New
Jan 6, 2013 12:34 AM
#101
katsucats said: Post-Josh said: Logic isn't just something us humans engage in for our pastime, logic is what's conceivably possible. Not even God can defy deductive logic.Just as I trust someone with a strong sense of logic to teach me about science, I trust someone with a strong sense of "feelings" to teach me about spirituality, or whatever secular term you wish to use. There is no reason for this to be the case, there just exists an unfounded belief that logic and spirituality are in binary opposition. I think it is short-sighted to say that one has more authority than the other on the question of God's existence. Continuing from past thread, Omnipotent God? Yes he can. |
The Art of Eight |
Jan 6, 2013 12:35 AM
#102
For some reason the word religious doesn't register as religion to me. Instead points out zealous teaching. Hmmm.... |
Jan 6, 2013 12:39 AM
#103
dankickyou said: No, he cannot. If something is illogical, it is inconceivable.katsucats said: Post-Josh said: Logic isn't just something us humans engage in for our pastime, logic is what's conceivably possible. Not even God can defy deductive logic.Just as I trust someone with a strong sense of logic to teach me about science, I trust someone with a strong sense of "feelings" to teach me about spirituality, or whatever secular term you wish to use. There is no reason for this to be the case, there just exists an unfounded belief that logic and spirituality are in binary opposition. I think it is short-sighted to say that one has more authority than the other on the question of God's existence. Continuing from past thread, Omnipotent God? Yes he can. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 12:42 AM
#104
katsucats said: dankickyou said: No, he cannot. If something is illogical, it is inconceivable.katsucats said: Post-Josh said: Logic isn't just something us humans engage in for our pastime, logic is what's conceivably possible. Not even God can defy deductive logic.Just as I trust someone with a strong sense of logic to teach me about science, I trust someone with a strong sense of "feelings" to teach me about spirituality, or whatever secular term you wish to use. There is no reason for this to be the case, there just exists an unfounded belief that logic and spirituality are in binary opposition. I think it is short-sighted to say that one has more authority than the other on the question of God's existence. Continuing from past thread, Omnipotent God? Yes he can. Too bad logic is now an 11 year old lesbian girl. |
The Art of Eight |
Jan 6, 2013 12:43 AM
#105
Post-Josh said: Ignorance of what information? There's no compelling evidence against God's existence, as far as I'm aware. More importantly though, as demonstrated in this post, atheists only seem to want to play at atheism's home field. Why do atheists, and people in general for that matter, assume that the ability to understand and verbally communicate tangible information is a perfect proxy for intelligence? It is not, and only constitutes a very narrow definition of intelligence. How you "feel" matters, how your subconscious "feels" matters, and how your actions unknowingly reflect those feelings matters. These are extremely important things, even if they aren't readily visible, and they are things which religions tend to embrace. Just as I trust someone with a strong sense of logic to teach me about science, I trust someone with a strong sense of "feelings" to teach me about spirituality, or whatever secular term you wish to use. There is no reason for this to be the case, there just exists an unfounded belief that logic and spirituality are in binary opposition. Neither has more authority than the other on the question of God's existence. Well I want to make it clear here that I'm talking of Religion as a whole, not the belief in a God alone. With Religion comes all sorts of ideologies, be it that the Earth is a mere few thousand years old, that the sun rotates the Earth, or that "heaven" is above the clouds. These are all things we know aren't true anymore, yet there are people who still believe things like this. I don't think I'm being unfair to say that these people are likely a little dimmer than those who don't. What I was trying to say before is that it's unfair to use a time period where something is unknown, then suggesting it is similar it to a period where it is. One is a genuine lack of information, the other is straight up ignorance. If by some time we ever have infallible proof that god does or does not exist, then I would say the same for those who ignore the evidence then. Anyway, I'm Agnostic Atheist. I'm open to the idea that a God exists (not one which cares how long my hair is, or who I wish to fuck, however). I still don't think that's ever a valid reason to believe in something without evidence though. |
TrapaliciousJan 6, 2013 3:35 AM
Jan 6, 2013 12:50 AM
#106
The general idea I usually go with is "The Belief of Higher Power," and then explain how society start to began stray away from that thought. |
Jan 6, 2013 12:53 AM
#107
dankickyou said: He might be able to change the meaning of the word, but it is inconceivable that he could change the meaning of the idea. Even God cannot make a triangle with more than 180 degrees -- it is inconceivable and impossible.katsucats said: dankickyou said: No, he cannot. If something is illogical, it is inconceivable.katsucats said: Post-Josh said: Logic isn't just something us humans engage in for our pastime, logic is what's conceivably possible. Not even God can defy deductive logic.Just as I trust someone with a strong sense of logic to teach me about science, I trust someone with a strong sense of "feelings" to teach me about spirituality, or whatever secular term you wish to use. There is no reason for this to be the case, there just exists an unfounded belief that logic and spirituality are in binary opposition. I think it is short-sighted to say that one has more authority than the other on the question of God's existence. Continuing from past thread, Omnipotent God? Yes he can. Too bad logic is now an 11 year old lesbian girl. If you believe logical impossibility is a possibility, then tell me why I should take you seriously? |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 12:57 AM
#108
katsucats said: dankickyou said: He might be able to change the meaning of the word, but it is inconceivable that he could change the meaning of the idea. Even God cannot make a triangle with more than 180 degrees -- it is inconceivable and impossible.katsucats said: dankickyou said: No, he cannot. If something is illogical, it is inconceivable.katsucats said: Post-Josh said: Logic isn't just something us humans engage in for our pastime, logic is what's conceivably possible. Not even God can defy deductive logic.Just as I trust someone with a strong sense of logic to teach me about science, I trust someone with a strong sense of "feelings" to teach me about spirituality, or whatever secular term you wish to use. There is no reason for this to be the case, there just exists an unfounded belief that logic and spirituality are in binary opposition. I think it is short-sighted to say that one has more authority than the other on the question of God's existence. Continuing from past thread, Omnipotent God? Yes he can. Too bad logic is now an 11 year old lesbian girl. If you believe logical impossibility is a possibility, then tell me why I should take you seriously? >Omnipotent >Cannot do Too bad logic is now cigol, too bad I am you, too bad you are me, too bad circles are squares, too bad the earth is a frog, too bad stars are candy, too bad fire is cold, too bad there are no such things as ideas or concepts, too bad bad is goo, too good bad is bad, goodbadggoodoog. Katsucats, STAHP |
The Art of Eight |
Jan 6, 2013 1:18 AM
#109
dankickyou said: I guess your response is self-explanatory.katsucats said: If you believe logical impossibility is a possibility, then tell me why I should take you seriously? too bad bad is goo, too good bad is bad, goodbadggoodoog. Katsucats, STAHP |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 1:24 AM
#110
katsucats said: dankickyou said: I guess your response is self-explanatory.katsucats said: If you believe logical impossibility is a possibility, then tell me why I should take you seriously? too bad bad is goo, too good bad is bad, goodbadggoodoog. Katsucats, STAHP It is. Omnipotent is unchallengeable and unbeatable thingy. Trying to argue against it is a lost cause. |
The Art of Eight |
Jan 6, 2013 1:34 AM
#111
dankickyou said: katsucats said: dankickyou said: I guess your response is self-explanatory.katsucats said: If you believe logical impossibility is a possibility, then tell me why I should take you seriously? too bad bad is goo, too good bad is bad, goodbadggoodoog. Katsucats, STAHP It is. Omnipotent is unchallengeable and unbeatable thingy. Trying to argue against it is a lost cause. ^ This. I was about to say the same but I can't be an arse to explain. |
Jan 6, 2013 1:50 AM
#112
dankickyou said: Omnipotence is logically contradictory. Trying to defend it logically is a lost cause. It's like using logic to disprove logic. You might as well attempt to use science to prove Young Earth Creationism.katsucats said: dankickyou said: I guess your response is self-explanatory.katsucats said: If you believe logical impossibility is a possibility, then tell me why I should take you seriously? too bad bad is goo, too good bad is bad, goodbadggoodoog. Katsucats, STAHP It is. Omnipotent is unchallengeable and unbeatable thingy. Trying to argue against it is a lost cause. Dankickyou, STAHP |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 1:57 AM
#113
katsucats said: dankickyou said: Omnipotence is logically contradictory. Trying to defend it logically is a lost cause. It's like using logic to disprove logic. You might as well attempt to use science to prove Young Earth Creationism.katsucats said: dankickyou said: I guess your response is self-explanatory.katsucats said: If you believe logical impossibility is a possibility, then tell me why I should take you seriously? too bad bad is goo, too good bad is bad, goodbadggoodoog. Katsucats, STAHP It is. Omnipotent is unchallengeable and unbeatable thingy. Trying to argue against it is a lost cause. Dankickyou, STAHP Too bad all those concepts are now cookies. and God is eating those cookies. With milk from katsucat's tears. |
The Art of Eight |
Jan 6, 2013 2:03 AM
#114
dankickyou is practically saying Omnipotent is illogical. Both of you are right about omnipotent can't argue for or against it. However when you stated: "It's a logical contradictory," you are wrong. That basically implies that there is a logic that contradicts the previous logic. Assuming there are two logic, when again stated,Omnipotent is illogical it has no logic. I don't know what is Young Earth Creationism. So I can't say anything. In the end, omnipotent was given a vague definition. It can't be explain any further. In other words: Here lies the junk, and good luck of getting out without a headache. |
Jan 6, 2013 2:05 AM
#115
dankickyou said: Yeah, figures. Even the language you use is incomprehensible if you disregard logic. "Cookies" in your post doesn't even express a distinct idea that means a "small, flat, round cake" that people usually associate with the word because you've thrown away your intellectual capacity in order to justify a logically impossible Creator. You might as well have just said, "balh i'd blah bloop" and it would have had the same meaning without logic.katsucats said: dankickyou said: Omnipotence is logically contradictory. Trying to defend it logically is a lost cause. It's like using logic to disprove logic. You might as well attempt to use science to prove Young Earth Creationism.katsucats said: dankickyou said: I guess your response is self-explanatory.katsucats said: If you believe logical impossibility is a possibility, then tell me why I should take you seriously? too bad bad is goo, too good bad is bad, goodbadggoodoog. Katsucats, STAHP It is. Omnipotent is unchallengeable and unbeatable thingy. Trying to argue against it is a lost cause. Dankickyou, STAHP Too bad all those concepts are now cookies. and God is eating those cookies. With milk from katsucat's tears. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 2:09 AM
#116
katsucats said: dankickyou said: Yeah, figures. Even the language you use is incomprehensible if you disregard logic. "Cookies" in your post doesn't even express a distinct idea that means a "small, flat, round cake" that people usually associate with the word because you've thrown away your intellectual capacity in order to justify a logically impossible Creator. You might as well have just said, "balh i'd blah bloop" and it would have had the same meaning without logic.katsucats said: dankickyou said: Omnipotence is logically contradictory. Trying to defend it logically is a lost cause. It's like using logic to disprove logic. You might as well attempt to use science to prove Young Earth Creationism.katsucats said: dankickyou said: I guess your response is self-explanatory.katsucats said: If you believe logical impossibility is a possibility, then tell me why I should take you seriously? too bad bad is goo, too good bad is bad, goodbadggoodoog. Katsucats, STAHP It is. Omnipotent is unchallengeable and unbeatable thingy. Trying to argue against it is a lost cause. Dankickyou, STAHP Too bad all those concepts are now cookies. and God is eating those cookies. With milk from katsucat's tears. and then suddenly there was a chocobo. LOL I dont even believe in an omnipotent God. But since you mentioned a hypothetical Omnipotent, you cant say that it cannot do this or that. Beyond limits and beyond infinity. The rules of this universe does not compare. Incomprehensible. Beyond the Beyond. |
The Art of Eight |
Jan 6, 2013 2:12 AM
#117
TookMe6Years said: You argue against it because it is illogical.dankickyou is practically saying Omnipotent is illogical. Both of you are right about omnipotent can't argue for or against it. TookMe6Years said: There is no such thing as "previous" logic. Logic is logic, and omnipotence contradicts logic. It is illogical, as you've admitted.However when you stated: "It's a logical contradictory," you are wrong. That basically implies that there is a logic that contradicts the previous logic. Assuming there are two logic, when again stated,Omnipotent is illogical it has no logic. TookMe6Years said: Haven't you ever heard of the parable involving an unstoppable force and an immovable object?In the end, omnipotent was given a vague definition. It can't be explain any further. In other words: Here lies the junk, and good luck of getting out without a headache. P1. An omnipotent being has more power than any other being. P2. An omnipotent being cannot have more power than another omnipotent being. C1. Therefore, an omnipotent being is impossible. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 2:15 AM
#118
dankickyou said: If you think something that is hypothetical must exist, then you must think no hypothetical scenario could ever be proven wrong. So if we said something like, "Assume dankickyou is gay..." That automatically becomes reality?katsucats said: dankickyou said: Yeah, figures. Even the language you use is incomprehensible if you disregard logic. "Cookies" in your post doesn't even express a distinct idea that means a "small, flat, round cake" that people usually associate with the word because you've thrown away your intellectual capacity in order to justify a logically impossible Creator. You might as well have just said, "balh i'd blah bloop" and it would have had the same meaning without logic.katsucats said: dankickyou said: Omnipotence is logically contradictory. Trying to defend it logically is a lost cause. It's like using logic to disprove logic. You might as well attempt to use science to prove Young Earth Creationism.katsucats said: dankickyou said: I guess your response is self-explanatory.katsucats said: If you believe logical impossibility is a possibility, then tell me why I should take you seriously? too bad bad is goo, too good bad is bad, goodbadggoodoog. Katsucats, STAHP It is. Omnipotent is unchallengeable and unbeatable thingy. Trying to argue against it is a lost cause. Dankickyou, STAHP Too bad all those concepts are now cookies. and God is eating those cookies. With milk from katsucat's tears. and then suddenly there was a chocobo. LOL I dont even believe in an omnipotent God. But since you mentioned a hypothetical Omnipotent, you cant say that it cannot do this or that. Beyond limits and beyond infinity. The rules of this universe does not compare. Incomprehensible. Beyond the Beyond. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 2:20 AM
#119
katsucats said: If you think something that is hypothetical must exist, then you must think no hypothetical scenario could ever be proven wrong. So if we said something like, "Assume dankickyou is gay..." That automatically becomes reality? but dankickyou is gay No. my point is omnipotence cannot be limited in any way or form. Because its LOLOMNIPOTENCE |
The Art of Eight |
Jan 6, 2013 2:28 AM
#120
dankickyou said: That's why it's illogical and necessarily impossible.katsucats said: If you think something that is hypothetical must exist, then you must think no hypothetical scenario could ever be proven wrong. So if we said something like, "Assume dankickyou is gay..." That automatically becomes reality? but dankickyou is gay No. my point is omnipotence cannot be limited in any way or form. Because its LOLOMNIPOTENCE It is contradictory use logic to claim that logic impossibility is possible (not the least because you are not that hypothetical, impossible God), therefore in order to be consistent you need to either choose to accept logic or dismiss logic. If you accept logic, you must also accept that logical impossibilities are impossible. If you dismiss logic, then anything you say is incomprehensible. See how that works? You can't win, Dankickyou. STAHP |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 2:34 AM
#121
katsucats said: dankickyou said: That's why it's illogical and necessarily impossible.katsucats said: If you think something that is hypothetical must exist, then you must think no hypothetical scenario could ever be proven wrong. So if we said something like, "Assume dankickyou is gay..." That automatically becomes reality? but dankickyou is gay No. my point is omnipotence cannot be limited in any way or form. Because its LOLOMNIPOTENCE It is contradictory use logic to claim that logic impossibility is possible (not the least because you are not that hypothetical, impossible God), therefore in order to be consistent you need to either choose to accept logic or dismiss logic. If you accept logic, you must also accept that logical impossibilities are impossible. If you dismiss logic, then anything you say is incomprehensible. See how that works? You can't win, Dankickyou. STAHP Omnipotent God says that is not true. Its not True. katsucats. Just STAHP. Also, your mother is now an ostrich. PS. We are kinda bringing the thread off-topic, comment on my profile or make a new thread if you wanna continue. |
The Art of Eight |
Jan 6, 2013 2:45 AM
#122
dankickyou said: Since you've dismissed logic, surely whatever you're attempting to convey is now irrelevant to your actions. You think you're typing in English, but really it's just gibberish.Omnipotent God says that is not true. Its not True. katsucats. Just STAHP. Also, your mother is now an ostrich. dankickyou said: Not really. This is even less productive than arguing with a Young Earth Creationist about how Adam and Eve did not really live 6000 years ago.PS. We are kinda bringing the thread off-topic, comment on my profile or make a new thread if you wanna continue. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 2:46 AM
#123
So.....I won? YEAH!!! |
The Art of Eight |
Jan 6, 2013 2:50 AM
#124
katsucats said: You argue against it because it is illogical. I didn't argue against. Stop putting words in my mouth. I was reiterating what dankickyou was trying to say to you. It can't be argue for/against. Deal with it. katsucats said: There is no such thing as "previous" logic. Logic is logic, and omnipotence contradicts logic. It is illogical, as you've admitted. It's call Logic 1/A and Logic 2/B. Two consecutive/different logic. It isn't hard to comprehend mate. katsucats said: Haven't you ever heard of the parable involving an unstoppable force and an immovable object? P1. An omnipotent being has more power than any other being. P2. An omnipotent being cannot have more power than another omnipotent being. C1. Therefore, an omnipotent being is impossible. Let's get this straight. First of all. No double posting. Second its illogical, that's it. There is no point of trying to reasoning, as much you want to adhere the reasoning. So please stop hurting yourself. Third, immovable and unstoppable was actually a paradoxical joke.There are two logic going with that. Again you unintentionally implied Omnipotence can and can't be both? Because you stated P1 and P2 to reason. And then you pointed C1(conclusion?) it's impossible. When I stated it can't be argue for/against. Just drop it. If you want to continue, here is a more concrete distraction for you, Energy cannot be create or destroy. Chew that on for a while. Edit: There is nothing more enjoyable then listening to Queen's after a tiresome conversation. |
TookMe6YearsJan 6, 2013 2:57 AM
Jan 6, 2013 3:00 AM
#125
TookMe6Years said: Well, you should. Illogical propositions can and should be argued against.katsucats said: You argue against it because it is illogical. I didn't argue against. Stop putting words in my mouth. I was reiterating what dankickyou was trying to say to you. It can't be argue for/against. Deal with it. TookMe6Years said: It's called something is logical or it is not. 1/A and 2/B are arbitrary distinctions that you just made up on the spot, they are meaningless. I challenge you to define them.katsucats said: It's call Logic 1/A and Logic 2/B. Two consecutive/different logic. It isn't hard to comprehend mate. There is no such thing as "previous" logic. Logic is logic, and omnipotence contradicts logic. It is illogical, as you've admitted. TookMe6Years said: A proper argument requires evidence. Contradiction is something a 4 year old child is capable of.katsucats said: Haven't you ever heard of the parable involving an unstoppable force and an immovable object? P1. An omnipotent being has more power than any other being. P2. An omnipotent being cannot have more power than another omnipotent being. C1. Therefore, an omnipotent being is impossible. Let's get this straight. First of all. No double posting. Second its illogical, that's it. There is no point of trying to reasoning, as much you want to adhere the reasoning. So please stop hurting yourself. TookMe6Years said: I will not drop it; I prefer to keep going until you are thoroughly made a fool of, thank you. Omnipotence is a paradox due to the logic above. If you can refute it, point to whether premises P1 or P2 are unsound, or whether C1 is invalid, and why? If you cannot do so, be the bigger man and humbly admit defeat.Third, immovable and unstoppable was actually a paradoxical joke.There are two logic going with that. Again you unintentionally implied Omnipotence can and can't be both? Because you stated P1 and P2 to reason. And then you pointed C1(conclusion?) it's impossible. When I stated it can't be argue for/against. Just drop it. TookMe6Years said: Chew on this -- irrelevant.If you want to continue, here is a more concrete distraction for you, Energy cannot be create or destroy. Chew that on for a while. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 3:02 AM
#126
My mom is an internationally highly regarded Pediatric Neurologist and an extremely devout Catholic. I go to Notre Dame and in my classes I've met the smartest and most religious people I know. So...yeah, I definitely think you can be smart + religious. Edit: I am not religious, so I'm not here to argue for the existence/lack of existence of a god. Just answering your question. |
Jan 6, 2013 3:05 AM
#127
katsucats said: TookMe6Years said: Well, you should. Illogical propositions can and should be argued against.katsucats said: You argue against it because it is illogical. I didn't argue against. Stop putting words in my mouth. I was reiterating what dankickyou was trying to say to you. It can't be argue for/against. Deal with it. TookMe6Years said: It's called something is logical or it is not. 1/A and 2/B are arbitrary distinctions that you just made up on the spot, they are meaningless. I challenge you to define them.katsucats said: It's call Logic 1/A and Logic 2/B. Two consecutive/different logic. It isn't hard to comprehend mate. There is no such thing as "previous" logic. Logic is logic, and omnipotence contradicts logic. It is illogical, as you've admitted. TookMe6Years said: A proper argument requires evidence. Contradiction is something a 4 year old child is capable of.katsucats said: Haven't you ever heard of the parable involving an unstoppable force and an immovable object? P1. An omnipotent being has more power than any other being. P2. An omnipotent being cannot have more power than another omnipotent being. C1. Therefore, an omnipotent being is impossible. Let's get this straight. First of all. No double posting. Second its illogical, that's it. There is no point of trying to reasoning, as much you want to adhere the reasoning. So please stop hurting yourself. TookMe6Years said: I will not drop it; I prefer to keep going until you are thoroughly made a fool of, thank you. Omnipotence is a paradox due to the logic above. If you can refute it, point to whether premises P1 or P2 are unsound, or whether C1 is invalid, and why? If you cannot do so, be the bigger man and humbly admit defeat.Third, immovable and unstoppable was actually a paradoxical joke.There are two logic going with that. Again you unintentionally implied Omnipotence can and can't be both? Because you stated P1 and P2 to reason. And then you pointed C1(conclusion?) it's impossible. When I stated it can't be argue for/against. Just drop it. TookMe6Years said: Chew on this -- irrelevant.If you want to continue, here is a more concrete distraction for you, Energy cannot be create or destroy. Chew that on for a while. You are correct. I should be a humble man and allow you, an undesirably debater makes a fool out of yourself and learn from their mistake. I, too, should stop debating you, because honestly, each time you post it becomes inconsistency and flawed. See ya, it was delightful while it lasted, but, alas. @SunInSplendor nobody cares. It's passed closing curtains. |
Jan 6, 2013 3:11 AM
#128
katsucats said: ]I will not drop it; I prefer to keep going until you are thoroughly made a fool of, thank you. Omnipotence is a paradox due to the logic above. If you can refute it, point to whether premises P1 or P2 are unsound, or whether C1 is invalid, and why? If you cannot do so, be the bigger man and humbly admit defeat. Implying Omnipotence is ruled by logic. Logic is ruled by Omnipotence. |
The Art of Eight |
Jan 6, 2013 3:30 AM
#129
TookMe6Years said: Such is the face of someone who wants to voice his opinion but lacks thought to support his argument: he cries, scratches, bites, and contradicts, and it all rings hollow. It took you 6 years... hopefully since birth.You are correct. I should be a humble man and allow you, an undesirably debater makes a fool out of yourself and learn from their mistake. I, too, should stop debating you, because honestly, each time you post it becomes inconsistency and flawed. dankickyou said: Hopefully you are conveying this through omnipotence, since you surely aren't conveying this through logic.Implying Omnipotence is ruled by logic. Logic is ruled by Omnipotence. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 3:41 AM
#130
katsucats said: Such is the face of someone who wants to voice his opinion but lacks thought to support his argument: he cries, scratches, bites, and contradicts, and it all rings hollow. It took you 6 years... hopefully since birth. So your best insult is my username. I will acknowledge it. After all I choose that: check my introduction forum if you have the free time. Hopefully, your quote is a sign of calm, rational, and collective voice instead of "Arrogant Pride." Oh wait...... I forgot: "I will not drop it; I prefer to keep going until you are thoroughly made a fool of, thank you." But alas, I was make a fool out, of, and yet you aren't satisfy. Such gluttony for the knowledge of Omnipotent. You are mad. |
Jan 6, 2013 3:46 AM
#131
TookMe6Years said: My best bet was to provide substance behind my argument, something you have failed to accomplish. Acknowledge that.katsucats said: Such is the face of someone who wants to voice his opinion but lacks thought to support his argument: he cries, scratches, bites, and contradicts, and it all rings hollow. It took you 6 years... hopefully since birth. So your best insult is my username. I will acknowledge it. After all I choose that: check my introduction forum if you have the free time. TookMe6Years said: Hopefully, your quote is a sign of calm, rational, and collective voice instead of "Arrogant Pride." Oh wait...... I forgot: "I will not drop it; I prefer to keep going until you are thoroughly made a fool of, thank you." TookMe6Years said: Pot, kettle...Second its illogical, that's it. There is no point of trying to reasoning, as much you want to adhere the reasoning. So please stop hurting yourself. TookMe6Years said: Knowledge of the incomprehensible? You are mad.But alas, I was make a fool out, of, and yet you aren't satisfy. Such gluttony for the knowledge of Omnipotent. You are mad. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 4:04 AM
#133
If there is one thing I acknowledge: You are relentless person. No, no, no. When I meant mad. I meant insanity. As Albert Einstein states: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." By constantly berates every post I make, hopefully I answer your question differently. Pot, kettle? All this debate makes me realize its only a tempest in a teacup. |
Jan 6, 2013 4:21 AM
#134
TookMe6Years said: As did I. It is insanity to assume someone would be a glutton over knowledge of the logically impossible -- you might as well replace "omnipotent God" with "gaga googoo" and it would've made equal sense.No, no, no. When I meant mad. I meant insanity. As Albert Einstein states: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." By constantly berates every post I make, hopefully I answer your question differently. I do the same thing over and over again, and I do not expect a different result. I present logic, and I expect to be right. Even if you can't see it, other people can. TookMe6Years said: Why thank you.If there is one thing I acknowledge: You are relentless person. |
katsucatsJan 6, 2013 4:28 AM
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 4:41 AM
#135
Your welcome. I can't wait for 3 or 4 days so I can make my first blog about this incident. katsucats a Tiger in a cat's body. dankickyou the man that can make a mom into an ostrich. A debater's experience blog perhaps? Also how about creating "Energy Cannot be Create or Destroy" debate? Will you accept the challenge? Not now, but when ever. |
Jan 6, 2013 4:46 AM
#136
It depends on what your definition of intelligent is. If it's just I.Q then it's easy. Being able to be logical and having high I.Q are two different things. Many people with high I.Q are idiots when it comes to common sense or logic. |
Jan 6, 2013 5:00 AM
#137
Well, they are intelligent until it contradicts their religion. It is nice to see how they resolve the conundrum besides "we'll never know for sure; none of us ever will..." Those people are the nicest ones. The nastiest ones shouldn't be engaged in rhetorical debate. Not worth the time or aggravation. |
Jan 6, 2013 5:02 AM
#138
TookMe6Years said: Is energy the agent or the patient?Also how about creating "Energy Cannot be Create or Destroy" debate? Will you accept the challenge? Not now, but when ever. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Jan 6, 2013 10:47 AM
#139
Trapalicious said: Oh sorry, I got a little confused then. I can agree with everything you said, pretty much.Well I want to make it clear here that I'm talking of Religion as a whole, not the belief in a God alone. With Religion comes all sorts of ideologies, be it that the Earth is a mere few thousand years old, that the sun rotates the Earth, or that "heaven" is above the clouds. These are all things we know aren't true anymore, yet there are people who still believe things like this. I don't think I'm being unfair to say that these people are likely a little dimmer than those who don't. What I was trying to say before is that it's unfair to use a time period where something is unknown, then suggesting it is similar it to a period where it is. One is a genuine lack of information, the other is straight up ignorance. If by some time we ever have infallible proof that god does or does not exist, then I would say the same for those who ignore the evidence then. Anyway, I'm Agnostic Atheist. I'm open to the idea that a God exists (not one which cares how long my hair is, or who I wish to fuck, however). I still don't think that's ever a valid reason to believe in something without evidence though. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Jan 6, 2013 10:56 AM
#140
amichaaan said: Not_Biased said: Religion is the best thing for society. How could you say that? Are you serious? I really don't want to want to get into a debate about religion, as we all know they go nowhere, but I might have to. Religion's like christianity and islam are the worst things for society. Your arguement (in a nutshell) is that religion is the best thing for society because it makes us better people, and that religious people help others? I thought you were pretty clued up, but I'm starting to question your intelligence. I don't even know why you're comparing christianity to islam. Just because the muslim guys do bad things in israel, palestine or wherever does not mean that religion is bad. Catholicism did a lot of bad things in the past and it's now dying, the same will happen to islam. |
Jan 6, 2013 10:58 AM
#141
If it counts einstein was agnostic |
Immahnoob said: Jizzy, I know you have no idea how to argue for shit, tokiyashiro said: Jizzy as you would call yourself because youre a dick The most butthurt award goes to you And clearly you havent watched that many shows thats why you cant determine if a show is unique or not Or maybe you're just a child who likes common stuffs where hero saves the day and guys gets all the girls. Sad taste you have there kid you came up to me in the first place making you look more like a kid who got slapped without me even knowing it and start crying about it to me |
Jan 6, 2013 11:34 AM
#142
Catholics accepted Darwinism and rejected intelligent design and creationism under Jean Paul II, if that even matter. I still hate him though, aids in Africa, please... |
I sometime have funky grammar, sorry about that. If you can correct some of my post, you would be an angel. |
Jan 6, 2013 11:56 AM
#143
Since there are millions of intelligent people all over the world, and some of them must be religious then i'd say, yeah. |
Insert wise quote here |
Jan 6, 2013 12:48 PM
#144
Not_Biased said: Get your facts right before arguing. What's going on in Israel and Phalestine is more complicated than just "Muslims doing bad things". Also, did you know that Muslims also think Christianity is dying out? Yet neither of you guys are basing your claims on facts. Though did you know that there are more than 1,5 billion Muslims around the world? and if anything they're increasing, so what was that thing you were saying about Islam dying out? Also, Did you ever wonder why only Christianity is the "right" religion? Because Muslims think Islam is the "right" religion too.I don't even know why you're comparing christianity to islam. Just because the muslim guys do bad things in israel, palestine or wherever does not mean that religion is bad. Catholicism did a lot of bad things in the past and it's now dying, the same will happen to islam. Again, get your facts right, start with Wikipedia. |
Candor123Jan 6, 2013 12:54 PM
Jan 6, 2013 1:29 PM
#145
Candor said: Not_Biased said: Get your facts right before arguing. What's going on in Israel and Phalestine is more complicated than just "Muslims doing bad things". Also, did you know that Muslims also think Christianity is dying out? Yet neither of you guys are basing your claims on facts. Though did you know that there are more than 1,5 billion Muslims around the world? and if anything they're increasing, so what was that thing you were saying about Islam dying out? Also, Did you ever wonder why only Christianity is the "right" religion? Because Muslims think Islam is the "right" religion too.I don't even know why you're comparing christianity to islam. Just because the muslim guys do bad things in israel, palestine or wherever does not mean that religion is bad. Catholicism did a lot of bad things in the past and it's now dying, the same will happen to islam. Again, get your facts right, start with Wikipedia. I know it's more complicated. The guy I've quoted was the one that didn't get his facts right. A lot of political stuff is involved. The Middle East is really fucked up. Christianity is the right religion because muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure, irresponsible and intolerant in the Muslim culture, aggressive behavior, especially threats, are generally seen to be accepted, and even expected as a way of handling conflicts and social discrepancies. If a Muslim does not respond in a threatening way to insults or social irritation, he, not "she" (Muslim women are, mostly, expected to be humble and to not show power) is seen as weak, as someone who cannot be depended upon and loses face. Do you want the world to be like that? I don't. |
Jan 6, 2013 1:30 PM
#146
I am really close to consider that all atheists are morons. |
Jan 6, 2013 1:33 PM
#147
Not_Biased said: in the Muslim culture, aggressive behavior, especially threats, are generally seen to be accepted, and even expected as a way of handling conflicts and social discrepancies. If a Muslim does not respond in a threatening way to insults or social irritation, he, not "she" (Muslim women are, mostly, expected to be humble and to not show power) is seen as weak, as someone who cannot be depended upon and loses face. Do you want the world to be like that? I don't. This proves how ignorant you are.... |
Jan 6, 2013 1:35 PM
#148
Not_Biased said: Catholicism did a lot of bad things in the past ''Catholocism'' is still doing a lot of bad things. |
Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
Jan 6, 2013 1:37 PM
#149
Not_Biased said: (Muslim women are, mostly, expected to be humble and to not show power) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4806516.stm She won't fucking agree. Not_Biased said: Christianity is the right religion because muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure, irresponsible and intolerant in the Muslim culture, aggressive behavior, especially threats, are generally seen to be accepted, and even expected as a way of handling conflicts and social discrepancies. If a Muslim does not respond in a threatening way to insults or social irritation, he, not "she" (Muslim women are, mostly, expected to be humble and to not show power) is seen as weak, as someone who cannot be depended upon and loses face. Do you want the world to be like that? I don't. Wow, please. Copy past : While we were doing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages#Late_Middle_Ages Killing heretic, dying of famine and plague. they were doing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age Medecine, astrology, philosophy, early ethic, early democracy... It's what it inspires me when I ear Islam is fundamentally bad and anti human-right. |
I sometime have funky grammar, sorry about that. If you can correct some of my post, you would be an angel. |
Jan 6, 2013 1:44 PM
#150
So you post a muslim woman using a gun? Thanks for proving my point and showing their lack of common sense and how aggressive they are. "But she has lost none of the enthusiasm for violence that fed her reputation for cruelty during Afghanistan's wars." "I am still wishing for a fight," she said, dismissing any notion that women's roles in Afghan society would preclude front-line battle service." "It makes no difference if you are a man or a woman when you have the heart of a fighter." sigh |
Not_BiasedJan 6, 2013 1:49 PM
More topics from this board
» What is needed for you to stop being a degenerate?Telecom - Yesterday |
36 |
by Exhumatika
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» Why did you choose your forum avatar and profile picture?Ejrodiew - 4 hours ago |
19 |
by deg
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» Do you have any addictions?Commit_Crime - 16 minutes ago |
0 |
by Commit_Crime
»»
16 minutes ago |
|
» Am I the only one who doesnt like discord? ( 1 2 )Bensku - Sep 21 |
80 |
by zzz
»»
24 minutes ago |
|
» You guys watch anime on a laptop, tv or projector?Rivermind - Oct 17 |
47 |
by gongasdesu
»»
44 minutes ago |