is a metaphysical " thing "that Perhaps intentionally or unintentionally " sparked " the big bang and then evolution took place. And that this " thing " does not care about us in the least bit and stays out of our life. Kind of like Plotinus' theory of the one.

Deism. Right. I wasn't saying you were against evolution, what I ewas pointing out is that science doesn't ALLOW for people to just have 'different opinions' on the science. science is knowledge, you accept it, or you don't. Science says something, you don't get to just 'interpret it' differently.

Now as for the interpretation part, I could observe that a butt load of people go to work when the sun rises, but that doesn't mean that the sun is making them go to work. A dog could bite someone but it would still be open to interpretation as to why the dog bit him.

Nonsequitor.

It's actually the lack of light or color. I could close my eyes and see black, but that doesn't mean I'm seeing space. I wouldn't be seeing anything technically.

Yes, I know it's the lack of light, and color, and everything else too. That's what makes it space. When you close your eyes you do see something, you see the inside of your lids, a thing, that is then not space. The area between stars, and the blackness in the sky, is not a 'thing', it is space.

So even though our environment is made up of atoms which are mostly made of space, there is no space on earth?

There is no pure space on the earth on the level that we're discussing it. Unelss you want to just say that when we look at eachother, we're looking at empty space, since all the atoms are majoritively empty space, and you're...looking at it.

Common sense is the sense of the majority of the people. A crazy person could say that sand people caused 9/11 and it would make sense in his head, but that doesn'rt make it common sense.

So you're agreeing with me.

So saying that matter was always there is logical and yet to say that God was always there is somehow fallacious? That's one of the most ass backwards thing I've ever heard.

Ahem. See Occam's Razor. It's ok to say matter was always there, however to posit a completely unnecessary entity goes directly against how logic works.

Occam's Razor "The simplest solution is the preferred one" And "God did it" is in no way a simple explanation, it's explainaing a mystery, with another mystery.

At 9/3/11 05:39 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: If this were the case, then most people in the world would be doing detrimental things to themselves all the time until their actions lead them into ruin.

I see, so you define logic as 'doing what's not detrimental to oneself'. Interesting, but very much flawed.

People are much more logical than you give them credit for.

No, they really aren't.

Common sense is a part of rational thinking. It actually makes some sense.

But it's not logic. : /

So what IS logic? Well, logic is a system akin to mathematics. It's a series of premises that are valid, and sound, that lead to a valid and sound conclusion. These conclusions can be something you believe to be true, or something you live by, or, can even act sort of like a puzzle, to test your logic skills. It's akin to mathematics because similar to how 1+1=2 and this is always true, Premise One and Premise Two will always equal the Conclusion given, as long as they're valid and sound. Here's a for instance:

You know, people could look this shit up if they want. There's no need for someone like you to act like an arrogant asshole and try to lecture others on things you think they don't have some prior knowledge of or familiarity with.

Which is why I added the caveat at the beginning of the thread that ANYONE who has taken a course in logic will find this to be 'duh'. Anyone can research anythign they want, are you saying nobody should give lectures anymore because everything could just be googled?

1. Porn stars are human
2 Ron Jeremy is a porn star.
Conclusion: Ron Jeremy is a human.

Most people would like to say that they think logicaly, when the truth is, this isn't the case. COMPUTERS are logical, not people. People are notoriously ILlogical.

Once again, I contend otherwise. Computers are just glorified calculators that take instructions and apply them. Logical? Yes. Is it impressive? Not really.

So you're not disagreeing that computers are completely logical. But, notice how nowhere in my entire post did I say that being completely logical and truly logical was somethign we should al strive for.

You're arguing a strawman on that point, on the other one that peole are logical? I've already explained it's because you have a very poor definition of logic.

And again, people are actually quite rational as long as their emotions don't guide their judgment and avoid using logical fallacies as the basis of their decisions.

Rationality/= logical.

Again, it's not our fault we're illogical, it's kind of how we're wired.

If we were "wired" that way, we would've been extinct a long time ago. Logic is one of the reasons why we're still alive today.

Again, this stems from your horrible idea of what logic is. : /

It's not irrational to want the ones you know and love to survive at the cost of millions of people dying, people that you don't know.

I would think the millions of people that owuld be saved would disagree, for one, and for two, you keep equating 'rational' with 'logical'. That's incorrect.

I think it's quite rational to try to avoid feeling immense grief.

At the expense of millions? I'd disagree, but again, rationality does not = logic.

You do realize that there's more than one kind of logical fallacy, right? Nonsequitor just happens to be one of them.

Yes, which is why I didn't say a nonsequitor is the only logical fallacy. However ist is the best way to demonstrate what validity is, by showing something that is decidedly NOT valid, by definition.

Actually no it's not because we don't know that the Universe ever "began." The Big Bang Theory doesn't even state that that is when the Universe came into being. Rather, it states that about 13 billion years ago, the Universe exploded. It doesn't say that it came into existence then.

So you don't understand what validity is, even after having seen my explanation between the difference of validity and soundness.

You're not arguing validity in your response to the argument, you're arguing soundness. There's a difference, please re read what I said and actually learn the difference.

You yourself aren't doing much better.

Better than what?

At 9/3/11 05:32 PM, Autokrator wrote:

At 9/3/11 05:30 PM, BigLundi wrote: Nothing on the planet earth is space. [...] However, to say there is no space because of the atmosphere is incorrect, because on a quantum level, atoms are made up of majoritively empty space.

look who failed at logic in his know-it-all thread about logic

what a fucking dumbasss

Name for me something that is space, besides space.

Until then, my statment, "NoTHING is space" still stands. ;)

Oh, don't call someone a dumbass if you can't even understand what semantics are. It just makes you look silly.

At 9/3/11 02:11 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Obama.

Obama is an attention seeking fame hoar. He is the only President to be on Oprah, The View, and the Talk while in office. Before they raised the debt limit, he was coming on tv everyday in the afternoon.

Indeed, it must be evil to take advantage of the Information Age.

Silly.

At 9/3/11 02:48 PM, TheSporkLord wrote: You yourself said, space is the nothingess or absence of objects. If that was true, how could it be manipulated? How can we manipulate the lack of anything physical/nothingness? By YOUR definition space is useless.

Nope. On all counts. :)
1. It could be manipulated by taking up said space. Manipulation also doesn't mean that we need act on it, we could also use it as a tool, knowing that due to the nature of the universe, things are drawn into the vacuum of nothingness, we can manipulate objects to occupy the space.
2. By my definition, space is extremely useful. :)

Science is really just a form of philosphy that tries to focus more on the empirical aspects. Even then it's still open to interpretation. Science is indeed different from the natural form of philosophy some may be used to.

Nope. You don't understand science if you honestly think empiricism is simply 'open to interpretation'. You're like the anti evolutionists that go, "We're looking at the same evidence, just coming up with different answers." Science doesn't allow for that. It's the best answer, that can be explained, or it's not an answer, or worse, an incorrect one.

No, space cannot be seen. If I stack two boxes relatively close to each other there should be some amount of area between them. Some might call it space, and in a sense they would be right, because as I said, space is everywhere. However the reason they would " see " the space is because of the realtion of the boxes.

Let me illustrate something you said here. "Space cannot be seen, some would call that space between the boxes space, and they'd be right in a sense, but they only see the space because of the relation of boxes."

So we see the space, but we don't see space on its own. Incorrect. All that blackness in the sky? That's called space. And if it's not a starry night, you still see the blackness, it's still space.

What about air then? It occupies the space we are in now, so you would say that except for where there is air, everything is occupied? Would you say that outside isn't space because it has air in it?

Nothing on the planet earth is space. At least not in a physics manner, which is how I'm referring to space, because air takes up all the areas that we don't have more solid things. However, to say there is no space because of the atmosphere is incorrect, because on a quantum level, atoms are made up of majoritively empty space.

On an unrelated note, I'm having a fuck ton of spelling errors today for some reason.

Meh, it's an online forum in the General section, if anyone cares they're grammar nazis.

At 9/3/11 03:28 PM, Astronesthes wrote: Wow, that's a lot of words to say so few things.

1. By your definition, all logic is also common sense. They aren't separate from eachother just because one argument may seem more intelligent.

.1 Nope. :) Common sense is just what makes sense in your head. Logic often actualy can defy common sense in extraordinary ways. Scientists use logic a lot in their observations, and as we all know, science is very often counter intuitive.

2. Cause does not require intent. The wind caused the tree to fall over, but it didn't do so with intent. Therefor it would be illogical to assume the universe was caused, or 'created', by any one entity or thing, and to slap a label like 'god' on there is nonsense. More likely the answer would be a complex collection of many things that we already understand. Assuming it is a thing outside of the universe is a nonsequitor. I can cause myself to fall over if I so please.

Ahem, you're talking to an atheist, to point out WHY the argument I gave isn't sound is just...useless. I already know. As I said several times before, it was simply an example of a valid argument that, at the same time, is not sound.

3. This is just speculation, maybe I'm just a nutcase, but as matter cannot be created or destroyed, maybe it never was created and just always was there. Life is the only thing that is finite, but the matter that makes our bodies and minds up is recycled. Quantum physics has shown that photons don't even need to obey the laws of time or space, so demanding a beginning is folly at best.

Yup. Knew all of that already.

At 9/3/11 01:52 PM, TheSporkLord wrote: No I'm not describing anything as space, I'm saying that space is everywhere and the objects around us are simply also there. I have already said space can not be changed or altered. So I am sitting in a chair right now, taking up space as you might say, however if I move, is the space still gone? No. It's always there.

I never said the space WAS gone. Your claim that it's 'always there' is...odd, at the best. If we decide to define space as you are, then space literally has no uses whatsoever. And not only that, but it's the thing we recognize best, as it is the extend of everything.

Science is just a measure of how far a certain claim has been tested. This is what philosophy is.

Science is A philosophy, but it is also a complimentative of philosophy. You kinda just chose to ignore when I pointed out the philosophical aspect of science, and my acknowledgement that yes, that much is true, but the way you'e phrasing it, it almost seems as if you're saying science is somehow SUBJECT to philosophy, when it's not.

No I didn't say everything is space, I said space is everyWHERE. I can't see what's outside my house in the current room I am in obviously. As I said, we cannot see space, only what occupies it.

Yes, and you acknowledge that what you see is occupieing 'space', so, using your understanding of what space is, you see both the object, AND the space it occupies.

Again though, I don't accept occuppied space is in fact space at all.

At 9/3/11 01:44 PM, pyromaniac616 wrote: Well, if I may put in the scientific idea, if you agree with the thinking that 'Space' is a tangible object, containing a vaccum, but can be manipulated. I am talking about the concept of 'Spacetime' which I am sure is quite a common idea now. On that side of thinking, you can certainly argue space is a tangible object, as it can be manipulated.

Yeah, I know. It comes down to how you define space. But you're talking of space/time is actually talking about two things becing combined, the relativity of time to space. and space itself. It would be best if we simply agreed to disagree, since we're both deciding to use seperate definitions, both of which have their own uses.

At 9/3/11 01:33 PM, pyromaniac616 wrote: : At 9/3/11 12:49 PM, BigLundi wrote: : : Unfortunately, I could never imagine doing such a thing, I love my parents too much to sacrifice them, no matter how many people they'd save. This is a selfish illogical idea of my own that comes from a direct result of emotion, something logic doesn't really allow for. : : Then I ask you, would you say those who are incapable of emotion, such as psychopaths, are inherently better at dealing with logic? : : In your terms, could you not say - : : People are incapable of true logic because their emotions cloud their judgement. : Without emotions, true logic can be performed. : Therefore people without emotions are capable of pure logic.

Two things. 1. Psychopaths are capable of emotions, you're thinking of sociopaths.

2. Yes, people without any emotion are capable of performing true pure logic. The problem is, I never said this capability is necessarily a good thing. ;)

At 9/3/11 01:32 PM, TheSporkLord wrote: Not quite, space in itself, can not be changed or altered. The space is always there, only occupied.

No, because when it's occupied, it's not space anymore, depending on how you define space. And from hwo you're defining it, you appear to be describing literally everything as space.

Indeed. However science in itself is a form of philosophy. We think what we know is correct, however the very base of our knowledge could easily be wrong, thus making all other conceptions and notions wrong.

Mmmkinda...

Science always has at the forefront, "Nothing is absolute, we could ALWAYS be wrong." And there IS a scientific philosophy, but it's not just another form of philosophy, it exists independent(though not ENTIRELY so) of philosophy. It has a method that works, and has been repeatedly demonstrated to be the best method to determine what is true that we know of.

Space, it cannot be seen. We only see the objects that may occupy a certain space, we cannot see ALL space. As well as time. Although time is more the internal relations of our perceived objects.

Space...cannot be seen...alright.

Unfortunately, the way you seem to be defining space, yes, we can see space, we see space all the time, because everything is space. At least that's what you're saying. When I look around, it's all space, just occuppied space.

At 9/3/11 01:28 PM, HeavyMetalHarlow wrote: :

No its a disguised god bashing topic. Just better disguised than all the other atheists who so love to make threads and try and bring down and confuse those who do believe in god

How did I bash god?

And how is the topic about bashing god, and disguised?

I can say a LOT of bad things about MANY beliefs in god, the concept of god, and the idea of faith, I've decided not to do so, because that's not what this topic is about.

Again, I'm not trying to have a religious debate, not in this thread. So if you want to debate me, or 'educate' me or anything, please just do it in a PM.

At 9/3/11 01:12 PM, TheSporkLord wrote:

At 9/3/11 01:06 PM, HeavyMetalHarlow wrote: You sounded smart till you started talking about god.

Religion is based on faith. Faith is he evidence of things hoped for and not seen.

And this is where the metaphysical concept of space comes into the picture. Space indeed contains everything, contains both the external phenomena we know so well along with what cannot be perceived. We think we understand the objects around us, but its our exact perceptions that can impeed us from understanding the true nature of objects.

Ooooh dear.

Space isn't a metaphysical concept, that implies that it's 'above' physicality. That it includes more than the physical.

This is simply incorrect. Space is the antithesis of physical. It is the complete lack of anything physical. That's what 'space' is. We can percive space all the time. You know al the area between the stars? That's space. It has nothingness, complete and utter nothingness. We have a very good understnading of many many things around us. An argument can be easily made we don't understand EVERYTRHING about EVERYTHING, but if we did, then there'd be no more need for science, would there? We are discovering things and figuring things out all the time, philosophy and psychology has given us great strides in understanding consciousness and what it is.

If there is something that CANNOT be percieved, may I ask how you know about it?

At 9/3/11 01:06 PM, HeavyMetalHarlow wrote: You sounded smart till you started talking about god.

Religion is based on faith. Faith is he evidence of things hoped for and not seen.

God doesn't want us to be able to "prove" his xistence, other wise its like taking a test with an answer sheet right in front of you. Yeah you passed, but dd you really know the correct answers or did you just cheat?

...I woiuld know. and I would have used the thinking tool he gave me to figure it out. I would think God would be proud of that.

But regardless, I'm an atheist anyway. I was just using the cosmological argument for the existence of god to explain what validity means. If you want to have a debate about god though, just PM me, this isn't a religion topic.

At 9/3/11 12:56 PM, Space-Whale wrote: i thought this would be a thread about the user "Logic"

Sorry to disappoint. I don't know of Logic. Then again I haven't been here in awhil, I might have once known about him.

At 9/3/11 12:50 PM, Boss wrote:

At 9/3/11 12:40 PM, The-Great-One wrote: Does Vice President count?

Then Dick Cheney.

dick cheney is an offishil P I M P

Mrawr. I got my pimp stick. Mrawr.

To most people who have taken a course or two in logic at a university or something, what I'm about to say may or may not seem...sort of like a 'duh' statement.

Most people fail at logic.

If I ask the layman what logic is, they'll usually give me a situation that applies more to common sense than actual logic. It's not through any fault of their own though, I feel. The media has regularly used the word 'logic' when they really mean 'common sense'.

So what IS logic? Well, logic is a system akin to mathematics. It's a series of premises that are valid, and sound, that lead to a valid and sound conclusion. These conclusions can be something you believe to be true, or something you live by, or, can even act sort of like a puzzle, to test your logic skills. It's akin to mathematics because similar to how 1+1=2 and this is always true, Premise One and Premise Two will always equal the Conclusion given, as long as they're valid and sound. Here's a for instance:

1. Porn stars are human
2 Ron Jeremy is a porn star.
Conclusion: Ron Jeremy is a human.

Most people would like to say that they think logicaly, when the truth is, this isn't the case. COMPUTERS are logical, not people. People are notoriously ILlogical.

Again, it's not our fault we're illogical, it's kind of how we're wired. Sometimes our emotions just get in the way of logic. Here's a personal example from my own life

1. I define good to be anything that promotes the well being of others.
2. In a given hypothetical, if both my parents were killed, millions of people would be saved.
Conclusion: I should let my parents be killed in said hypothetical, if I want to do good.

Unfortunately, I could never imagine doing such a thing, I love my parents too much to sacrifice them, no matter how many people they'd save. This is a selfish illogical idea of my own that comes from a direct result of emotion, something logic doesn't really allow for.

So what does it mean to be valid and sound? I've used these terms a few times already but I never addressed what they mean. To explain, I'll use the opposite of valid, which, in logic, is called a 'nonsequitor'. A nonsequitor literally means 'does not follow'. For instance:

1. People exist
2. John exists
3. John is and existing green person.

Did you see the nonsequitor? The green part. Nothing about being a person, or existing, entails greenness. This may seem like a 'duh' statement, but it helps to illustrate the point. Next, we goo to validity. If something is valid, then all premises DO in fact, follow eachother, all the way to the conclusion.

Here's a common argument for the existence of god, to show how something can be valid.

1. The universe had a beginning
2. Every beginning has a cause
3. Every cause exists independent of the thing caused to begin.
Conclusion: The cause of the universe's existence had to exist independent of the universe. We call this thing God.

That, is a valid argument. However, and this leads into the next part of my little rant, it's not a 'sound' argument. A sound argument means that not only are the premises and conclusion valid, but they are all also true. Premise 1 and 2 in the above 'god' logical argument are debateable, and until they are completely settled, are not sound. If they WERE sound, I would have to accept God's existence, as defined in the argument. Get it? IT would become as inarguable as a mathematical expression.

Now that I've explained logic, how it works, and the system, I'd like to conclude. When presenting an argument, I encourage the use of the logical premise/conclusion system. This makes the argument far easier to address, refute, or hell, even agree with, but I don't encourage the mocking of others who are logically inconsistent, or use bad logic. It's noramlly not their fault. Emotions get in the way, or they just don't understand logic.

There's my 2 cents. This rant brought to you by seeing several people in this forum accuse others of having 'bad logic'.

At 9/3/11 12:13 PM, Yoshi-Dus-Not wrote:

At 9/3/11 12:09 PM, BigLundi wrote: Would someone mind telling me WHY Obama is so evil? Seriously. Objectively he's done a lot of good, and not near enough bad, in my opinion, to even come close to deserve the title 'evil'.

He isn't evil, but i dislike him because most people voted for him just because he was black, so his color is EVIL!

im not racist, it's the truth

Racism you consider true is still racism.

Also, where do you get this 'most people voted for his skin color' idea? I've never seen any statistic saying anything like that. In FACT, I've seen statistics that almost 20% of america WOULDN'T vote for a black president, purely because they're black.

Would someone mind telling me WHY Obama is so evil? Seriously. Objectively he's done a lot of good, and not near enough bad, in my opinion, to even come close to deserve the title 'evil'.

Jackson wasn't evil. He was just out of his mind. Did you read about the assassination attempt made on his life during a funeral? Guy came up and fired two guns right against JAcksons's back, but both jammed up on him. Jackson, being an old man, beat the man near to death using a cane before the assassin was arrested.

That's badass right there.

So anyhow, if I had to choose the most EVIL US president, I'd be hard pressed, as to consider someone evil, in my opinion, is to place them on the same level as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Pol Pot.

Let's go with...the biggest douchebag president. If I had to choose I'd say Carter.

Carter was an anti semite on the level of Walt Disney, and he wasn't exactly shy about it.

If I were a mod, I'd have a lot more reason to care about the forums.

Till then though, I still consider General to be a festering cesspool of idiocy and bigotry that threatens to suck everything into its black hole of vagina jokes.

Alright, lemme just put my two cents in.

I'm an atheist. And quite honestly, I don't see any use in religion of any sort. Not that I think people should all just stop believing these things. I don'tthink it would end all problems, and If it's not done for good reasons on every individual's part, we'll still have the same problems.

I DO feel that atheists and secular humanists TEND to, in my view, have a very...pragmatic...and useful way of viewing the world. Very realistic. I believe those that believe in God and those that are religious aren't dumb, they aren't incapable of critical thought, they can even be just as smart, or smarter than me. However, I feel when it comes to God, and religion, that very particular part of them is irrational. It is unintelligent. I don't mean this as an insult, I myself am unintelligent when it comes to handling money. We are all ignorant, or unintelligent on many matters. I think that's probbaly the best thing we can admit to ourselves.

Here's the thing. I'm perfectly ok with anyone, anywhere, believing what they want with regards to religion. However, it is when ACTIONS are taken on the part of these religions that we have prblems. This much we all know. The problem is that ALL actions are taken, based off of what we believe. so if we believe irrational things, then we're more likely to DO irrational things. Completely outright deny things that are supported by evidence, outright deny people rights that they have no good reason for denying...unable to define morals in any useful way, many different possibilities.

I defer to Hitchens when it comes to religion. "It's never going to go away. It's people's favorite toy. People love to play wit htheir toy, they raise their children to play with their toy. Howeve. Do NOT come over to my house and ask me to play with your toy. Don't go out in the streets and demand everyone learn how to play with your toy."

At 5/4/11 12:27 AM, Cootie wrote: Good for you, now become the number #1 ass-kicker online and start talking. Oh, and have you unlocked the whole Krypt? Have you beat the latter with every fighter? If not then get to working.

Yes I've unlocked the whole krypt and yes I'm beaten Latter with every fighter.

That's right. All Ladder Matches, Story Mode, and all 300 Challenges.

My head...fucking hurts.

Why make this thread? Well to brag of course. It's no speed run, but goddammit I'm proud of it.

So, what's the funniest quotes you've ever heard? I'm not talking about punchlines to jokes, I'm talking about funny one liners, or sentences that are so ludicrous you laugh.

Here's a couple of mine.

"You bitch, I'm going to punch you in the face." - Family Guy
"I finished thinking about something...and then forgot to start thinking about something else." - Red vs. Blue(Caboose)
"Shotgun to the face remedies any situation! Watch as it cures insubordination!" - Red vs. Blue (Sarge)

So I'm looking for new songs to add to my repertoire, and my brother turned me onto this group called Spponfed Tribe, I find I really like these instrumental bands. I wonder, does Newgrounds have any recomendations for me?

For an example of what I'm kinda looking for, Check this out.

Actually. That's just my understanding of what the word means. I never actually looked it up. : /.