I think it's fine to learn how to swim that way, but if you start drowning you really shouldn't blame the water for being too deep for you to just stand in.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Don't dive into the deep waters if you don't know how to swim.Originally posted by: Skoorb
Did you get a dictionary of esoteric and annoying terms for your birthday or something? non sequitur, pascal's wager, latin? Come on. I'm off to lunch Fatally fallacious I intend to hang onto that one, though.
Funny, that's exactly how I was taught to swim.
That explains a lot.
I think what it explains is that you have limited notions on how to teach swimming. I think what you wanted to say was that you are deep which in my opinion is pretty shallow.
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It happened multiple times as recently as last month. You said this in another thread. $300 or so in the last couple of months not including the initial multiple overdrafts last December. I brought it up to illuminate your hypocrisy. You submit that I am an idiot, but since you are clearly one as well (name notwithstanding) your assertion is dubious. Perhaps I am an idiot, but a statement from an idiot holds no meaning, so only from others who are not so clearly idiots does yours statement hold any.Originally posted by: miketheidiot
You know nothing of my overdraft incident other than that it happened (once), not sure why you are bringing it up, or how its relevent or pertains to my intelligence or ability to respond to your post.
And you know nothing about any of the circumstances either. sine you brought it up in this thread, its going in this thread. The initial occurance last december was while i was out of the country. Previously, my bank would decline any transaction that i did not have the balance to pay. this changed 2 years ago and I was never informed since all mail goes to my permanent address (my parents house lulz) and I was listed as secondary signatory to my dad since this account is 15 years old and :effort: to have him removed. massive overdraft occurred.
second overdraft occurs in may, I had deposited money than went out and spent more money than had been in the account the prior to the deposit that day, and got hit with another set of overdraft charges because the deposit didn't post until the next day. This one the bank credited back half.
The ones last month involved a large bartab that i was unaware of afterwords, followed by me just living normally for a week.
anyways thats hardly 100-200 every month
Page 14 on Internet arguing 101, right? Do you have 2nd or 3rd edition?Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Don't dive into the deep waters if you don't know how to swim.Originally posted by: Skoorb
Did you get a dictionary of esoteric and annoying terms for your birthday or something? non sequitur, pascal's wager, latin? Come on. I'm off to lunch Fatally fallacious I intend to hang onto that one, though.
Yes, that's about right. Look, there's a great deal I don't know and I claim to be convicted on very little. I see others speak with a great aplomb, though and dismiss arguments that don't immediately reconcile with what they think (and probably haven't thought about much to begin with). Instead of calling my natural, logical progression of their system wrong for such and such reason they simply dismiss it. I wonder how far through they've really thought on it.Actually in many ways it's worse, because you're telling someone you know better than they do what their belief system means, and then telling them that this superior understanding states they should go kill themselves.
Unsupportable, maybe, but I wouldn't know it by reading the knee-jerk responses. Un-politically correct, absolutely.It seems to me like you hadn't given this topic that much thought before you came into this thread, and you said something that's pretty unsupportable.
I have a bachelor's in science with a major in psychology and specifically recall back to those studies.Do you have a college degree? If so, how did you make it through at least fifteen years of schooling without learning about nonreligious morality?
I presume there will be other things to do at that point. I'm sure when you were 4 and playing with blocks they seemed the most important thing in the world, at the time.I for one wonder how everyone's not going to get really tired of swapping those "hey, remember what we did in college 600 billion years ago?" stories.
Well, you can't seem to, so somebody has to. You still have not said why you bother living, I don't know why you do, are you a useless bag of chemicals? How do you feel about that?You can only speak for yourself.
Myopia. You are thinking too short term. Your kids will care but in several generations you will be nothing and if you look far enough along, as diashi5 stated, you'd be nothing and irrelevant. If something is irrelevant in the future why are you doing it now, even if that future is far off?(or give a crap about our children/grandchildren/legacy/etc)
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I meant that consistent with their belief system, not mine. Thus, what a person does to me does matter. I never said anybody should kill themselves, I questioned why they wouldn't if they truly believe what they claim to.Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I never said you have no purpose; your reading comprehension needs a little work.Fuck it, I'm gonna go kill myself now because some whackjob says I have no purpose Buawhahahaha.
You said 'nothing they do matters'. I don't know how that could mean anything other than their life having no purpose.
Saying 'from what I've decided about your belief system you should believe your life is pointless', is somehow different? (hint: if it's their belief system, obviously they believe this way) Actually in many ways it's worse, because you're telling someone you know better than they do what their belief system means, and then telling them that this superior understanding states they should go kill themselves.
It seems to me like you hadn't given this topic that much thought before you came into this thread, and you said something that's pretty unsupportable.
Go back to OT and talk about girls and computers. Lack of reading comprehension and/or criminally closed state of mind elevate discussions like this to a level that they simply bump up against, over and over, most people's unsubstantiated and uncritical philosophy of the world. It's easier to just call something stupid, right, let's break out Godwin's law while we're at it and then we can really go on and think about something more low brow.Originally posted by: Ldir
You're fine. That was his argument imploding.Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'd say the best atheists in this thread are the barbarians mentioned earlier in the Sudan. Now those people who propagate that truly have an atheistic view of the world, one in which a human life holds no meaning at all.
Alright folks, I think that is my queue to exit this discussion. You have to believe in something that has 0 scientific evidence, otherwise you are a barbaric mass murderer..... I think my brain just exploded.
Only a moron would think that.Originally posted by: Skoorb
Well, you can't seem to, so somebody has to.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You can only speak for yourself.
Because it is irrelevant.You still have not said why you bother living,
Numerous examples have been supplied in this thread.I don't know why you do,
Not to me.are you a useless bag of chemicals?
However I want to feel.How do you feel about that?
Unsubstantiated.Myopia. You are thinking too short term. Your kids will care but in several generations you will be nothing and if you look far enough along, as diashi5 stated, you'd be nothing and irrelevant.(or give a crap about our children/grandchildren/legacy/etc)
I live now, and as far as I can tell, there is only now.If something is irrelevant in the future why are you doing it now, even if that future is far off?
Originally posted by: n yusef
Originally posted by: daishi5
Originally posted by: n yusef
Skoorb et al,
Do you have a college degree? If so, how did you make it through at least fifteen years of schooling without learning about nonreligious morality?
Hmmm, I am getting very close to graduating, and I have never had any course cover that, nor do I have any courses in the future that will cover that. I also doubt that I will cover that in any further education, so I think it might be normal not to cover that. However, that looks like some interesting reading.
The principle is very simple: Murder is wrong, not because a god says so, but because someone was killed. Theft is wrong, not because a god says so, but because someone was stolen from. A liberal arts education crystallized my beliefs, but the foundation is inherent to any secular society, and (I had assumed) to the psyche of its members.
I think you're overextending the metaphor.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Don't dive into the deep waters if you don't know how to swim.Originally posted by: Skoorb
Did you get a dictionary of esoteric and annoying terms for your birthday or something? non sequitur, pascal's wager, latin? Come on. I'm off to lunch Fatally fallacious I intend to hang onto that one, though.
Funny, that's exactly how I was taught to swim.
That explains a lot.
I think what it explains is that you have limited notions on how to teach swimming.
I was intimating nothing of the sort.I think what you wanted to say was that you are deep which in my opinion is pretty shallow.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have a bachelor's in science with a major in psychology and specifically recall back to those studies.
The only entity ascribing blame was Cerpin Taxt.Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Don't dive into the deep waters if you don't know how to swim.Originally posted by: Skoorb
Did you get a dictionary of esoteric and annoying terms for your birthday or something? non sequitur, pascal's wager, latin? Come on. I'm off to lunch Fatally fallacious I intend to hang onto that one, though.
Funny, that's exactly how I was taught to swim.
That explains a lot.
I think what it explains is that you have limited notions on how to teach swimming. I think what you wanted to say was that you are deep which in my opinion is pretty shallow.
I think it's fine to learn how to swim that way, but if you start drowning you really shouldn't blame the water for being too deep for you to just stand in.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Go back to OT and talk about girls and computers. Lack of reading comprehension and/or criminally closed state of mind elevate discussions like this to a level that they simply bump up against, over and over, most people's unsubstantiated and uncritical philosophy of the world. It's easier to just call something stupid, right, let's break out Godwin's law while we're at it and then we can really go on and think about something more low brow.Originally posted by: Ldir
You're fine. That was his argument imploding.Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'd say the best atheists in this thread are the barbarians mentioned earlier in the Sudan. Now those people who propagate that truly have an atheistic view of the world, one in which a human life holds no meaning at all.
Alright folks, I think that is my queue to exit this discussion. You have to believe in something that has 0 scientific evidence, otherwise you are a barbaric mass murderer..... I think my brain just exploded.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have a bachelor's in science with a major in psychology and specifically recall back to those studies.
Could strong belief in something that has 0 scientific evidence of existing be considered a mental illness? I certainly think so.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The only entity ascribing blame was Cerpin Taxt.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes, that's about right. Look, there's a great deal I don't know and I claim to be convicted on very little. I see others speak with a great aplomb, though and dismiss arguments that don't immediately reconcile with what they think (and probably haven't thought about much to begin with). Instead of calling my natural, logical progression of their system wrong for such and such reason they simply dismiss it. I wonder how far through they've really thought on it.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Go back to OT and talk about girls and computers. Lack of reading comprehension and/or criminally closed state of mind elevate discussions like this to a level that they simply bump up against, over and over, most people's unsubstantiated and uncritical philosophy of the world. It's easier to just call something stupid, right, let's break out Godwin's law while we're at it and then we can really go on and think about something more low brow.Originally posted by: Ldir
You're fine. That was his argument imploding.Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'd say the best atheists in this thread are the barbarians mentioned earlier in the Sudan. Now those people who propagate that truly have an atheistic view of the world, one in which a human life holds no meaning at all.
Alright folks, I think that is my queue to exit this discussion. You have to believe in something that has 0 scientific evidence, otherwise you are a barbaric mass murderer..... I think my brain just exploded.
If science was all-knowing, yes. Science, insofar as it's commanded by humans, is anything but, however, so only trusting in those that have been competently proven by it would leave one woefully underexposed to reality, wouldn't it? If you believe that science alone can support everything, you still must readily admit it does not yet know everything, as it is commanded by people, and thus to only believe in what the elementary knowledge of humanity has scientifically means that you'll be willingly limiting your knowledge.Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have a bachelor's in science with a major in psychology and specifically recall back to those studies.
Could strong belief in something that has 0 scientific evidence of existing be considered a mental illness? I certainly think so.
Well now we're jjust playing musical chairs. I'll take the bullet on this one.I will leave OT to you. Your argument was stupid. Really Stupid. Several people explained why. Your mind is too closed to consider it so there is no value in explaining it again.
Of course I'm stating it in ways an atheist might not and it's made some people upset, so let me re-ask:Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Lack of reading comprehension... that's cute. From my reading of what you wrote, you believe that "people who... truly have an atheistic view of the world" believe that this world is "one in which a human life holds no meaning at all." But I think you've got your definitions mixed up. Atheism is a contention that there are no Gods. That's it. To extrapolate from that that in atheism human life holds no meaning is flat-out wrong. There can be meaning in human existence without the belief in a deity or deities. Perhaps when you have fully considered this point, you'll be better equipped to make a coherent argument. At the moment, you've redefined atheism to suit your argument. But it doesn't work that way.
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The only entity ascribing blame was Cerpin Taxt.
Where did this happen? Since when is a prescriptive statement tantamount to a declaration of blame?
Is that a scientific guess?Originally posted by: BudAshes
I'm guessing you grew up in texas or some other state where they fail to teach the "theory"(facts) of evolution to their children.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Religion threads:
Sport for people who love to troll and get away with it.
I'm not even going to bother reading it.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Of course I'm stating it in ways an atheist might not and it's made some people upset, so let me re-ask:
As an atheist, why does a person bother living? I see no reason they live other than their survival instinct and neurons telling them that eating and sex are fun, so it's what they do. Although they believe in nothing after their life, they still for some strange reason want to "do good" or leave a positive impression on the globe, even if in time it will disappear. Given the age of the planet and that humanity has existed for and will exist for a pimple on time's actual ass, I'm not sure why these people hold life in much high regard, since clearly the rest of the universe doesn't, and it will get its way in the end, not them.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Of course I'm stating it in ways an atheist might not and it's made some people upset, so let me re-ask:Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Lack of reading comprehension... that's cute. From my reading of what you wrote, you believe that "people who... truly have an atheistic view of the world" believe that this world is "one in which a human life holds no meaning at all." But I think you've got your definitions mixed up. Atheism is a contention that there are no Gods. That's it. To extrapolate from that that in atheism human life holds no meaning is flat-out wrong. There can be meaning in human existence without the belief in a deity or deities. Perhaps when you have fully considered this point, you'll be better equipped to make a coherent argument. At the moment, you've redefined atheism to suit your argument. But it doesn't work that way.
As an atheist, why does a person bother living? I see no reason they live other than their survival instinct and neurons telling them that eating and sex are fun, so it's what they do. Although they believe in nothing after their life, they still for some strange reason want to "do good" or leave a positive impression on the globe, even if in time it will disappear. Given the age of the planet and that humanity has existed for and will exist for a pimple on time's actual ass, I'm not sure why these people hold life in much high regard, since clearly the rest of the universe doesn't, and it will get its way in the end, not them.
Originally posted by: daishi5
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Atreus21
The purpose of this topic is to point out the fallacy I think is inherent in challenging Christians on the basis that pain implies something meaner than a loving God.
It seems to me that pain and pleasure must play by the same rules. That is, if pleasure is part of evolution, then pain must be too. Yet many atheists only question the significance of pain, and typically ignore pleasure.
In other words, if pain is proof that God, even if he exists, is not a nice guy, then what is pleasure proof of?
The main problem with your theory is that your christian god is supposed to be benevolent. Thus, pleasure would be synonamous with his will, while watching families be forced to rape and cannibalize each other would be something a benevolent god might try to you know, prevent. If he's around, and he's all powerful, and he's benevolent, then it makes sense for pleasure to exist. It doesn't make sense for the level of horror people experience to exist.
IOW, pleasure and pain make perfect sense in a world without a benevolent god, but in a world where a benevolent god exists, such levels of horrific existence are contradictory to his very existence. If you claim the torture and murder is a lesson to others that the benevolent father wishes to instruct, that kinda sucks for the torturee, no?
I have always had a problem with this argument, and it seems to be covered in that wikipedia article. How do you know that god views the raping and cannibalizing of their own family as evil? I know you and I think it is evil, but that does not imply that it is actually evil.