Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/26/08 03:58 AM, esko-man wrote: In my belief, yes, we should ALL think about things for what they are. I'm not pushing anything on anyone, I'm simply giving my opinion, and anyone who reads it can take whatever they want, I could honestly give a fuck :/ I'm not trying to say my way is the way to go, but that it's the way I'm going.

"We should all think about things for what they are."
"I'm not trying to say my way is the way to go."

Yeah I realize you preface it with "in my belief" but that is such a cop-out. It's like saying "all due respect" before you tell someone their face is ugly.

As I say, anyone can chose to take anything they want from this. The only reason it was written in the first place was because I find this more calming to my nerves, and over all more constructive than staying angry at the individuals who created the facebook group I came upon (mentioned in the OP)

But don't pretend it stops at calming nerves and being constructive. Dissemenation of ideas in a non-confrontational format is always calming and constructive. Articulation of ideas in the same environment helps solidify belief.

At 10/26/08 01:38 PM, esko-man wrote: You know the theory that usually comes up when talking about time travel and all that jazz, that says if one thing as simple as a butterfly being killed happened out of place, horrible things could happen and change the future with insane outcomes? Well if we take that as truth, then wouldn't free will be like that every single day? Wouldn't that show some kind of fate? Not that I believe there is a set fate for every living being, but I'm not seeing too much crazy random shit happening...

It's not random or crazy if you're living in it, acknowledging the specific line of events that led to it.

Also, regardless of how far back you go, or the size of the "change," chances are it's not going to alter the fabric of space-time itself. So floating elephants is a alittle far fetched no matter what you do.Though, if we were living in a world that had floating elephants, it likely wouldn't be that crazy to us (unless we had just found out they float and saw no other indication of similar aerial activity in anything else).

Believe what you want, only time will tell.

At 10/26/08 02:08 AM, esko-man wrote: You sir, are absolutely right, and that's where my argument about the things I had read from this group stops, and the question of what you believe, and what someone is putting in that blank talking about you starts. It neither proves or dismisses what is being said, whatever is put in that blank, but offers the same question.

If you agree that an assertion made without proof can be dismissed without proof, why do you afford your own inherently irrational and irrelevant beliefs status as things that shall not be dismissed outright?

Oh no, not religion!

this conversation is too mature for me

one word man: Respect

At 10/26/08 05:17 PM, BRS wrote:

If you agree that an assertion made without proof can be dismissed without proof, why do you afford your own inherently irrational and irrelevant beliefs status as things that shall not be dismissed outright?

Because under this form of thought, my inherent irrational and irrelevant beliefs are no more inherently irrational and irrelevant than anyone else's.. People will either chose to hear me out or chose the opposite. Some may take my message and agree, most will probably not. It's the fact that it's a choice in your mind weather or not you dismiss it for lack of proof, or not, same as anything else. Trying is better than nothing.

At 10/27/08 02:11 AM, esko-man wrote: Because under this form of thought, my inherent irrational and irrelevant beliefs are no more inherently irrational and irrelevant than anyone else's.. People will either chose to hear me out or chose the opposite.

You contradict yourself. In the opening post of this thread you decried the absolute conviction of a group of atheists based on it's irrationality, yet you continue to assert that you require a higher standard of proof to be persuaded from your own equally irrational beliefs.

Some may take my message and agree, most will probably not. It's the fact that it's a choice in your mind weather or not you dismiss it for lack of proof, or not, same as anything else.

The fact that you don't consider the validity of what you perpetuate to be a necessity in your mind is what is in question. How do you defend delegating the burden of proof and forgoing the basic internal consistency check that would require you dismiss your own beliefs without limiting the extent to which you can dismiss the beliefs of others?

Trying is better than nothing.

What you are doing is disingenuous.

all things considered, you aren't being very silent. i checked this thread hopeing for a little peice and quiet, only to find you soap-boxing? and now you've got everyone else riled up too. what does your precious god tell you about lieing?

i bet it isn't "you should lie"