^ Bye slut.

HE WAS RUTHLESS I TELL YA. RUTHLESS.

I COULDN'T GET MY BEST ARGUMENTS IN BECAUSE HE WAS RUTHLESS I TELL YA.

5/3/2010 7:31:01 PM

Ruthless? Get out of here with that bullshit.

I just re-read those posts. He only called you three things: "dummy", "son", and "fool". Two of those things he would call pretty much everyone, and they are virtually meaningless. That is hardly "ruthless" name-calling.

5/3/2010 7:33:14 PM

people with inflated opinions of themselves itt

5/3/2010 7:33:50 PM

^ WHERE'S YO ARGUMENT FOOL?

5/3/2010 7:36:06 PM

its a waste of time, you can't win against christians because its inherently based on faith and not logic. any completely sound logical argument will only be trumped by a "well i have faith" response. they could also assume the conclusion and show you that if god did exist, your argument would still be true and would still not contradict his existence.

5/3/2010 7:39:17 PM

One will never believe in God, if he does not want to believe in God.

5/3/2010 7:39:17 PM

^ OH WE HAVE A WINNER HERE SON.

DAT LIST IS GROWING.



PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENTS SON!

PRESENT THEM SON!!

5/3/2010 7:41:36 PM

Quote :

"From : SaabTurbo To : m52ncsu Received : Monday May 3, 2010 at 7:46 PM Subject : You really are a fool. When you don't "get it", stay the fuck out of it. "

yeah ok

5/3/2010 7:48:58 PM

I won't argue but I will present my ideas of God.

I believe in a single, personal, inaccessible, omniscient, omnipresent, imperishable, and almighty God who is the creator of all things in the universe. The existence of God and the universe is eternal, without a beginning or end. Though inaccessible directly, God is conscious of creation, with a will and purpose that is expressed through Manifestations of God.

God is too great for humans to fully comprehend, or to create a complete and accurate image of, by themselves. Therefore, human understanding of God is achieved through his revelations via his Manifestations.

Those Manifestations include Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, and Baha'u'llah, among others.

I'm a Baha'i btw.

5/3/2010 7:52:48 PM

^ WE ALL KNOW THE BULLSHIT BELIEFS, NOW JUSTIFY THEM FOOL.

I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE FACT THAT YOU'VE DEFINED IT INTO A SELF-CONTRADICTING SHITBAG BEING. WE WILL SIMPLY LET THAT SLIDE SON.

NOW, PRESENT THEM.

5/3/2010 7:57:17 PM

Quote :

"From : SaabTurbo To : m52ncsu Received : Monday May 3, 2010 at 7:55 PM Subject : Keep proving my point fool. "

5/3/2010 7:58:47 PM

Hang on, let me post so the fool isn't forced to double post.

5/3/2010 7:59:58 PM

Quote :

"From : SaabTurbo To : m52ncsu Received : Monday May 3, 2010 at 7:59 PM Subject : Contiune to prove my point fool. (You forgot the smiley fool) "

5/3/2010 8:00:12 PM

Hang on, let me post so the fool doesn't have to double post.

5/3/2010 8:01:22 PM

Quote :

"Also, the ontological argument is piss poor. It is easily shot down. "

the ontological argument is irrelevant, and they actually misrepresented it with their unicorn example.

5/3/2010 8:07:22 PM

He was being quite sarcastic with that unicorn response. But it actually DOES fall under the same argument when you break it down. It says, in a whole lot of sentences, something that could be said in one sentence.

Quote :

"In this argument, existence is given as one of God's attributes as part of the definition: if X is God, then X has the property of existence. This is logically equivalent to "if X does not exist, then X is not God." It does not prove that there are any entities that actually match the definition. Existence can hardly ever be considered an attribute, as something nonexistent cannot have attributes. Therefore, making conclusions about existence of an entity based on its properties is not logically sound. In short, this argument boils down to "show me a god, and I'll show you an existing god." It is a form of circular reasoning because the existence is built into the assumptions. Here are some examples of this proof that highlight the fallacy. Unicorns: 1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists. 2. By the above definition, such a being must necessarily exist. 3. Therefore unicorns exist. Shangri-La: 1. Shangri-La is the greatest place on earth. 2. A place that exists is greater than one that doesn't. 3. Therefore, Shangri-La exists. Hercules: 1. Hercules is the greatest warrior in history. 2. A warrior that existed is greater than one that did not. 3. Therefore, Hercules existed. "

Now, the key here is to PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENT. If it's irrelevant, present what is relevant.

5/3/2010 8:07:54 PM

huh?

The ontological argument is not piss poor, or easily dismissed, it’s just irrelevant. It doesn’t bolster any one religion, and it doesn’t affect the practice of science, government, or anything else really.

The idea that a supreme being merely exists (which is what the argument “proves”) doesn’t mean that being cares about humanity or even the universe, or necessarily ordained either. Just that it exists.

5/3/2010 8:11:26 PM

It is most certainly both piss poor and easily dismissed, for the reasons I just gave.

Now, let's move on to what is relevant.

PRESENT THEM.

5/3/2010 8:12:59 PM

Well to tell you the truth I have no logical argument for God except that I only feel true happiness when praying and meditating.

5/3/2010 8:13:28 PM

That's definitely evidence of a brain in your skull, for sure son. For sure.

The level of logic being used by said brain is debatable, but your brain most likely exists in this reality son.

5/3/2010 8:14:24 PM

I realize this thread is about your religious beliefs and really should be in soap box, but let me offer some insight.

I eat out a lot with my business in outside sales, and I must say that 15% tip is not automatic, even if they act like it should be. It's an easy ass job, they dont need a damn incentive to do it better, they should to a good job anyway. When you put a guideline on my reciept that has the amount for a 35%, WHAT THE FUCK? The only way some bitch is getting 35% from me is if she gets under the table and gets down to business.

And if I go in your place of business and you think I left a bad tip before, that doesnt mean you can act like you have no tables when I see 10 open. Pull that shit again, and I will report you to the BBB.

I was in a resturant with my friends awhile back watching a game. We got done eating with about 10 mins to go. I went ahead and filled out the receipt, leaving a decent tip. The waitress proceeded to forget we existed. I disputed the charge on my card, and they didnt get paid. I dont play.

I hope this helps!!!

5/3/2010 8:16:14 PM

Quote :

"I realize this thread is about your religious beliefs and really should be in soap box, but let me offer some insight."

Skew muh son...

SKEW MUH...

BUT THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I HAVE NONE FOOL.

5/3/2010 8:17:47 PM

Quote :

"From : SaabTurbo To : m52ncsu Received : Monday May 3, 2010 at 8:00 PM Subject : How could you forget the smiley you filthy fool? "

smileys do not cut and paste

5/3/2010 8:17:54 PM

This will not end fool.

(That is, until you end it like a good little bitch)

5/3/2010 8:19:21 PM

I just dont see why someone acts like they need to be paid 15% of your meal cost to pretend to be your friend for 30 mins.


I mean you get single serving friends for free on an airplane!!!

5/3/2010 8:20:48 PM

Quote :

"Well to tell you the truth I have no logical argument for God except that I only feel true happiness when praying and meditating. "

that’s not really a logical argument for a god, but that’s not to say you shouldnt keep doing that if it makes you happy.

5/3/2010 8:21:31 PM

God only wants a 10% tip on your life

where do these fuckers get off thinking they deserve 15%

i mean WHAT THE FUCK

5/3/2010 8:22:55 PM

^ Present them.

5/3/2010 8:31:10 PM

PRESENT THEM FOOL.

5/3/2010 11:08:06 PM

HOW TO FOOL THE MIND FOOL

5/4/2010 11:02:58 AM

ITT SaabTurbo pretends to know what rhetoric is.

5/4/2010 1:34:04 PM

^ PRESENT THEM RHETORIC SHYTES FOOL.

5/5/2010 5:32:44 AM

PRESENT THEM YOU FOOLS.

There has to be a skydaddy fool out there with a real argument fool.

PRESENT THEM TO ME SON.




So far we have the following skydaddy lovers:

crazy_carl
dillydaliant
0EPII1
Spontaneous
icyhotpatch
m52ncsu (Closet skydaddy lover without a fucking doubt fool)

5/7/2010 3:13:51 PM

can I be on your list? I don't really want to argue with you...I just want to be on the list.

However, since you ask for an argument, and seem seriously interested in arguments of this sort, here's the best I can offer which at all stands up to strict analysis.

I claim that there are statements which can never be logically proven or disproven, i.e. statements which are totally inaccessible to logic. This claim, if true, does not imply that God exists; but it DOES show that a lack of a rigorous argument for the existence of God does not, in itself, prove that God does NOT exist. For the question of the existence of God might simply be a question inaccessible to logic.

And it is well-known, in mathematics and logic, that there ARE statements which can never be proven true or false. For example, it has been rigorously demonstrated that it CANNOT be rigorously demonstrated that there either is or is not a set whose cardinality lies strictly between that of the natural numbers {1,2,3,...} and that of the interval [0,1]. I'd be glad to elaborate on this, if you like.

Anyhow, there's my argument. A lack of a proof of God's existence does not imply that God does not exist. Just because nobody can come up with a proof, that doesn't mean it's not true. That doesn't mean it IS true, either; but at any rate, until someone comes up with a proof that God does NOT exist, the question must remain logically undecided.

5/7/2010 6:25:11 PM

So, you also believe in unicorns, santa, trolls, elves, fairies and so on. Your argument puts you in a position where you have to accept any baseless claim that you encounter simply because you can't disprove it. If I come up to you and tell you I have an invisible elf on my shoulder and if you pay me $100 he will grant you any wishes you desire, you must accept this claim (You don't have to pay obviously, but you must accept my claim) because you cannot disprove it. You and I both know that the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the person saying "I'm not going to bother to believe that until you actually give me a reason to via evidence."

There is also a serious misunderstanding of the atheist position by most non-atheists. They often make the assumption that all atheists make a claim of absolute knowledge, as in, "I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that no gods exist. I know this FOR A FACT." That is not what any intellectually honest atheist will assert. I've yet to meet a true gnostic atheist. I am a 6 on the Dawkins Scale and that is what most other atheists I've met have been (The ones who are 7's generally haven't reached their position through sound reasoning or they call themselves a 7 because they're infinitesimally close to a 7). What they will assert is that they have no good reason to believe YOUR claims because you have provided ZERO evidence. To claim absolute certainty of ANYTHING is actually impossible. The point is that there's no reason to even entertain such claims until evidence is provided.

The atheist position is analogous to a "not guilty" verdict. The jury is never asked to say "innocent or guilty", they're asked to vote "not guilty or guilty". This is because the burden of proof is on those asserting guilt, just as the burden of proof is on someone asserting knowledge of something like a god, elves, trolls, unicorns, santa, etc. If there isn't sufficient evidence to establish guilt, the juror will vote "not guilty". This does NOT mean the juror is absolutely certain that the defendant is innocent or even believes the juror is innocent, it simply means the juror does not see sufficient evidence to cast a vote of "guilty". You can be in a position where you don't believe they're guilty and you also don't believe they're innocent. In the religious context, this makes you an atheist, although people in that category like to label themselves as agnostic because it has this "on the fence" feel to it and isn't as harsh of a word to religious people. But the fact is that if you do not accept the claim "gods exist", you are outside of the set of people who do accept the claim "gods exist" (That set is called "theist"). Anyone outside of that set is "atheist" per the definition of the word, just as anyone who is outside the set of those who accept the claim that the defendant is guilty is automatically going to vote "not guilty".


A complete lack of evidence for something besides random claims means there's absolutely no reason to believe in that thing. Once actual (And sufficient) evidence is provided, the claim can be accepted as true within this reality, given our current level of knowledge.

Also note that asserting that the question of whether or not gods exist is unanswerable or unknowable is a claim of absolute certainty, which, in and of itself requires "faith". Obviously if you're saying that currently the question is unanswerable then you're not putting yourself in that position, but if you claim that it can never be known you've again backed yourself into a corner in which you claim absolute certainty of something you cannot actually have absolute certainty of.

The position of every reasonable atheist I've met who actually reached their position through sound reasoning has been the following:

"I don't accept your claims that your god exists as defined because there is absolutely no evidence to support such claims and the god itself is contradictory. However, provided evidence I'm willing to change my mind."


The only definitions of god that don't fall into the trap of being completely self contradicting or logically inconsistent aren't really gods from what I've seen (ie - simply labeling of nature or the laws of physics as "god" can produce a sound logical claim but then you aren't actually talking about a god, you're simply talking about completely natural occurrences that have none of the various types of excess baggage like omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, after-life, heaven, hell, etc, that people attribute to their gods/religions).



http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Absence_of_evidence_is_not_evidence_of_absence

5/8/2010 9:33:10 AM

Well said. And on almost all points, your rebuttal is sound.

Quote :

"There is also a serious misunderstanding of the atheist position by most non-atheists. They often make the assumption that all atheists make a claim of absolute knowledge, as in, "I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that no gods exist. I know this FOR A FACT.""

I, myself, thought that was what "atheist" meant, and in fact I have always respected agnostics a lot more than atheists (to be an "atheist," as I understood the word, seemed to me to be a somewhat contradictory position...if you're so skeptical, how can you be sure there is no God?) However, if atheist is just a general term for "non-theist," that makes more sense.

Quote :

"Also note that asserting that the question of whether or not gods exist is unanswerable or unknowable is a claim of absolute certainty, which, in and of itself requires "faith". Obviously if you're saying that currently the question is unanswerable then you're not putting yourself in that position, but if you claim that it can never be known you've again backed yourself into a corner in which you claim absolute certainty of something you cannot actually have absolute certainty of."

True enough. The fact that some questions are inaccessible to logic (which IS certain) does not imply that the existence of God is one of those questions.

My basic point (which I strayed from somewhat) was "It is demonstrable that some truths are inaccessible to logic, and that suggests (suggests, mind you) that there might be some validity to other means of obtaining truth." This is still rather weak, I am sure; but it is the best I can do.

So, I agree with most of what you said. I must object, however, to two points.

1.

Quote :

"The only definitions of god that don't fall into the trap of being completely self contradicting or logically inconsistent aren't really gods from what I've seen (ie - simply labeling of nature or the laws of physics as "god" can produce a sound logical claim but then you aren't actually talking about a god, you're simply talking about completely natural occurrences that have none of the various types of excess baggage like omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, after-life, heaven, hell, etc, that people attribute to their gods/religions)."

This is a totally unjustified blanket statement. I've heard many arguments that God is self-contradictory, and most of them rest on the contradiction of a benevolent, omnipotent God creating a world with so much evil in it. My resolution to this is simple: I don't believe that God is omnipotent. Extremely powerful, yes; capable of doing absolutely anything, no. And that immediately solves the problem. He might not even have had a choice about creating the world. And this, for me, totally resolves the contradiction between benevolence, omnipotence and evil, since it simply removes one of the terms.

2.

Quote :

"the burden of proof is on someone asserting knowledge of something like a god,"

What you've got to understand is that you're trying to convince theists at least as much as they're trying to convince you. Probably a lot more so: you're initiating the argument, asking theists to justify their beliefs. But nobody is under any obligation to justify his or her religious beliefs to anyone. You don't believe in God? Fine: I don't think anyone has a problem with that. But when you go attacking other people's religions, i.e. by making a thread ridiculing them all and asking them to back their beliefs up with logic, you are
a. implicitly assuming that logic is the only valid means of obtaining truth (which is certainly unjustified, and perhaps incorrect.)
b. taking up a good share of the burden of proof yourself.

You could argue that anybody who responds to this thread is implicitly taking up that burden; but I'm not trying to convince you that God exists (that would be a waste of time, probably); I'm just standing up for my religion.

My final thought is to repeat that you are

Quote :

"implicitly assuming that logic is the only valid means of obtaining truth "

which is a fallacious assumption. You really have no means of proving that faith and religious feeling cannot lead to truth. True, religious people cannot prove that they do lead to truth; but that's by the very nature of faith and religious feeling. As long as they don't impose that faith proxily on you, you really have no cause to complain.

And may I add that I think it's pretty ridiculous to condemn out of hand anybody who is religious. I know shitloads of really smart people who believe in God: they're all over the place. To name a few famous examples, Newton, Pascal, Voltaire, Jefferson, and Churchill (among a hundred thousand others) all believed in a Deity. And surely these men, or at least some of them, had good reason for believing in God. I'm not asking you to follow their example, but it really doesn't make sense to assume that they're all credulous idiots, despite their brilliant careers. And if they're NOT all credulous idiots, it follows that not all theists are credulous idiots, and we're done.

5/8/2010 1:02:51 PM

You're not getting added to the list with that kind of faulty thinking son.

Quote :

"which is a fallacious assumption. You really have no means of proving that faith and religious feeling cannot lead to truth. True, religious people cannot prove that they do lead to truth; but that's by the very nature of faith and religious feeling. As long as they don't impose that faith proxily on you, you really have no cause to complain."

Do I really need to answer this? I shouldn't have to, but I will. First of all I never stated outright that nothing can come of something that isn't logic. What I will say is that until another method of determining objective (Not subjective) truth besides science and logic is presented, they are what I will stick with. I think it is probably critical that the difference between "Objective Truth" and "Subjective Truth" be noted at this point, because objective truth is what I've been discussing this entire time. My position is NOT a fallacy and I haven't even committed myself to the position for all of time. I have simply committed myself to the position best supported by CURRENT evidence. Note that if you have evidence that a different system works, present such evidence and I will look into it. At best, what you're doing in this paragraph is making a special pleading fallacy and then attempting to support that fallacy in the paragraph that follows it with two other logical fallacies.

In the paragraph that follows the one I've quoted from your post you did nothing more than make use of the "Argumentum ad verecundiam" (In reference to the statement: "To name a few famous examples, Newton, Pascal, Voltaire, Jefferson, and Churchill") and the "Argumentum ad populum" (In reference to the statement: "among a hundred thousand others") logical fallacies.


Oh, and as a side note: If you're referring to Thomas Jefferson, I'd say a case could actually be made that he was as close to an atheist as you could possibly get in that era without facing annoying consequences (It is entirely possible that he was a "closet atheist" given his actions and writings). At best he was a deist though, which (Even if it weren't an "Argumentum ad verecundiam" fallacy) attaches none of the baggage you want to attach to his beliefs here. His deistic beliefs would have simply been based on a prime mover who then died or stepped aside and has ZERO interference with natural reality. As in, there is essentially no way he honestly believed in any "spiritual" method of accessing information.


Beyond that, should you posit that such a method exists, you've got to demonstrate it before I can take it seriously, in the same way that you'd have to demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence for me to believe in a god before I would waste time and energy doing so.

5/8/2010 8:51:09 PM

Okay, first of all, I should clarify my purpose. These arguments ^^ were NOT intended to convince you that God exists. (They would be totally inadequate for that purpose, of course.) They were, intended, rather, to convince you that there are theists who are not idiots, and who are, in fact, intellectually respectable. To do that I

1. Argued that there might very well exist illogical methods of attaining truth, by which such people could come to believe in God.
2. Cited several intellectually respectable people who were theists.

You say

Quote :

"Do I really need to answer this? I shouldn't have to, but I will. First of all I never stated outright that nothing can come of something that isn't logic. What I will say is that until another method of determining objective (Not subjective) truth besides science and logic is presented, they are what I will stick with. This is NOT a fallacy, I have not committed myself to the position for all of time. I have simply committed myself to the position best supported by CURRENT evidence. If you have evidence that a different system works, I will look into it. At best, what you're doing here is making a special pleading fallacy."

There is a good deal of truth to what you say, and logically your position is almost faultless. However, you are still imposing your own perspective on the rest of humanity. You are assuming that, because you have never had a profoundly religious experience which convinced you, purely on the basis of feeling and faith, that God exists, that NO ONE has ever had such an experience, and that anyone claiming to have done so is a credulous ass. (I'm putting words in your mouth here; but this the impression I get.)

But if someone claims that God has spoken to them, that claim need not convince you of anything; but you ought perhaps to allow for the possibility that they are correct. You don't believe in God, so if he DOES exist, and speaks to you, you are more likely than a theist just to write it off as an evolutionary response of some sort, completely explainable by natural causes. (Why doesn't God speak clearly and unequivocally to everyone? I don't know. Perhaps it is irksome for Him to tell you, straight-up, to believe in Him. Women love it when you anticipate their wishes without their having to ask...perhaps it is the same sort of deal here.)

Quote :

"In the paragraph that follows the one I've quoted from your post you did nothing more than make use of the "Argumentum ad verecundiam" (In reference to the statement: "To name a few famous examples, Newton, Pascal, Voltaire, Jefferson, and Churchill") and the "Argumentum ad populum" (In reference to the statement: "among a hundred thousand others") logical fallacies."

I'm not an idiot...I didn't cite those guys' religious beliefs in support of the claim that God exists. I cited them in support of the claim that not all theists are morons. And for that purpose, the argument was sound. If you have intellectual scorn for all theists, then you necessarily have an intellectual scorn for those five (or four) guys. And I maintain that scorn for all those guys would be absurd.

Quote :

"Oh, and as a side note: If you're referring to Thomas Jefferson, I'd say a case could actually be made that he was as close to an atheist as you could possibly get in that era without facing annoying consequences (It is entirely possible that he was a "closet atheist" given his actions and writings). At best he was a deist though, which (Even if it weren't an "Argumentum ad verecundiam" fallacy) attaches none of the baggage you want to attach to his beliefs here. His deistic beliefs would have simply been based on a prime mover who then died or stepped aside and has ZERO interference with natural reality. As in, there is essentially no way he honestly believed in any "spiritual" method of accessing information."

Jefferson's (lack of) religious beliefs are not well understood, indeed (although I'm not as knowledgeable as you are about him, evidently) but he's just one example, anyhow. I could come up with others.

So, man, I'm not trying to show you that God exists...you win, in that respect (your position is damn-near impregnable...if there were a way to break it down logically, someone would probably have done so by now.) What I'm arguing about, and with, is your apparent scorn for all practitioners of religion.

Quote :

"Beyond that, should you posit that such a method exists, you've got to demonstrate it before I can take it seriously, in the same way that you'd have to demonstrate even the slightest bit of evidence for me to believe in a god before I would waste time and energy doing so."

Well, since you ask, here's the best way I can demonstrate it: try praying. Kneel down on your carpet with a totally open heart and mind, clasp your hands, and say (or think) something like "God, I genuinely don't know if you exist. But if you do, I'd appreciate it if you'd make that clear somehow." You might even try entertaining the belief in Him for a minute or two, and see where that leads you (if anywhere.) I don't think you will do this, but you asked, so there you are.

5/8/2010 9:49:11 PM

Hey miracle boy, you like inversion?


[Edited on May 10, 2010 at 11:05 PM. Reason : nope]

5/9/2010 11:50:56 AM