INTENSITY²
Arena for the Competitive => Main Event Callouts => Topic started by: Loupgarou on December 05, 2010, 10:10:27 PM
-
Okay, please get off your chest whatever it is you want to say. This is not to turn in to bickering as I am not a bickering person. What I am allowing you to do is vent your spleen for whatever ails you for you show me hostility almost constantly. If there is no hostility and I am imagining things, then so be it and we shall be on our merry way.
I have reached a level of anger with you, and in my pain state, it is making me avoid this site almost daily, and wish to clear it up. I need to know if the pain is making me overreact or you really do have a problem with me.
Loup
-
I don't have a problem with you because I don't know you. What I do have a problem with is the constant stream of bullshit that you post. You seem pretty adept at talking out of both sides of your mouth, which is to be expected from someone whose mind has been damaged by religious indoctrination. In one post you claim to be a logical thinker, then a few posts later you make rhetorical arguments that are mostly logical fallacies. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you say, because you'll end up contradicting yourself a few posts later. When confronted with these contradictions, you'll rationalize them somehow. It's what George Orwell calls "Doublethink". It's very common to encounter doublethink in people with a religious mindset. You have claimet to excel at theology, which means you excel at doublethink because theology contains internal contradictions which must be rationalized away.
-
Thank you for replying. I now know where things stand.
Loup
-
Well, that was boring. *drops popcorn*
-
Having considered my position, I cannot let this lie. I made an oath to myself many years ago that I would never act out of anger, or that my nasty side would see the light of day, but I have reached the end of my endurance.
SOTB, I have dealt with people that would make you look like the proverbial infant in terms of viciousness and nastiness. I have learnt from the best. I took your name calling and gross genralisations on my modus operandi and attacks on my religious history with grace. I even considered some of your insults and out of respect for your ideas, gave them some credence. But because I happened to disagree on a few topics and insulted your very intelligence ::), you became judge, jury and executioner. You can disagree with me, but cruelty due to the need to be right all the time, is just banal words. It is not Logic, but emotion. Anger is how you operate, not the divine and calm search for the truth.
You are narcissistic and insecure. You cannot operate on any platform other than the one you have created for yourself, and so help anyone that dares to disagree with you. Never, during my time as a competitive debater, have I ever had it reduced to name calling. In fact, I would have been expelled from the sport if I had reduced myself to that, yet you do it and call it Logic.
If I am a "double thinker" then so be it. "The words of truth are paradoxical"- Lao tzu. How correct this statement is. Your need to prove yourself, is without boundaries. I wonder how far you get with that. In my experience the people who speak the loudest, have very little to say, and you fit that category perfectly. If human evolution is to go the way of the bigot and self-riteous, then count me out. I am quite happy where I am. It is your fierce need to be heard that strengthens my misanthropy. I run away from people like you, because I am scared of how I may incriminate myself. Just because I do not act with violence anymore does not mean that I do not have to constantly keep it in check.
And they called me a sociopath many moons ago. You take the cake on that score. Baseless cruelty and name calling makes me angry, arguments do not. If you think I am a moron basically, then why do you respond on my threads? Why do you bother? Well, I guess that there is a part of you that will do anything to debase me. To bring me down to your level. If you have so little respect for me, why torment yourself with what I have to say? It is not because you like to argue facts, it is because you like to start fights, and the reason I know this is the response you gave to my website. I would have preferred that you either not look at it, or simply say "Loup you are a wanker, and I HATED your website". Instead you just reduced it to mush without even asking first what I was trying to do with it. You do not know what courage it took me to find a voice, or the difficulty I had in raising the money to buy the domain and get it hosted. If you didn't like it, fine. If you disagreed with it, fine, but don't ask me if it all relates to "kool aide" or whatever the quote was.
And if my predictions are right, you will scream and rage around with what I have just said, and you will accuse me of some fallacy, and you will then resort to more name calling and so on. Ah, how the world turns based on what you say! Without your never ending stream of profanity and crudeness, the world with cease to spin on its axis and we will all die. Such an inflated ego you have!
Now, I shall sit back and watch the tantrum, or you may surprise me and have something meaningful to say.
Loup
-
Well, that was boring. *drops popcorn*
*picks Schleeds popcorn back up and hands it back*
This ain't over yet methinks :zoinks:
:popcorn:
-
I dunno wwhat this is about but I'm gonna have to take Loup's side... she's just so much better looking than you scrap :P
-
I dunno wwhat this is about but I'm gonna have to take Loup's side... she's just so much better looking than you scrap :P
I love the way you think Soph I really do :laugh:
-
She did make a few good points. Scrap, for such a "free thinking" aspie warrior against all that is evil, you are the very definition of a complete fucking eejit. Yes, "free thinking" is having BULLSHIT! as your name because some cool guys who you sheepishly (baaaaa, BAAAAAA) get your opinions from has a programme called that. Then claiming you hate the EVIL SYSTEM while you have no problem eating food from major food chains and such. You'd probably even bend over and recieve anal sex happily from a politician while shouting "DOWN WITH THE SYSTEM!!", like the doublethinker you are. :orly:
ps. I am in no way a "free thinking independent person". I just like to stir shit. :zoinks:
-
ps. I am in no way a "free thinking independent person". I just like to stir shit. :zoinks:
:plus: for honesty :P
-
Having considered my position, I cannot let this lie. I made an oath to myself many years ago that I would never act out of anger, or that my nasty side would see the light of day, but I have reached the end of my endurance.
SOTB, I have dealt with people that would make you look like the proverbial infant in terms of viciousness and nastiness. I have learnt from the best. I took your name calling and gross genralisations on my modus operandi and attacks on my religious history with grace. I even considered some of your insults and out of respect for your ideas, gave them some credence. But because I happened to disagree on a few topics and insulted your very intelligence ::), you became judge, jury and executioner. You can disagree with me, but cruelty due to the need to be right all the time, is just banal words. It is not Logic, but emotion. Anger is how you operate, not the divine and calm search for the truth.
You are narcissistic and insecure. You cannot operate on any platform other than the one you have created for yourself, and so help anyone that dares to disagree with you. Never, during my time as a competitive debater, have I ever had it reduced to name calling. In fact, I would have been expelled from the sport if I had reduced myself to that, yet you do it and call it Logic.
If I am a "double thinker" then so be it. "The words of truth are paradoxical"- Lao tzu. How correct this statement is. Your need to prove yourself, is without boundaries. I wonder how far you get with that. In my experience the people who speak the loudest, have very little to say, and you fit that category perfectly. If human evolution is to go the way of the bigot and self-riteous, then count me out. I am quite happy where I am. It is your fierce need to be heard that strengthens my misanthropy. I run away from people like you, because I am scared of how I may incriminate myself. Just because I do not act with violence anymore does not mean that I do not have to constantly keep it in check.
And they called me a sociopath many moons ago. You take the cake on that score. Baseless cruelty and name calling makes me angry, arguments do not. If you think I am a moron basically, then why do you respond on my threads? Why do you bother? Well, I guess that there is a part of you that will do anything to debase me. To bring me down to your level. If you have so little respect for me, why torment yourself with what I have to say? It is not because you like to argue facts, it is because you like to start fights, and the reason I know this is the response you gave to my website. I would have preferred that you either not look at it, or simply say "Loup you are a wanker, and I HATED your website". Instead you just reduced it to mush without even asking first what I was trying to do with it. You do not know what courage it took me to find a voice, or the difficulty I had in raising the money to buy the domain and get it hosted. If you didn't like it, fine. If you disagreed with it, fine, but don't ask me if it all relates to "kool aide" or whatever the quote was.
And if my predictions are right, you will scream and rage around with what I have just said, and you will accuse me of some fallacy, and you will then resort to more name calling and so on. Ah, how the world turns based on what you say! Without your never ending stream of profanity and crudeness, the world with cease to spin on its axis and we will all die. Such an inflated ego you have!
Now, I shall sit back and watch the tantrum, or you may surprise me and have something meaningful to say.
Loup
:LMAO:
Holy FUCK what a huge piece of psychological projection THAT was. :rofl:
-
........or my other prediction, that you will laugh and make fun of it.
Loup
-
........or my other prediction, that you will laugh and make fun of it.
Loup
This isn't PREdiction, it's POSTdiction.
-
Well, Loup put me on ignore, I guess that means I won.
Should I bother to address her points one by one, or is it not woth the effort??
-
Loup has me on ignore for the 3rd time, but this video is for her. >:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk
-
What are you afraid of? Why does does faith terrify you so much? Do I denigrate the fact that you have no faith?
Besides you know nothing about me really. You are making the assumption that I am somehow "faithful". I am an observer most of the time, that is all.
For someone who thinks I am worse than shit on a shoe, you sure do like trying to put me down. Usually, someone who shows so little respect, will avoid the person that they feel no respect for and yet you continue to seek out my posts and make fun of them. Attention seeking, no?
You have no idea what I am or what I think. Quit while you are ahead.
Loup
-
(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/fd/Amazingatheistrage.jpg)
-
LMAO , epic cartoon :plus: to you Schleed
-
Schleed, I laughed! Brilliant. Did you create that cartoon?
Loup
-
No, found it on ED. Thought it was fitting to this thread. :zoinks:
-
No, found it on ED. Thought it was fitting to this thread. :zoinks:
:indeed:
The "Ur dumb" bit made me lol :laugh:
-
Only thing as bad as a fundie christian is a fundie athiest. At polar opposites but both are extremely annoying and insane. :thumbup:
-
The creationists hate the atheists
The atheists hate the creationists
The snake keeps biting its own tail, poisoning itself in the process.
And while they battle among themselves, the planet goes on its merry way, not really giving a shit what anyone thinks. :zoinks:
Loup
-
Only thing as bad as a fundie christian is a fundie athiest. At polar opposites but both are extremely annoying and insane. :thumbup:
Yes, both sets of minds and ears are closed, because they are BOTH right. ::)
The only certainty, is that everything is uncertain.
Loup
-
Lol Schleed,
Your karma is too nice to raise right now.
Great find you posted here. LMAO
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7yDUg_As88
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbp6gxdc0xY&playnext=1&list=PL8A73F9049A3A9757&index=4
Sound sounds very similar to what I hear in dreams. Same with the last video.
-
Sound sounds very similar to what I hear in dreams. Same with the last video.
Have heard the same sound all my life. Used to compare it to the sound the bionic man made when running, until hearing this song. There's a few seconds of it about 2:05-10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpWlatljaI0
-
No, found it on ED. Thought it was fitting to this thread. :zoinks:
The next time you have a "thought", just let it go. ::)
It's a funny cartoon, but it misses the point. The claims of theists and atheists aren't the same.
-
Only thing as bad as a fundie christian is a fundie athiest. At polar opposites but both are extremely annoying and insane. :thumbup:
You make the mistake of putting the 2 claims on equal footing.
Religion has made fantastic claims, completely unsuported by evidence, and used those claims to grab massive ammounts of power and wealth, and stultified the human race in the process.
Atheism has inflicted no such harms on the human race. (and before you trot out Stalin, Pol Pot and others as examples, these people employed their own quasi-religions to oppress people).
-
What are you afraid of?
Bears and owls.
Why does does faith terrify you so much?
To quote Voltaire "Those who believe in absurdities can commit atrocities"
Do I denigrate the fact that you have no faith?
That's not possible. Faith is believing in things that you know damn well aren't true.
Besides you know nothing about me really. You are making the assumption that I am somehow "faithful". I am an observer most of the time, that is all.
Yeah, except your own words in which you say you're fiercely Catholic. Remeber what I said earlier about talking out of both sides of your mouth.
For someone who thinks I am worse than shit on a shoe, you sure do like trying to put me down. Usually, someone who shows so little respect, will avoid the person that they feel no respect for and yet you continue to seek out my posts and make fun of them. Attention seeking, no?
You are claiming to know what I am and what I think. Oh wait, I sense a contradiction comming... :zoinks:
You have no idea what I am or what I think.
:LMAO:
Quit while you are ahead.
Loup
Oooooooh I haven't even begun to fight.
(http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x276/mothfear/CoolFace.jpg)
-
I think Schleed has a good point. If believing in God is a question of faith, then people who believe in him need no scientific evidence for his existence.
People who are so staunchly atheist that they pick fights with people for no other reason than that they believe in God are just as bad as the people who believe in God so strongly that they ram their own specific religion down other people's throats. Both are equally intolerant of the beliefs of others.
-
I think Schleed has a good point. If believing in God is a question of faith, then people who believe in him need no scientific evidence for his existence.
While this statement is on its face value true, it reveals the dangerously guilable mindset of the believer. You can believe in absolutely any absurdity based on no evidence. And when you believe in absurdities, you can commint atrocities.
All that you've succeded in proving with this statement, is why there's so many Jim Jones's and David Koreshs' in the world.
People who are so staunchly atheist that they pick fights with people for no other reason than that they believe in God are just as bad as the people who believe in God so strongly that they ram their own specific religion down other people's throats.
Seriously Callaway?? I must've missed the last time Richard Dawkins burned Catholics at the stake. ::) :facepalm2:
Both are equally intolerant of the beliefs of others.
FFS, how many times does this need to be pointed out. :duh: Religious believers have beliefs in spite of no evidence or evidence to the contrary. Atheists beliefs are supported by the evidence. Archaeology has shown ALL religions, including Judeo-Christianity, to be man-made works of fiction.
-
No, found it on ED. Thought it was fitting to this thread. :zoinks:
The next time you have a "thought", just let it go. ::)
It's a funny cartoon, but it misses the point. The claims of theists and atheists aren't the same.
I don't think it misses the point, more like you're missing the point. I'd only piss about with crazy religious people if they try to dogmatically force their views down my throat, otherwise I will leave them alone despite thinking religion is a pile of bullshit. Sure Loup is a bit of a sensitive bint, but is she forcing her views on others? She always admitted the hypocrisy in it herself.
It does not matter how much evidence there is, you cannot simply self-righteously try to convince others you're right and they're not if they've done nothing wrong to you. Just makes you as bad as any fundie nutjob.
PS. You're doing exactly what the cartoon is doing, only with more assburgers. :orly:
-
What? so atheists do not commit atrocities in the name of belief of some sort?
Loup
-
Hey Schleed, what is a "bint"? I laughed my arse off. What a fascinating word!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
"A sensitive bint". I am going to remember that saying for future use :thumbup:
Loup
-
Bint = woman. I've been using that term for years, to the point that binty is called... binty. :dunno:
-
Ahah! Now I understand. Do you know Binty, like how did she end up with that username?
Loup
-
We used to be "friends" and met up IRL a few times. Some of my vocabulary rubbed off onto her. :zoinks:
-
:plus: Well, now it has rubbed off on to me. Bit like the word "eejit". I have an Irish friend who uses it all the time :thumbup:
Doesn't sound as good when I say it.
Loup
-
That's not possible. Faith is believing in things that you know damn well aren't true.
Atheists beliefs are supported by the evidence.
BULLSHIT!: I do not know what the original grievance is between you and Loupgarou, and it doesn't matter for this post. You simply said some things that I disagree with.
When you say "atheist beliefs", I will assume that you are referring to scientific beliefs. (If by "atheism" you mean "positive atheism", you should know that there is an equal amount of rational evidence for and against the existence of God.)
The scientific method does not exist in a vacuum. All scientific principles and experiments are ultimately based on a set of axioms that science basically takes on faith. Without a few basic assumptions, science does not work. For example, it must be assumed that the world is measurable, that the scientist in question is not hallucinating all of existence, that a supernatural entity is not manipulating the results of experiments, etc. You may believe that these are "absurdities", in which case I invite you to prove them false. Your prejudices about what "makes sense" are irrelevant to science. There are many scientific discoveries that do not follow common sense but are nonetheless true. Who is to say that the axioms I mentioned are not also true, even though they defy common sense?
Mathematicians is infamous for engaging in this sort of faith-based behavior. There was a logician named Kurt Gödel who proved that there is the possibility that mathematics is self-contradicting. If an inconsistency like this is ever discovered, the certainty of every mathematical theorem in history would (probably) be torn to shreds. There is no guarantee that it will not happen. In effect, mathematicians everywhere are engaging in a giant act of faith by staking their work on the belief that this will never happen.
We all choose the axioms that we use to make sense of the world. If someone decides to choose as an axiom "God exists", you have no business criticizing this decision unless you can rationally prove that the axiom is incorrect. Your implication that faith is inherently wrong is misguided and does not do justice to a logical philosophy. What a person chooses to accept on the basis of faith alone, in an area where only faith can provide answers, is that person's decision. You should not dismiss faith so lightly.
-
What? so atheists do not commit atrocities in the name of belief of some sort?
Loup
Yes they do, but to do so, they must invent a quasi-religion. Stalinism, Maoism, Kimism and all the others are all theocratic in nature. Even George Orwell pointed this out.
-
Semicolon, I'll address your post later, I'm going to get drunk. :fiveshots:
-
Both science and religion were attempts to understand the world and the universe, since humans normally didn't know what the fuck was going on. I tend to lean more towards science though, as it does answer a lot of questions to me... *but* it itself will not 100% prove anything. Religion doesn't seem to prove anything at all, but I tolerate someone's beliefs if it brings them happiness and they don't try to force their views on me.
I accept there are things that we can never understand, or even imagine. The very existence of life and the universe is so puzzling that it can make your brain melt if you think about it too long. No matter how much we try to understand, one thing will never be answered - why and how the fuck is any of this possible?
Semicolon, I'll address your post later, I'm going to get drunk. :fiveshots:
I call bullshit. You always have a tendency to silently ignore posts or back out of things like this.
-
That's not possible. Faith is believing in things that you know damn well aren't true.
Atheists beliefs are supported by the evidence.
BULLSHIT!: I do not know what the original grievance is between you and Loupgarou, and it doesn't matter for this post. You simply said some things that I disagree with.
When you say "atheist beliefs", I will assume that you are referring to scientific beliefs. (If by "atheism" you mean "positive atheism", you should know that there is an equal amount of rational evidence for and against the existence of God.)
The scientific method does not exist in a vacuum. All scientific principles and experiments are ultimately based on a set of axioms that science basically takes on faith. Without a few basic assumptions, science does not work. For example, it must be assumed that the world is measurable, that the scientist in question is not hallucinating all of existence, that a supernatural entity is not manipulating the results of experiments, etc. You may believe that these are "absurdities", in which case I invite you to prove them false. Your prejudices about what "makes sense" are irrelevant to science. There are many scientific discoveries that do not follow common sense but are nonetheless true. Who is to say that the axioms I mentioned are not also true, even though they defy common sense?
Mathematicians is infamous for engaging in this sort of faith-based behavior. There was a logician named Kurt Gödel who proved that there is the possibility that mathematics is self-contradicting. If an inconsistency like this is ever discovered, the certainty of every mathematical theorem in history would (probably) be torn to shreds. There is no guarantee that it will not happen. In effect, mathematicians everywhere are engaging in a giant act of faith by staking their work on the belief that this will never happen.
We all choose the axioms that we use to make sense of the world. If someone decides to choose as an axiom "God exists", you have no business criticizing this decision unless you can rationally prove that the axiom is incorrect. Your implication that faith is inherently wrong is misguided and does not do justice to a logical philosophy. What a person chooses to accept on the basis of faith alone, in an area where only faith can provide answers, is that person's decision. You should not dismiss faith so lightly.
:indeed:
Loup
-
I think Schleed has a good point. If believing in God is a question of faith, then people who believe in him need no scientific evidence for his existence.
While this statement is on its face value true, it reveals the dangerously guilable mindset of the believer. You can believe in absolutely any absurdity based on no evidence. And when you believe in absurdities, you can commint atrocities.
All that you've succeded in proving with this statement, is why there's so many Jim Jones's and David Koreshs' in the world.
People who are so staunchly atheist that they pick fights with people for no other reason than that they believe in God are just as bad as the people who believe in God so strongly that they ram their own specific religion down other people's throats.
Seriously Callaway?? I must've missed the last time Richard Dawkins burned Catholics at the stake. ::) :facepalm2:
Both are equally intolerant of the beliefs of others.
FFS, how many times does this need to be pointed out. :duh: Religious believers have beliefs in spite of no evidence or evidence to the contrary. Atheists beliefs are supported by the evidence. Archaeology has shown ALL religions, including Judeo-Christianity, to be man-made works of fiction.
There are more people killed by others who are either not religious, or if they are, religion does not enter into the reason they are killed. You can make up a bunch of bullshit religions to desperately try to prove your point and call them deaths due to Stalinism or Pol Potism or Maoism or Hutuism, but that does not make them religions.
-
"In formal logic, a contradiction is the signal of defeat, but in the evolution of real knowledge it marks the first step in progress toward a victory."
- Alfred North Whitehead.
I believe in Logic, but accept the illogical.
I believe in science, but accept faith
I accept Science, but believe in Faith
I believe that the only certain thing, is uncertainty.
I believe that just because it is not "truth" or "evidence based" does not mean that it does not exist.
I believe that I am full of contradictions, full of hypocrisies and full of flaws.........and most likely full of shit sometimes :zoinks:
But I am wise enough to know that I am human, and wish to question my very existence. Because if we existed on the "known", we would never seek to answer or accept the unknown.
Extreme polarity causes stagnation.......tolerance, maturity and some heated logical debate is what drives man to evolve, and THINK and appreciate points of view. And one must contradict oneself, to understand the others' point of view, in order to debate it. All the scientists that I have worked with, constantly contradicted themselves in the search for evidence based truths.
Yes, I am fiercely Roman Catholic, but that does not mean that I cannot observe its flaws. I do not confuse religion with faith, even though they are not mutually exclusive. I just concentrate on trying to be a fair, kind and compassionate human being. That was my harsh lesson in this tenuous existence.
And Bullshit you can tear this post to shreds as I am sure you will try, but it does not change a thing. I am who I am, just as you are who you are, and the only true thing, is that NOTHING is true, it is only perception.........we are not evolved enough to see the TRUTH, for if we did, we would probably die on the spot from the horror and simplicity of it.
Loup
-
I don't think it misses the point, more like you're missing the point. I'd only piss about with crazy religious people if they try to dogmatically force their views down my throat, otherwise I will leave them alone despite thinking religion is a pile of bullshit. Sure Loup is a bit of a sensitive bint, but is she forcing her views on others? She always admitted the hypocrisy in it herself.
It does not matter how much evidence there is, you cannot simply self-righteously try to convince others you're right and they're not if they've done nothing wrong to you. Just makes you as bad as any fundie nutjob.
PS. You're doing exactly what the cartoon is doing, only with more assburgers. :orly:
Most religious people are engaged in some kind or another of mis-information campaign. If no one challengers their crap, people, being largely ignorant, will believe their bullshit if they don't hear an opposing viewpoint. Neutrailty is not an option.
Loup has called me out because she can't stand to have her verbal obfuscation called by what it is.
-
Seriously Callaway?? I must've missed the last time Richard Dawkins burned Catholics at the stake. ::) :facepalm2:
:lol:
-
When you say "atheist beliefs", I will assume that you are referring to scientific beliefs. (If by "atheism" you mean "positive atheism", you should know that there is an equal amount of rational evidence for and against the existence of God.)
No, science and atheism aren't synonymous. There is NOT an equal ammout of evidence for and against god. There's zero (good) evidence for god(s), and lots of good evidence against. Deism is the only plausable god claim, anf even it lacks positive evidence in its favor.
The scientific method does not exist in a vacuum. All scientific principles and experiments are ultimately based on a set of axioms that science basically takes on faith. Without a few basic assumptions, science does not work. For example, it must be assumed that the world is measurable, that the scientist in question is not hallucinating all of existence, that a supernatural entity is not manipulating the results of experiments, etc. You may believe that these are "absurdities", in which case I invite you to prove them false. Your prejudices about what "makes sense" are irrelevant to science. There are many scientific discoveries that do not follow common sense but are nonetheless true. Who is to say that the axioms I mentioned are not also true, even though they defy common sense?
The assumptions of science and religion can't be given equal footing simply because they're both called "assumptions". The assumptions of science are considered valid because they are repeatable, and have predictive power. The assumptions of religion are inherently unprovable.
Mathematicians is infamous for engaging in this sort of faith-based behavior. There was a logician named Kurt Gödel who proved that there is the possibility that mathematics is self-contradicting. If an inconsistency like this is ever discovered, the certainty of every mathematical theorem in history would (probably) be torn to shreds. There is no guarantee that it will not happen. In effect, mathematicians everywhere are engaging in a giant act of faith by staking their work on the belief that this will never happen.
So 2+2=4 is just an act of faith?? Perhaps you should try this attempt at muddying the waters with someone who's weak minded enough to accept this as a valid argument. ::)
We all choose the axioms that we use to make sense of the world. If someone decides to choose as an axiom "God exists", you have no business criticizing this decision unless you can rationally prove that the axiom is incorrect.
BULLSHIT! it is always incumbent on the person making a claim to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. It is not incumbent on me to disprove it. Religion has a burden of proof on it that it can't meet. That's all that I need to "disprove" it.
Your implication that faith is inherently wrong is misguided and does not do justice to a logical philosophy.
You got this one 180 deg backwards. Faith is the antithesis of logical philosophy. It holds as a virtue, the denial of reality.
What a person chooses to accept on the basis of faith alone, in an area where only faith can provide answers, is that person's decision. You should not dismiss faith so lightly.
Faith can't provide the answers for anything. It only creates an illusion of answers by providing a made-up answer where none exist. To quote Jiddu Krishnamurti, "freedom from the desire for an answer is fundemental to the understanding of the issue".
-
I don't think it misses the point, more like you're missing the point. I'd only piss about with crazy religious people if they try to dogmatically force their views down my throat, otherwise I will leave them alone despite thinking religion is a pile of bullshit. Sure Loup is a bit of a sensitive bint, but is she forcing her views on others? She always admitted the hypocrisy in it herself.
It does not matter how much evidence there is, you cannot simply self-righteously try to convince others you're right and they're not if they've done nothing wrong to you. Just makes you as bad as any fundie nutjob.
PS. You're doing exactly what the cartoon is doing, only with more assburgers. :orly:
Most religious people are engaged in some kind or another of mis-information campaign. If no one challengers their crap, people, being largely ignorant, will believe their bullshit if they don't hear an opposing viewpoint. Neutrailty is not an option.
Loup has called me out because she can't stand to have her verbal obfuscation called by what it is.
Of course, people of one religion calling another religion to task absolutely never happens. I will admit that atheists do not have much say in the field of popular theology; however, religious individuals do not usually spread their religious views through hard science. If you feel the need to spread your view of the world, feel free to do so. However, it is not necessary to attack anyone else for you to spread your message.
In addition, there is a difference between calling someone out for forcefully proselytizing a false belief and calling someone out for merely sharing a philosophical opinion that you consider to be false. Also, neutrality is always an option in a philosophical debate. Disregarding that option in this debate is disrespectful to those who hold that point of view, and it creates a false dichotomy between your views and a straight religious viewpoint.
-
You can make up a bunch of bullshit religions to desperately try to prove your point and call them deaths due to Stalinism or Pol Potism or Maoism or Hutuism, but that does not make them religions.
I was neither the first, nor will I be the last, to make the connection between Communist totalitarianism and religion. George Orwell was among the first to recognize this. In my last philosophy class, we had an entire chapter of our book detailing the parallels. The book concluded in saying that Communism was a secular religion. I don't feel like typing a full disertation at this point. To deny the connection is akin to denying the connection between acceleration and gravity. ::)
-
Also, neutrality is always an option in a philosophical debate.
Yeah, i guess ANYTHING is possible. why would anyone debate if there is neutrality
Maybe for people that like to talk about napkins and kissing babies and other forcible nicities that I think is a total waste of time
I was a Philosophy major in college, so I can say this with _all_certainly_ that Communism is indeed "religion" as well as Sex is "religion" and so is fear
If someone wants to worship some Zombie that watches your every move, well, I think that is just absurd ! But to each his own I guess, Im not going to attack anyone "personally" for their opinions but I am also not going to sit and fucking listen to the shit.
So what I am saying, basically, is that people can fight about whatever they want and just because someone thinks it is uncouth, WFC. P
People with no opinions or who stay "neutral" should learn to not give a fuck what other people think - because being afraid of what other people think is the way someone could have no opinion... either that or you are REALLY FUCKING BORING
-
But isn't not giving a fuck being neutral? :orly:
I tend to not give a fuck 99% of the time, unless someone is a complete retard.
-
naa, not giving a fuck means you dont care. Not caring is an opinion
Neutrality means you don't have an opinion - caring or not caring doesnt matter. Nothing really matters with neutrality.
-
Everyone has an opinion, but I think what you mean are people who are too cowardly to express their opinions in order to be "nice" and boring. I don't really consider that neutral, just spineless.
-
exactly
people who say they have no opinion are just afraid to let it out.
but I do think there are a few people out there ( not saying on this board) that REALLY ARE THAT BORING and just dont even think of such things.
-
When you say "atheist beliefs", I will assume that you are referring to scientific beliefs. (If by "atheism" you mean "positive atheism", you should know that there is an equal amount of rational evidence for and against the existence of God.)
No, science and atheism aren't synonymous. There is NOT an equal ammout of evidence for and against god. There's zero (good) evidence for god(s), and lots of good evidence against. Deism is the only plausable god claim, anf even it lacks positive evidence in its favor.
I invite you to prove that God does not exist.
The scientific method does not exist in a vacuum. All scientific principles and experiments are ultimately based on a set of axioms that science basically takes on faith. Without a few basic assumptions, science does not work. For example, it must be assumed that the world is measurable, that the scientist in question is not hallucinating all of existence, that a supernatural entity is not manipulating the results of experiments, etc. You may believe that these are "absurdities", in which case I invite you to prove them false. Your prejudices about what "makes sense" are irrelevant to science. There are many scientific discoveries that do not follow common sense but are nonetheless true. Who is to say that the axioms I mentioned are not also true, even though they defy common sense?
The assumptions of science and religion can't be given equal footing simply because they're both called "assumptions". The assumptions of science are considered valid because they are repeatable, and have predictive power. The assumptions of religion are inherently unprovable.
All of the assumptions I mentioned are inherently unprovable. In addition, I never mentioned the assumptions of religion as they compare to science; I stated that all science is based on "faith" (which is different from religion). You have misrepresented my argument and then argued against the misrepresentation.
Mathematicians is infamous for engaging in this sort of faith-based behavior. There was a logician named Kurt Gödel who proved that there is the possibility that mathematics is self-contradicting. If an inconsistency like this is ever discovered, the certainty of every mathematical theorem in history would (probably) be torn to shreds. There is no guarantee that it will not happen. In effect, mathematicians everywhere are engaging in a giant act of faith by staking their work on the belief that this will never happen.
So 2+2=4 is just an act of faith?? Perhaps you should try this attempt at muddying the waters with someone who's weak minded enough to accept this as a valid argument. ::)
You clearly do not understand this mathematical theorem. Yes, 2+2=4, but there is no way to know if, someday, someone will prove that 2+2=5. This is a gross simplification, but it cuts to the heart of the theorem. For someone who trumpets the superiority of science, you have a peculiar willingness to automatically disregard a proven mathematical theorem just because it doesn't fit your worldview.
Your prejudices about what "makes sense" are irrelevant to science. There are many scientific discoveries that do not follow common sense but are nonetheless true.
This is one of those discoveries.
We all choose the axioms that we use to make sense of the world. If someone decides to choose as an axiom "God exists", you have no business criticizing this decision unless you can rationally prove that the axiom is incorrect.
BULLSHIT! it is always incumbent on the person making a claim to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. It is not incumbent on me to disprove it. Religion has a burden of proof on it that it can't meet. That's all that I need to "disprove" it.
Of course not. That is ridiculous. It is certainly applicable to scientific discoveries and theories, but it does not automatically apply to the entire world. Hold on to that thought, though.
Your implication that faith is inherently wrong is misguided and does not do justice to a logical philosophy.
You got this one 180 deg backwards. Faith is the antithesis of logical philosophy. It holds as a virtue, the denial of reality.
I have already stated that all philosophy requires faith in order to exist. In addition, it is possible (and necessary for everyday life) to take things on faith that are, objectively speaking, true.
What a person chooses to accept on the basis of faith alone, in an area where only faith can provide answers, is that person's decision. You should not dismiss faith so lightly.
Faith can't provide the answers for anything. It only creates an illusion of answers by providing a made-up answer where none exist. To quote Jiddu Krishnamurti, "freedom from the desire for an answer is fundemental to the understanding of the issue".
Faith cannot provide the answers to you. There are a lot of questions that cannot be answered through science alone.
- Why are we here?
- Is there a higher power than man?
- Do humans have souls?
- What happens to souls after people die (if they do exist)?
If you believe that faith cannot provide the answers to these questions, I invite you to state your proof.
BULLSHIT! it is always incumbent on the person making a claim to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. It is not incumbent on me to disprove it. Religion has a burden of proof on it that it can't meet. That's all that I need to "disprove" it.
BULLSHIT: You have made several claims in your argument. You have claimed to have (or know of) good evidence that God does not exist. You have essentially claimed that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is incorrect (although it isn't clear if you even understand what the theorem says). You have claimed that faith can never provide an answer for anything. By your own rule, you must give sufficient evidence to support your viewpoint; otherwise, I will simply "disprove" it because you didn't meet the burden of proof. I await your reply.
-
All philosophy does not require faith in order to exist. ::) In some philosophies existance doesnt exist.
first off
and
Faith cannot provide the answers to you. There are a lot of questions that cannot be answered through science alone.
•Why are we here?
•Is there a higher power than man?
•Do humans have souls?
•What happens to souls after people die (if they do exist)?
If you believe that faith cannot provide the answers to these questions, I invite you to state your proof.
this is METAPHYSICS. Metaphysics does NOT require faith.
-
All philosophy does not require faith in order to exist. ::) In some philosophies existance doesnt exist.
I think, therefore, I am. If a person does not exist, then how can that person then consider the philosophy?
However, if you are referring to the null philosophy of "nothing exists", then the statement that "existence does not exist" requires faith to believe, especially because of the counterargument above.
Faith cannot provide the answers to you. There are a lot of questions that cannot be answered through science alone.
•Why are we here?
•Is there a higher power than man?
•Do humans have souls?
•What happens to souls after people die (if they do exist)?
If you believe that faith cannot provide the answers to these questions, I invite you to state your proof.
this is METAPHYSICS. Metaphysics does NOT require faith.
I never said that metaphysics could not provide the answers to those questions. BULLSHIT claimed that faith could not provide the answer to any question, and I disagreed. My assertion is that faith can provide the answers to those questions.
-
Neutrality means you don't have an opinion - caring or not caring doesnt matter. Nothing really matters with neutrality.
Sometimes merely observing and holding no opinion is the most honest and pure way to reach a conclusion. I can honestly say, that I "practice" neutrality, after a young life filled with yelling my dissent with faith. I was a strong atheist, after a childhood and teenage hood with the Church. I decried God to my clergy mentors! And I went on with strong vicious opinions and mocked anyone who "believed" in God. And I screamed around, and no-one listened, and I grew up and matured, and things happened to me that I could NOT explain by science. So I LISTENED and observed and held no opinion, for I wanted to hear people without bias, and THAT is when people would listen to me. I did not have to shove it down their throats like some madman. I became......impartial and that is when I learned my greatest lessons. I loved both atheists and believers, yet chose to avoid, extremists as I once was, for I had nothing of value to say, and neither did they. I did not receive the TRUTH....for the truth was mired with bigotry and anger.
As far as philosophy goes I am considered a "radical sceptic" or an Idealist......but these are just words and meanings for those words. Really I am just more simple, complex and more often than not, neutral by choice.
Loup
-
"Je pense donc je suis" , I think therefore I am .... Descartes
No one ever gets this right :duh:
It only means that your (doubting) mind exists. It proves nothing about the existance of anything else, including your body or the city of Paris or the entire universe. Existance does not need to exist in orer for your mind to exist. For you could just be dreaming.
And Im talking about Discordiansim. Chaos Theory, etc. To the stupid, think of it this way " there is no spoon"
I could probably even argue existentialism to this point.
Here, Ill let a "real" philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard say it better
x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am
Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.
The logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or pre-supposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking
-
Sometimes merely observing and holding no opinion is the most honest and pure way to reach a conclusion. I can honestly say, that I "practice" neutrality, after a young life filled with yelling my dissent with faith. I was a strong atheist, after a childhood and teenage hood with the Church. I decried God to my clergy mentors! And I went on with strong vicious opinions and mocked anyone who "believed" in God. And I screamed around, and no-one listened, and I grew up and matured, and things happened to me that I could NOT explain by science. So I LISTENED and observed and held no opinion, for I wanted to hear people without bias, and THAT is when people would listen to me. I did not have to shove it down their throats like some madman. I became......impartial and that is when I learned my greatest lessons. I loved both atheists and believers, yet chose to avoid, extremists as I once was, for I had nothing of value to say, and neither did they. I did not receive the TRUTH....for the truth was mired with bigotry and anger.
As far as philosophy goes I am considered a "radical sceptic" or an Idealist......but these are just words and meanings for those words. Really I am just more simple, complex and more often than not, neutral by choice.
Loup
Well, "practicing" neutrality isnt the same as really "being" neutral. It seems like you were just figuring out your opnion, not that you didnt have one. It is ok to to keep your opinions to yourself, and it is ok to not have things figured out yet. But not "not care" about something is just ignorance, and I dont get that from you. I think you care :) you're just thinkin' bout it.
-
Sometimes merely observing and holding no opinion is the most honest and pure way to reach a conclusion. I can honestly say, that I "practice" neutrality, after a young life filled with yelling my dissent with faith. I was a strong atheist, after a childhood and teenage hood with the Church. I decried God to my clergy mentors! And I went on with strong vicious opinions and mocked anyone who "believed" in God. And I screamed around, and no-one listened, and I grew up and matured, and things happened to me that I could NOT explain by science. So I LISTENED and observed and held no opinion, for I wanted to hear people without bias, and THAT is when people would listen to me. I did not have to shove it down their throats like some madman. I became......impartial and that is when I learned my greatest lessons. I loved both atheists and believers, yet chose to avoid, extremists as I once was, for I had nothing of value to say, and neither did they. I did not receive the TRUTH....for the truth was mired with bigotry and anger.
As far as philosophy goes I am considered a "radical sceptic" or an Idealist......but these are just words and meanings for those words. Really I am just more simple, complex and more often than not, neutral by choice.
Loup
Well, "practicing" neutrality isnt the same as really "being" neutral. It seems like you were just figuring out your opnion, not that you didnt have one.
True, in some cases Eris. In some situations, I was simply neutral without practicing. My kung fu master used to say to me, "long winded speech is exhausting, better to stay centred" and that was the seed planted that changed my view of the world forever, among other things......
Neutrality and non-judgement are some of the cornerstones of Taoist philosophy, as well as their counterparts. All things exist and nothing exists, very loosely speaking. If anything, I am a practicing Taoist, that accepts that things exist, purely because people believe it to be so, and who am I to question that? :dunno:
Just made me a much more peaceful person in some respects.
Now I am taking my family to the beach, for some non-thinking :zoinks: My psychologist ordered it :thumbup:
Loup
-
so you are the uncarved block :zoinks:
It is possible to trancend human nature, I suppose. Being non-judgemental doesnt mean you dont secretly judge someone, though. And you've got to be truely Zen for it to work, though. Ive studied Taoism and , honestly, it is a lot like Discordianism. Things only exist if you want them to exist.
I believe in Chaos, and no I do not mean "dissaray". Chaos is everything, the sum total of all things. it is order and disorder at the same time. But as the same time that everything is "chaos" and, essentially, "metaphysical soup", but there are still "Circles" everywhere.
Circles are order. The human body is a circle, for example. No matter how much you "believe" that you can fly, those little circles of order are going to bring you come crashing down to earth.
these circles confuse our pathetic little human minds. I think is someone were to actually trancend these circles, they could really fly !
Wow I just sounded like a crazy person.
-
No not crazy at all! I wondered if you had studied Taoism in your Philosophy degree. And yes, it does relate to the definition of Discordianism(sp) after reading a blurb about it.
I question nothing and everything in equal measure, if that is possible. I question my place in this process. I also subscribe to Chaos Theory and String Theory and a whole bunch of other theories, but I always question.....Do I have bias? Am I prejudiced? Does that fit my ethos? Am I projecting on to it? Do I see only what I want to see? and so on.......
I ALWAYS have struggled with my human nature, and have always tried to rise above it, but that notion is flawed to some degree......how can I ultimately rise above what I am? I wish my brain was in a robot and I existed on pure data and true and false statements, but then, or so I have been told, I would not experience love, hate, joy, suffering, learning, growing and so forth. So somedays I exist in a "soup" of sorts, displayed in my single-celled origins, going with the current hoping to reach land and sprout legs ;)
humans are humans, faith is faith, science is science........and our understanding of the world, is created, with evidence or not, by humanity. No more, no less and that is what I have come to accept.
Loup
-
"In formal logic, a contradiction is the signal of defeat, but in the evolution of real knowledge it marks the first step in progress toward a victory."
- Alfred North Whitehead.
Despite Whiteheads contributions to philosophy, logic and epistemology, he occasionaly said completely stupid things like this.
I believe in Logic, but accept the illogical.
I believe in science, but accept faith
I accept Science, but believe in Faith
I believe that the only certain thing, is uncertainty.
War is peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is strength. ::)
I believe that just because it is not "truth" or "evidence based" does not mean that it does not exist.
But without evidence, how can you possibly have a meaningfull discussion about it??
I believe that I am full of contradictions, full of hypocrisies and full of flaws.........and most likely full of shit most of the time :zoinks:
fixed. 8)
But I am wise enough to know that I am human, and wish to question my very existence. Because if we existed on the "known", we would never seek to answer or accept the unknown.
Yet that's exactly what religion does. It gives us false answers for the unknown and in the process it shuts down discovery and research.
Extreme polarity causes stagnation.......
dogma causes stagnation.
tolerance, maturity and some heated logical debate is what drives man to evolve, and THINK and appreciate points of view.
good so far...
And one must contradict oneself, to understand the others' point of view, in order to debate it. All the scientists that I have worked with, constantly contradicted themselves in the search for evidence based truths.
no, you just have to be able to play devil's advocate with yourself.
Yes, I am fiercely Roman Catholic, but that does not mean that I cannot observe its flaws. I do not confuse religion with faith, even though they are not mutually exclusive. I just concentrate on trying to be a fair, kind and compassionate human being. That was my harsh lesson in this tenuous existence.
How can you correctly observe the flaws of something you defend on loyalty??
... and the only true thing, is that NOTHING is true, it is only perception.........we are not evolved enough to see the TRUTH, for if we did, we would probably die on the spot from the horror and simplicity of it.
Loup
...play it again Sam!!!
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
-
.... Also, neutrality is always an option in a philosophical debate. Disregarding that option in this debate is disrespectful to those who hold that point of view, and it creates a false dichotomy between your views and a straight religious viewpoint.
I should've clarified. Neutrality is not an option when you care about what is most likely to be true, and you find yourself in a world of deliberate mis-information.
-
What a fascinating thread. Not that people haven't argued these things ad infinitum already, but I find it quite curious which people are presenting which arguments.
These seemingly contradictory statements, "war is peace", "freedom is slavery", "I believe in science, but accept faith", etc., simply illustrate the flaws of language to distill precise and complex concepts.
-
"In formal logic, a contradiction is the signal of defeat, but in the evolution of real knowledge it marks the first step in progress toward a victory."
- Alfred North Whitehead.
Despite Whiteheads contributions to philosophy, logic and epistemology, he occasionaly said completely stupid things like this.
Is it stupid because it does not support your point of view?
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
- George Orwell
and.......
"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"(but it is also their right not to listen! :2thumbsup:)
- George Orwell
and.......
"Happiness can exist only in acceptance"
- George Orwell
and my favourite.........
“One who is too insistent on his own views, finds few to agree with him.”
- Lao Tzu.
The more you speak with anger and vitriol, the more you strengthen my conviction, my belief. Thank you!
Amen to that :thumbup: ;)
Loup
-
What a fascinating thread. Not that people haven't argued these things ad infinitum already, but I find it quite curious which people are presenting which arguments.
These seemingly contradictory statements, "war is peace", "freedom is slavery", "I believe in science, but accept faith", etc., simply illustrate the flaws of language to distill precise and complex concepts.
True, very true Pyraxis :plus: The dynamics of existence seem to err on the side of fluidity and a pendulum of sorts, and I find that language often leaves me short in being able to describe the method of my thinking.
I will learn about things until I take my last breath.....and in that time my perceptions and beliefs will shift and change. As long as I always question, I will be able to live with myself, even if I suffer as a result of it.
Sorry, probably off topic of what you meant :-[ but I hope you get what I am trying to say. My dyslexia is dyslexic today.
Loup
-
The more you speak with anger and vitriol, the more you strengthen my conviction, my belief. Thank you!
Loup
Who's the one speaking with anger and vitriol...
stupid cunt. :rofl:
-
And so are you. :rofl:
Loup
-
Funny what lies inside the ivory towers. :clap:
-
The dynamics of existence seem to err on the side of fluidity and a pendulum of sorts, and I find that language often leaves me short in being able to describe the method of my thinking.
I will learn about things until I take my last breath.....and in that time my perceptions and beliefs will shift and change. As long as I always question, I will be able to live with myself, even if I suffer as a result of it.
Sorry, probably off topic of what you meant :-[ but I hope you get what I am trying to say. My dyslexia is dyslexic today.
Loup
Nah, not so off topic, though nowhere near whatever started the original callout, which seemed to be something like "Scrap, stop being rude to me!" "Nevah!" :dunno:
-
Funny what lies inside the ivory towers. :clap:
My tower is made from sand bags. :orly:
-
Do you launch planes from the roof?
-
Do you launch planes from the roof?
That would be too dangerous. I've got a helicopter pad. :P
-
:popcorn:
-
That's got to be some stale-assed popcorn.
...I miss Loup. :'(
-
That's got to be some stale-assed popcorn.
...I miss Loup. :'(
Now and then I went looking for her on another forum. She was there for a while, then she left there too.
-
I wonder if this crazy bint will ever come back.
-
I wonder if this crazy bint will ever come back.
She came back last year after a four year absence, but only made a few posts. Probably too nice for this place.
-
The Loup will remain with us in spirit! :loup:
-
I wonder what happened to this nutjob bint.
God I feel sorry for those who have to deal with her IRL.
:facepalm2:
-
Posting in the mirror again, I see.
-
I wonder what happened to this nutjob bint.
God I feel sorry for those who have to deal with her IRL.
:facepalm2:
It's been quite a few years since she left! If memory serves! :apondering:
-
I wonder what happened to this nutjob bint.
Probably too nice for this place.
-
I'm trying to figure out why she wants a sand filled vagina...especially with scrap
-
If there's sand on the beach you're good to play volleyball.
-
If there's sand on the beach you're good to play volleyball.
Less painful to land on sand then a hard wood floor!
-
If there's sand on the beach you're good to play volleyball.
Less painful to land on sand then a hard wood floor!
I can't even tell if that's a euphemism. I mean it sounds like a euphemism....
-
If there's sand on the beach you're good to play volleyball.
Less painful to land on sand then a hard wood floor!
I can't even tell if that's a euphemism. I mean it sounds like a euphemism....
It's why the normandy landings were done on a beach and not a gym.
-
And there was me thinking it had something to do with nazis, and throwing a spanner in Hitler's gears to ruin his day.
Somehow, I don't think Hitler, would have agreed to just meet up in a pub over a few pints with Churchill and Stalin, and just settle their differences philosophically. And nor would Churchill or Stalin. Well Stalin might have given he was a complete and utter cuntocks too, not far off as big of a wanker as Hitler.
Besides, even if they had, I'm sure the jews would have kicked up a bit of a fuss about that.
Screaming antisemitism and whatnot.
-
Hitler would certainly have accepted peace with England.
-
Very true.
Hitler didn't want war with England because all his admirals told him that Germany didn't have enough fuel to confront the Royal Navy. That's why they didn't bother building much of a surface fleet.
I've worked on this problem myself. I calculated that if Germany had built up to it's legal limit of 35% of Britain's navy, they could've defeated Britain on the high seas if they had built mostly aircraft carriers instead of wasting money on the Bismarck and Tirpitz. This also assumes they had the fuel for such a fleet.