Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/7/09 12:12 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/7/09 11:50 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

I care ...I want the 9:59 seconds I wasted watching a video about a religiously repressed guy wanting to try as many practices frowned on by the church as possible. Yawn boring !

Well it is pretty lame until you realize that people like Marc get to vote :O

;;;;;
Hell , Politicians get to vote....What can be scarier than that ?

At 1/5/09 10:13 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Isn't this just research?

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?

If you're studying something and discover evidence then draw the most plausable conclusion based on that evidence it is called research.

Do you think they're related?

Not really. Because consciousness is merely being self aware. So if 90% of the population do not have a soul then they would not be self aware.

Not if they don't have a soul.

My main point here is science is for gaining knowledge and research, that's it.

...as much as possible?

Of course.

Can you prove this with science he is the source?

He who is every where and within every living thing lent creation to all existence in the form of a massively cataclysmal abrupt change to a desired effect.

That isn't evidence that's a statement.

Proving stuff with science is the whole point I've been trying to get across.. with all your insight you should've recognized that.

We shouldn't pretend to understand the world only by intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy.

Have you shown an understanding of its inadequacy yet?

'Feeling' for something doesn't give you an understanding of it. Can you feel how a car works? Does being angry at it tell you it's fuel/air ratio?

No, knowledge does.

You can see the world and it's beauty. But that merely gives you the experience of what you're doing (if I climb a mountain gives me the experience of climbing it) If you want to know how things work or what they do you have to turn to science.

But even after that it can study the biological and psychological experiences. Scientists can monitor the amount of calories I used, my brains reactions to the sights, the time taken etc etc etc.

So basically calling it a 'half truth' is simply wrong.

Stop inventing definitions because I know more about me and what I believe (or disbelieve) than you do. Unless you're stalking me or can read my mind.

I lend you string, what you tie of it is up to you.

No strings, no ties. I can be a suicide bomber or the curer of cancer of a fireman and I'd still be an Atheist in any case.

And Lazydrunk, stop spamming my inbox because unlike you I don't block everyone who has an opposing opinion.

I blocked you on my PMs a very, very long time ago for an offense I shoud've reported to the administration, but didn't for a greater understanding of why they put the block function in private messages.

Don't like it, block me. I'd do the same for you.

At 1/7/09 02:17 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/5/09 10:13 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Do you think they're related?

Not really. Because consciousness is merely being self aware. So if 90% of the population do not have a soul then they would not be self aware.

Self aware people wouldn't make irrational decisions concerning themselves; suiciders, smokers, progeny rapists and other examples of apparently unconscious, and thus, unaware... and well, soulless.

Makes sense to me.

Can you prove this with science he is the source?

He who is every where and within every living thing lent creation to all existence in the form of a massively cataclysmal abrupt change to a desired effect.

That isn't evidence that's a statement.

And your lack of definition of "he" proves you ask questions expecting an answer unbefitting the former. A shame.

Proving stuff with science is the whole point I've been trying to get across.. with all your insight you should've recognized that.

We shouldn't pretend to understand the world only by intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy.

Have you shown an understanding of its inadequacy yet?

'Feeling' for something doesn't give you an understanding of it. Can you feel how a car works? Does being angry at it tell you it's fuel/air ratio?

Do you understand pain if you don't feel it? Oh okay, I win again.

I like this game.

No, knowledge does.

You can see the world and it's beauty. But that merely gives you the experience of what you're doing (if I climb a mountain gives me the experience of climbing it) If you want to know how things work or what they do you have to turn to science.

But even after that it can study the biological and psychological experiences. Scientists can monitor the amount of calories I used, my brains reactions to the sights, the time taken etc etc etc.

So basically calling it a 'half truth' is simply wrong.

Yeah, Thomas Huxley was full of shit, wasn't he.

Stop inventing definitions because I know more about me and what I believe (or disbelieve) than you do. Unless you're stalking me or can read my mind.

I lend you string, what you tie of it is up to you.

No strings, no ties.

Because you are unaware, and thus, soulless.. even by your own admittedly juvenile definitions.

At 1/7/09 02:56 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Don't like it, block me. I'd do the same for you.

No, because i'm not intolerent.

At 1/7/09 02:17 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/5/09 10:13 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Do you think they're related?

Not really. Because consciousness is merely being self aware. So if 90% of the population do not have a soul then they would not be self aware.

Self aware people wouldn't make irrational decisions concerning themselves; suiciders, smokers, progeny rapists and other examples of apparently unconscious, and thus, unaware... and well, soulless.

Oh really?

the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

So basically, it's being awake.

Makes sense to me.

Can you prove this with science he is the source?

He who is every where and within every living thing lent creation to all existence in the form of a massively cataclysmal abrupt change to a desired effect.

That isn't evidence that's a statement.

And your lack of definition of "he" proves you ask questions expecting an answer unbefitting the former. A shame.

'He' indicating an entity usually a person of a male gender.

You don't call a plant pot a 'he'

Proving stuff with science is the whole point I've been trying to get across.. with all your insight you should've recognized that.

We shouldn't pretend to understand the world only by intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy.

Have you shown an understanding of its inadequacy yet?

'Feeling' for something doesn't give you an understanding of it. Can you feel how a car works? Does being angry at it tell you it's fuel/air ratio?

Do you understand pain if you don't feel it? Oh okay, I win again.

No, I don't understand pain. I don't know how it works or why it's there. All I know is I can feel it. That's it.

I like this game.

No, knowledge does.

You can see the world and it's beauty. But that merely gives you the experience of what you're doing (if I climb a mountain gives me the experience of climbing it) If you want to know how things work or what they do you have to turn to science.

But even after that it can study the biological and psychological experiences. Scientists can monitor the amount of calories I used, my brains reactions to the sights, the time taken etc etc etc.

So basically calling it a 'half truth' is simply wrong.

Yeah, Thomas Huxley was full of shit, wasn't he.

And what's an 19th century, agnostic, evolutionary biologist got to do with this?

Stop inventing definitions because I know more about me and what I believe (or disbelieve) than you do. Unless you're stalking me or can read my mind.

I lend you string, what you tie of it is up to you.

No strings, no ties.

Because you are unaware, and thus, soulless.. even by your own admittedly juvenile definitions.

No, you're saying I'm Atheistism (or whatever you called it)however I'm merely an Atheist because al it says you have to do is have a lack of belief in God. That's it. Anything else I do or say is completely irrelevent and I like the fact I couldn't actually find your mystical word in the dictionary so it's totally fabricated.

I like how you're saying I have juvenile definitions yet I'm the only one actually checking them. Wow.

Lazy, I'm not reading your PM. Simply because I'm not in the mood for more insults so I've deleted both your messages.

If you have anything to say keep it in the thread.

At 1/7/09 03:18 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/7/09 02:56 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Don't like it, block me. I'd do the same for you.

No, because i'm not intolerent.

Good, sent.

At 1/7/09 02:17 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/5/09 10:13 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Do you think they're related?

Not really. Because consciousness is merely being self aware. So if 90% of the population do not have a soul then they would not be self aware.

Self aware people wouldn't make irrational decisions concerning themselves; suiciders, smokers, progeny rapists and other examples of apparently unconscious, and thus, unaware... and well, soulless.

Oh really?

A link to your own definition countering my definition of a soul, after rudimentally rejecting their connection? Now I'm confused. Are you revoking your objection to my original definitions, and questions? (If you don't want to go back and find the original questions on the previous 1-2 pages, I will find them for you, even at the risk of further cluttering this mess you've decided to drag out on account of semantics.)

the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

So basically, it's being awake.\

Being awake doesn't mean you have a soul, even if you could prove it in a fashion more believable than a dictionary link a 4 year old chimpanzee could've computed.

Makes sense to me.

Can you prove this with science he is the source?

He who is every where and within every living thing lent creation to all existence in the form of a massively cataclysmal abrupt change to a desired effect.

That isn't evidence that's a statement.

And your lack of definition of "he" proves you ask questions expecting an answer unbefitting the former. A shame.

'He' indicating an entity usually a person of a male gender.

You don't call a plant pot a 'he'

I don't call pot plants lots of things.

...You have proof an entity didn't knowingly create a massive change to a desired effect? Interesting. I'd thought I'd been vague enough to acknowledge the merits of scientific evidence while also acknowledging the limits of that understanding.

Hum.

Proving stuff with science is the whole point I've been trying to get across.. with all your insight you should've recognized that.

We shouldn't pretend to understand the world only by intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy.

Have you shown an understanding of its inadequacy yet?

'Feeling' for something doesn't give you an understanding of it. Can you feel how a car works? Does being angry at it tell you it's fuel/air ratio?

Do you understand pain if you don't feel it? Oh okay, I win again.

No, I don't understand pain. I don't know how it works or why it's there. All I know is I can feel it. That's it.

lol I guess you got me there.

I like this game.

No, knowledge does.

You can see the world and it's beauty. But that merely gives you the experience of what you're doing (if I climb a mountain gives me the experience of climbing it) If you want to know how things work or what they do you have to turn to science.

But even after that it can study the biological and psychological experiences. Scientists can monitor the amount of calories I used, my brains reactions to the sights, the time taken etc etc etc.

So basically calling it a 'half truth' is simply wrong.

Yeah, Thomas Huxley was full of shit, wasn't he.

And what's an 19th century, agnostic, evolutionary biologist got to do with this?

It was his quote you said "is simply wrong".

Stop inventing definitions because I know more about me and what I believe (or disbelieve) than you do. Unless you're stalking me or can read my mind.

I lend you string, what you tie of it is up to you.

No strings, no ties.

Because you are unaware, and thus, soulless.. even by your own admittedly juvenile definitions.

No, you're saying I'm Atheistism (or whatever you called it)however I'm merely an Atheist because al it says you have to do is have a lack of belief in God. That's it.

But you said you were kinda agnostic too, which isn't what an atheist is, it's what an atheistismist is, because you knowingly turn hypocritical points into articles of conjecture unrecognizable to anyone with a modicum of integrity and wit.

I call you what you are, because you are not able to divulge what is it you believe, and be measured by the same stick you bat tomatoes with.

Anything else I do or say is completely irrelevent and I like the fact I couldn't actually find your mystical word in the dictionary so it's totally fabricated.

Look for asshat, scrunk and ************. You won't find any of them either, but I think you understand their meanings extremely well, especially considering this isn't the first time I've used atheistism to describe the behaviors of you and others committing the same errors.

I like how you're saying I have juvenile definitions yet I'm the only one actually checking them. Wow.

Ecclesiastical, if you haven't read the PM read.

At 1/7/09 03:39 PM, Brick-top wrote: Lazy, I'm not reading your PM. Simply because I'm not in the mood for more insults so I've deleted both your messages.

If you have anything to say keep it in the thread.

Atheistismist in action, everyone.

At 1/7/09 03:41 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

At 1/7/09 03:39 PM, Brick-top wrote: Lazy, I'm not reading your PM. Simply because I'm not in the mood for more insults so I've deleted both your messages.

If you have anything to say keep it in the thread.

Atheistismist in action, everyone.

All I did was send him a bunch more Thomas Huxley quotes for him to chew on, along with an essential question concerning the nature of observation.

As a self-proclaimed anti-Atheistismist, semi-Agnostic Atheist, brick-top should've already been immersed in the methods and viewpoints of one of evolutions, and thus sciences, foremost supporters and advocates.

So much for benefit of the doubt.

At 1/7/09 03:40 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: A link to your own definition countering my definition of a soul, after rudimentally rejecting their connection? Now I'm confused.

It would show they weren't the same thing if only 10% of the population had it.

Being awake doesn't mean you have a soul, even if you could prove it in a fashion more believable than a dictionary link a 4 year old chimpanzee could've computed.

But it does mean conscious and the soul are not releated if people can be absent of a soul.

If you don't believe it then check it in an actual dictionary.

...You have proof an entity didn't knowingly create a massive change to a desired effect? Interesting. I'd thought I'd been vague enough to acknowledge the merits of scientific evidence while also acknowledging the limits of that understanding.

If you mean a self aware entity that's usually followed by Religious groups then you're the one who has to prove it.

Hum.

lol I guess you got me there.

I really like this game.

And what's an 19th century, agnostic, evolutionary biologist got to do with this?

It was his quote you said "is simply wrong".

I still don't get what he has to do with it or why his information is relevent since the scientific information back then is now outdated.

But you said you were kinda agnostic too

Yes, "kind've" or more of a modest Atheist. I don't believe in God, but I don't know if he exists.

Are you an Atheist if you claim to not know he exists? Are you agnostic if you don't follow God?

At most I'd be an Agnostic-Atheist.

which isn't what an atheist is, it's what an atheistismist is

Umm...no.

because you knowingly turn hypocritical points into articles of conjecture unrecognizable to anyone with a modicum of integrity and wit.

Do I now? And you've suddenly turned into an expert about me have you?

I call you what you are, because you are not able to divulge what is it you believe, and be measured by the same stick you bat tomatoes with.

I call you what you are, you're now a horse. This is fact simply because I call you it.

See what I did there?

I know exactly what I believe and how I think. Otherwise there's another personality in my mind I'm unaware of.

Anything else I do or say is completely irrelevent and I like the fact I couldn't actually find your mystical word in the dictionary so it's totally fabricated.

Look for asshat, scrunk and ************. You won't find any of them either, but I think you understand their meanings extremely well

Actually I don't. But I can guess they're insults.

especially considering this isn't the first time I've used atheistism to describe the behaviors of you and others committing the same errors.

I'm wondering if I bother taking your style of posting and invent a name based on what you believe.

Just for fun.

I like how you're saying I have juvenile definitions yet I'm the only one actually checking them. Wow.

Ecclesiastical, if you haven't read the PM read.

No, i haven't. It's more spam isn't it?

To me it seems that the most likely reason is that people don't like to be told that they are wrong and and atheists seem to do that quite often. I personally believe that religion has it's place, like giving people moral codes, but that it shouldn't be trusted for fact, science should. So I agree with atheism in many respects but I believe they try to convince others in ways that are quite obviously offensive. You just cannot be so up front in telling BILLIONS of people that the things they most deeply believe in are absolutely wrong, without even a hint of truth. In some places with some people you're likely to get killed for it. What would happen to your beliefs then?

LazyDrunk sent me this:
When I'd originally blocked you [brick-top] last year, I'd done so with the the full understanding that you had, are, and will continue using the PM system to provoke certain responses in which I wish not to endure.

Just like what you've been doing to me?

No offence, but you're such a hypocrite. You've sent me 3pms in this debate at least one of which had an insulting remark.

At 1/7/09 04:34 PM, Patton3 wrote: To me it seems that the most likely reason is that people don't like to be told that they are wrong and and atheists seem to do that quite often.

I can agree with that, if only for the idea that those who post here adhere to those exact stipulations.

I personally believe that religion has it's place, like giving people moral codes, but that it shouldn't be trusted for fact, science should.

Does science instill any moral codes, at least on a regular basis? I know doctors take an oath to do no harm, but then I hear of stories where people die in hospital waiting rooms waiting for hours for help, and others where people are turned away solely for their inability to pay. There is room for both moderated religion and scientific research and discovery on this planet, there really is.

Some who claim science and religion automatically oppose, and therefore are somehow incompatible on a universal scale. Religion is not identical to spirituality, something atheism and it's NG proponents fail to recognize.

I used atheists instead of atheistismists because there are only a few who claim the title, likewise for the religiously-persecuted among the posters. Sue me.

So I agree with atheism in many respects but I believe they try to convince others in ways that are quite obviously offensive. You just cannot be so up front in telling BILLIONS of people that the things they most deeply believe in are absolutely wrong, without even a hint of truth.

Exactly, and then to demand the undemandable, the mother lode of scientific research, the goal of survival..... apparently.

In some places with some people you're likely to get killed for it. What would happen to your beliefs then?

You would die in the absence of faith in whatever culture you are visiting.

At 1/7/09 07:40 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/7/09 04:34 PM, Patton3 wrote: To me it seems that the most likely reason is that people don't like to be told that they are wrong and and atheists seem to do that quite often.

I can agree with that, if only for the idea that those who post here adhere to those exact stipulations.

Have you ever considered that the reason atheists do that on this forum is because that is the point of this forum. To state your views and try to prove them right.

I personally believe that religion has it's place, like giving people moral codes, but that it shouldn't be trusted for fact, science should.

Does science instill any moral codes, at least on a regular basis? I know doctors take an oath to do no harm, but then I hear of stories where people die in hospital waiting rooms waiting for hours for help, and others where people are turned away solely for their inability to pay. There is room for both moderated religion and scientific research and discovery on this planet, there really is.

Does that have to do with science or an inept health-care system?

So I agree with atheism in many respects but I believe they try to convince others in ways that are quite obviously offensive. You just cannot be so up front in telling BILLIONS of people that the things they most deeply believe in are absolutely wrong, without even a hint of truth.

Exactly, and then to demand the undemandable, the mother lode of scientific research, the goal of survival..... apparently.

The goal of survival? To reperdouce. Thats what evoloution is all about. You seem to constantly claim atheists force their views on you but how many atheists do you know outside this forum?

In some places with some people you're likely to get killed for it. What would happen to your beliefs then?

You would die in the absence of faith in whatever culture you are visiting.

At 1/7/09 07:54 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 1/7/09 07:40 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/7/09 04:34 PM, Patton3 wrote: To me it seems that the most likely reason is that people don't like to be told that they are wrong and and atheists seem to do that quite often.

I can agree with that, if only for the idea that those who post here adhere to those exact stipulations.

Have you ever considered that the reason atheists do that on this forum is because that is the point of this forum. To state your views and try to prove them right.

I've considered it.

I personally believe that religion has it's place, like giving people moral codes, but that it shouldn't be trusted for fact, science should.

Does science instill any moral codes, at least on a regular basis? I know doctors take an oath to do no harm, but then I hear of stories where people die in hospital waiting rooms waiting for hours for help, and others where people are turned away solely for their inability to pay. There is room for both moderated religion and scientific research and discovery on this planet, there really is.

Does that have to do with science or an inept health-care system?

Moral codes say if you are a doctor you tend those who need tending. Is that a rational statement?

I could ask what the moral impact of creating the A-bomb was, but I don't really care to hear the kind of argument I've heard 50 billion times.

So I agree with atheism in many respects but I believe they try to convince others in ways that are quite obviously offensive. You just cannot be so up front in telling BILLIONS of people that the things they most deeply believe in are absolutely wrong, without even a hint of truth.

Exactly, and then to demand the undemandable, the mother lode of scientific research, the goal of survival..... apparently.

The goal of survival? To reperdouce. Thats what evoloution is all about. You seem to constantly claim atheists force their views on you but how many atheists do you know outside this forum?

About 25-30 I can name. I actually hang out with atheists on a regular basis, but I don't let that interfere with my life the way the posters here hang their hats on their cocks and wonder why everyone thinks they got a hard-on.

In some places with some people you're likely to get killed for it. What would happen to your beliefs then?

You would die in the absence of faith in whatever culture you are visiting.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID!

Dear God/Science, you people are still in here arguing?

I mean, one would think you'd grow bored and frustrated with yelling with no one listening to you.

As it stands, I really think my earlier statement of 'Live your own life and don't push your beliefs onto other people, wether you're theist or atheist' is the winning point of view.

At 1/7/09 11:35 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: Dear God/Science, you people are still in here arguing?

I mean, one would think you'd grow bored and frustrated with yelling with no one listening to you.

As it stands, I really think my earlier statement of 'Live your own life and don't push your beliefs onto other people, wether you're theist or atheist' is the winning point of view.

Everything is up for critcism, questioning and debate. However long that takes is irrelevent.

At 1/7/09 11:39 PM, Brick-top wrote: Everything is up for critcism, questioning and debate. However long that takes is irrelevent.

Well that's really all moot point if everyone here is just having a dick-waving competition. Everyone has already made it abundantly clear that they have their own set of beliefs and that it's not going to change. So there isn't any point to it because you aren't changing any minds. You might as well be screaming at a brick wall, because you'd get the same results.

At 1/7/09 11:43 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 1/7/09 11:39 PM, Brick-top wrote: Everything is up for critcism, questioning and debate. However long that takes is irrelevent.

Well that's really all moot point if everyone here is just having a dick-waving competition. Everyone has already made it abundantly clear that they have their own set of beliefs and that it's not going to change. So there isn't any point to it because you aren't changing any minds. You might as well be screaming at a brick wall, because you'd get the same results.

Actually I've learned a lot from debating here (and other places) it has actually made me more tollerent of other people's opinions (shocking)

Rain isn't there just to make you feel miserable.

At 1/7/09 11:35 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: Dear God/Science, you people are still in here arguing?

I mean, one would think you'd grow bored and frustrated with yelling with no one listening to you.

As it stands, I really think my earlier statement of 'Live your own life and don't push your beliefs onto other people, wether you're theist or atheist' is the winning point of view.

Don't you assholes ever grow tried of popping into threads and telling people to stop having fun? I mean, seriously, can't you find anything better to do? There is a person like you every single page in every single topic about religion and atheism.

I agree 100%. I think that anyone that doesn't accept an atheist in society is a hypocrite. If then can believe the story of their religion, they should be open minded enough to consider other sources and religions. Personally, I think that religion offers nothing productive.

At 1/7/09 11:43 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 1/7/09 11:39 PM, Brick-top wrote: Everything is up for critcism, questioning and debate. However long that takes is irrelevent.

Well that's really all moot point if everyone here is just having a dick-waving competition. Everyone has already made it abundantly clear that they have their own set of beliefs and that it's not going to change. So there isn't any point to it because you aren't changing any minds. You might as well be screaming at a brick wall, because you'd get the same results.

Every post you've made in this thread is telling us not to argue. Either write something decent that goes into detail about WHY we shouldn't argue or shut the fuck up. No-one is interested in what you've got to say.

At 1/6/09 08:12 PM, marchohare wrote: I just think they should try harder to avoid stupid hypotheses, because in this case, some kind of "Quantum Mind" hypothesis appears to be comparatively believable.

The problem with that is that we don't even know what "quantum mind" actually implies at this point. A better label for it right now is "Unknown mechanism."

It's hard to explain anomalies when we've only scraped the surface of the neurotypical case.

At 1/8/09 12:23 AM, Brick-top wrote: Actually I've learned a lot from debating here (and other places) it has actually made me more tollerent of other people's opinions (shocking)

Well then, more power to you. It's just hard for me to believe that everyone here shares your sentiments when most of the arguments have been "You're wrong, and everything you believe is wrong, and my proof is that I say so."

At 1/8/09 01:32 AM, Drakim wrote: Don't you assholes ever grow tried of popping into threads and telling people to stop having fun? I mean, seriously, can't you find anything better to do? There is a person like you every single page in every single topic about religion and atheism.

I really don't give a damn if you argue or not, so long as there's real debate going on and not just a bunch of arrogant bastards yelling at each other about how right they are so they can stroke their own ego because the only self satisfaction they get is by trying to convince themselves they're smarter than the entire internet. See 'Unwarrented Self Importance' for more information.

At 1/8/09 06:59 AM, Earfetish wrote: Every post you've made in this thread is telling us not to argue. Either write something decent that goes into detail about WHY we shouldn't argue or shut the fuck up.

I think I already have. Both sides are just yelling at each other about how wrong the other side is. Now, again, nothing wrong with that so long as something constructive is going on in the process, but it's all insignificant when 1) you can't provide a shred of evidence to support either side, 2) you're not going to convince anyone that you're right and they're wrong when both of you have already decided your opinion before the 'debate' even starts, and 3) it's really none of your damn business what someone else does or does not believe.

No-one is interested in what you've got to say.

And just why is your high and mighty opinion more important than mine?

Dear God/Science, you are still in here arguingALTANESE MISTRESS?

I mean, one would think you'd grow bored and frustrated with yelling with no one listening to you, ALTANESEMISTRESS.

As it stands, I really think my earlier statement of 'Live your own life and don't push your beliefs onto other people, wether you're theist or atheist' is the winning point of view, ALTANESE MISTRESS

At 1/8/09 07:44 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: I think I already have. Both sides are just yelling at each other about how wrong the other side is. Now, again, nothing wrong with that so long as something constructive is going on in the process, but it's all insignificant when 1) you can't provide a shred of evidence to support either side, 2) you're not going to convince anyone that you're right and they're wrong when both of you have already decided your opinion before the 'debate' even starts, and 3) it's really none of your damn business what someone else does or does not believe.

1) Not all discussions revolve around evidence. There was no evidence for Einstein's thought experiments, but just through theoretical thinking it brought us Special and General relativity, which only got evidence so many years later. Most branches of philosophy don't exactly revolve around gathering "evidence" for the propositions either.

2) Since when does a debate become useless when you don't convince the other party? Usually people have some sort of opinion on their own when they start debating something.

3) Life would be incredibly boring if everybody thought that. "What did you think of that movie?" "SHUT UP, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT I BELIEVE!"

Let's try something.

Marc- assume pox is right, how would coincidence and illusion make what you did possible

pox- assume marc is right, what are the scientific allegations of what he's saying, aside from them being large, it IS safely assumed that all variables in a given environment affect that said environment, do they not?

Play with that.

I feel that those two questions are on line with the thread because it still deals with the topic of acceptance.

I.e. accepting each other despite your conflicting views

At 1/8/09 09:17 AM, poxpower wrote: Everything I said with my screen name in allcaps at the end of each sentance.

If you can't say anything origional, then don't say anything at all.

At 1/8/09 10:22 AM, Togukawa wrote: 1) Not all discussions revolve around evidence. There was no evidence for Einstein's thought experiments, but just through theoretical thinking it brought us Special and General relativity, which only got evidence so many years later. Most branches of philosophy don't exactly revolve around gathering "evidence" for the propositions either.

The point is that that topic wasn't proven, but this topic CAN'T be proven.

2) Since when does a debate become useless when you don't convince the other party? Usually people have some sort of opinion on their own when they start debating something.

No, debate is when both parties gather evidence in the hopes of altering the opinions of others for the better, and letting their own views be altered for the better as well. What you're thinking of is arguing.

3) Life would be incredibly boring if everybody thought that. "What did you think of that movie?" "SHUT UP, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT I BELIEVE!"

Are you really comparing opinion on a movie to belief (or lack thereof) in God?

At 1/8/09 01:45 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I feel that those two questions are on line with the thread because it still deals with the topic of acceptance.

I.e. accepting each other despite your conflicting views

I agree with that entirely. Because otherwise the bickering gets old after fifteen pages.

At 1/8/09 01:45 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

pox- assume marc is right, what are the scientific allegations of what he's saying,

If he`s right, then you can do magic spells, except only when no one is watching but you and people who think it`s going to work.
Also the spells won`t work on anyone other than yourself or those who believe it works on them.

Oh and it only works sometimes.

So it`s pretty fucking useless, basically.

At 1/8/09 07:44 AM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 1/8/09 12:23 AM, Brick-top wrote: Actually I've learned a lot from debating here (and other places) it has actually made me more tollerent of other people's opinions (shocking)

Well then, more power to you. It's just hard for me to believe that everyone here shares your sentiments when most of the arguments have been "You're wrong, and everything you believe is wrong, and my proof is that I say so."

Do you find it hard to believe or you wont accept it? When people interact (even on the internet) they change, whether or not it's for the better or worse is irrelevent they're going to change either way.

Also I'd like to add you're here willingly. Nobody is forcing you to come onto this thread, forum, website etc. If you dislike what you're reading then do not participate. You don't willingly play sports you don't enjoy so why bother come into this thread?