Nonsense - Page 4

Onetwothree · 08-03-2007, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honeythorn

Why do you want to? Why do you care? This isn't a science experiment. If you don't beieve it exists, then don't. I couldn't give a shit.

As I have said numerous times, I am not attempting to convert you, I don't care if you agree with me or not, and therefore, You are owed no proof.

I am not owed proof? Why do you believe this, unless in some way it has some legitimacy? What proof did you get that made you believe that human beings have energy (which is scientifically unprovable)?

Why do you believe that science is lesser than your beliefs? Do you really think that scientists are in some way...dumber than you? Or that empirical proof is less than worthy of your intellect? I'm the arrogant one? Please. You are the only arrogant one here. You are denouncing science, because you think your beliefs are better than the tested, tried, and true sciences.

You have no proof of what you believe. Which is what makes it a belief, and not science, or fact.

Lapin · 08-03-2007, 05:02 PM

Skull candy!

Cappinator · 08-03-2007, 05:04 PM

You keep making the same mistakes and false statements over and over and over again...
You're like a frigging energizer bunny, aren't you?

I can just see you bumping into the same rock over and over again.

Oh well, good luck with this thread. I'm out. This is too bothersome.

Onetwothree · 08-03-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cappinator

You keep making the same mistakes and false statements over and over and over again...
You're like a frigging energizer bunny, aren't you?

I can just see you bumping into the same rock over and over again.

Oh well, good luck with this thread. I'm out. This is too bothersome.

Rofl, have you ever once even pointed out my 'mistake'? Yeah, because I haven't made any. Look, have you ever even attacked my argument at all? Nope. Only tried to attack me. My argument = bullet mother fucking proof.

Just try to attack my argument.

Lapin · 08-03-2007, 05:11 PM

Good-night you silly goat.

I'm off to have fun with someone who'll play back.

honeythorn · 08-03-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onetwothree

I am not owed proof? Why do you believe this

Why do you believe that science is lesser than your beliefs?

You have no proof of what you believe. Which is what makes it a belief, and not science, or fact.

No, you are not owed proof. Not by me or anyone else, since neither I nor anyone else is trying to convince you to follow my/our beliefs. If I had said " believe this " and you asked for proof, then yes, you would be perfectly correct to ask for it. But since I have not done this, nor will I ever since I am strongly against proselytisation, then NO, I do not owe you any proof of anything.

I have never suggested that science is anything other than what it is.Science.

No, I, personally have no proof. Yes, I do have a belief. I have never claimed anything I believe to be a fact. I have never once said, "this is a fact and everyone else is wrong". Paganism has nothing to do with science, it is a belief system, not a scientific experiment.

Onetwothree · 08-03-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honeythorn

No, you are not owed proof. Not by me or anyone else, since neither I nor anyone else is trying to convince you to follow my/our beliefs. If I had said " believe this " and you asked for proof, then yes, you would be perfectly correct to ask for it. But since I have not done this, nor will I ever since I am strongly against proselytisation, then NO, I do not owe you any proof of anything.

I have never suggested that science is anything other than what it is.Science.

No, I, personally have no proof. Yes, I do have a belief. I have never claimed anything I believe to be a fact. I have never once said, "this is a fact and everyone else is wrong". Paganism has nothing to do with science, it is a belief system, not a scientific experiment.

You are bullshit. You don't even know what you are talking about. You don't know anything about evolution, atomic-theory, biology, micro-biology, chemistry, etc.

You just don't get it man. You are a fucking burnout. No wonder why you're a pagan.

honeythorn · 08-03-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onetwothree

atomic-theory, micro-biology, chemistry, etc.

Probably because I had to attend one of the worst schools in the area ( which was in fact 8 years ago) . And yes, I did pay attention but guess what? they didn't teach Micro biology and atomic theory when I was there, and they sure as hell do not teach them now as far as I am aware. American schools teach far more subjects for a longer period of time, and there is nothing I can do about that.

Why the fuck would I learn about atomic theory anyway? What use is that to me? I want to work with animals and nature, and I am fairly certain that does not require any knowledge of atomic theory. Since I do not wish to be any kind of vet, I have no use for microbiology, or chemistry. I wish to work with local and British wildlife, release and conservation. That field of work requires some qualifications, but relies more on actual experience with the animals and with nature, which I have plenty of.

Onetwothree · 08-03-2007, 05:26 PM

To work with wild-life you should have a grasp of chemistry, microbiology, etc. These things all complement each other. And if you have a good grasp of chemistry, then atomic theory wouldn't hurt either. Evolution sure as hell would be a big benefit.

They didn't teach evolution where I went, but I am self-taught. You can do the same. Just go to your local library and get some books. It's good to learn.

honeythorn · 08-03-2007, 05:34 PM

They more than likely do complement each other, but they are not actually nessescary to release a deer back to a herd, put up nestboxes or count and monitor an animal population.

If I were to study each species' digestive systems for example, I would have a lot of knowledge about enzymes, gastric juices, bowels and so on. But this would not mean squat when it comes to monitoring the number of fawn born in a particular spring, or how many hedgehogs have been using an under road crossing. It would be fairly useless when ringing young birds of prey in the nest, or observing the habits of grass snakes.

I didn't say I wasn't willing to study these things, only that they are not always nessescary for that particular job.

Onetwothree · 08-03-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honeythorn

They more than likely do complement each other, but they are not actually nessescary to release a deer back to a herd, put up nestboxes or count and monitor an animal population.

If I were to study each species' digestive systems for example, I would have a lot of knowledge about enzymes, gastric juices, bowels and so on. But this would not mean squat when it comes to monitoring the number of fawn born in a particular spring, or how many hedgehogs have been using an under road crossing. It would be fairly useless when ringing young birds of prey in the nest, or observing the habits of grass snakes.

I didn't say I wasn't willing to study these things, only that they are not always nessescary for that particular job.

I wrote a poem about this kind of thinking once.

Your job does not define you. You define your job. Make it your job to know everything you can about your profession. Maybe you will come across a better understanding, or an even deeper appreciation for your job?

It's likely to happen.

DeathChii · 08-03-2007, 07:36 PM

Ok, so I didn't finish reading it so sorry if I say something totally off...
um... Your lover is more important than any value to YOU, personaly. Not in comparison to a state. O_o
Also, what ever you beleive in is personal, and as long as you're being a good person who cares if it's right or wrong? There's no way of knowing anyway...

Onetwothree · 08-03-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathChii

Ok, so I didn't finish reading it so sorry if I say something totally off...
um... Your lover is more important than any value to YOU, personaly. Not in comparison to a state. O_o
Also, what ever you beleive in is personal, and as long as you're being a good person who cares if it's right or wrong? There's no way of knowing anyway...

Another one totally misses the message again, and leaves me off with a crappy Christian slogan. Oh mercy.

Godslayer Jillian · 08-03-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathChii

There's no way of knowing anyway...

You know, everyone keeps saying that, but what makes you say it?

Circle V · 08-03-2007, 10:09 PM

Onetwothree, you've come close to the 'Hillary Clinton' shrill-level. I agree with you almost entirely, but you aren't going to do much good sounding like that she-hag: everyone here either

1) Already agrees with you, in which case you risk alienating them with your eyeball-****** self-righteousness

2) Doesn't care, and will probably never care.

3) Doesn't like you, in which case they'll either ignore your arguments or resist logic out of spite.

Godslayer Jillian · 08-03-2007, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circle V

eyeball-******

Did you just call his eyeball by the N word?

Circle V · 08-03-2007, 10:17 PM

No, it was a gerund. Or something. "Sexually assaulting"

Saphyra Runa · 08-03-2007, 10:28 PM

You, 123, are like someone else on this forum. No matter the argument, not matter the facts presented, you will be right. Period.

Just one point to ponder, a woman I know was riddled with cancer, she was supposed to be dead within the year. She took comfort in God, she also went to a faith healer. Poof, it's gone. Today, five years later, she is still cancer free. Her doctors can't explain it.

Is it God or is it the mind and body working together to heal itself?

Onetwothree · 08-03-2007, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You know, everyone keeps saying that, but what makes you say it?

Because it sounds sagacious; yet it's another intellectually lazy argument.

Onetwothree · 08-03-2007, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saphyra Runa

You, 123, are like someone else on this forum. No matter the argument, not matter the facts presented, you will be right. Period.

Just one point to ponder, a woman I know was riddled with cancer, she was supposed to be dead within the year. She took comfort in God, she also went to a faith healer. Poof, it's gone. Today, five years later, she is still cancer free. Her doctors can't explain it.

Is it God or is it the mind and body working together to heal itself?

It's lucky. You fall into another type of idiot:

The type of idiot who thinks it's a miracle that out of 300 people, one survives, and has third degree burns. If they pray to God, then it's even BETTER.

The fact that woman survived has absolutely nothing to do with God. Perhaps her will-power aided her, but only minimally.

What about Stephen Hawking? He was supposed to die like...forty years ago. He doesn't believe in God at all. Does that validate atheists?

Your logic fails. Sometimes lucky shit happens, and that's all it is. Stop looking into it like it matters, or it's special. Some people 'luck' out.

psyches_reflection · 08-04-2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onetwothree

The only correct way of thinking is to be skeptical about everything you can't prove.

Earlier, in another thread, you said that the probability of God existing is infinitely small. You admit that there is a chance, but dismiss it because it is so small. I understand that this is logical to you, as it would seem logical to most people to dismiss such an outside chance. However, an outside chance is still a chance, not an impossibility.

By your own logic, as stated above, surely you should be skeptical about the non-existence of God also? You cannot prove his non-existence, no more than anyone could prove his existence to you. The 'correct' way of thinking should therefore be not to dismiss either option, until it either can be proven or disproven.

You choose to believe in his non-existence, and be skeptical of his existence. Deists choose to believe otherwise. However factual your argument is, it still comes down to a choice of belief on your part.

In addition, if you consider yourself so intelligent, why do you resort to using childish insults against people?

Godslayer Jillian · 08-04-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psyches_reflection

The 'correct' way of thinking should therefore be not to dismiss either option, until it either can be proven or disproven.

Not at all. This is has been address countless times already.
You also cannot prove there's a small teapot (too small to be detected by our telescopes) circling Jupiter's orbit.
Just because it's possible doesn't mean you should believe it.
Let's go back to 123's gambling example.
Would you place all your money in a bet in hopes of getting a royal flush?
If you say no, why not, when you're believing in a religion with 1/infinity chance of being right?

psyches_reflection · 08-04-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Not at all. This is has been address countless times already.
You also cannot prove there's a small teapot (too small to be detected by our telescopes) circling Jupiter's orbit.
Just because it's possible doesn't mean you should believe it.
Let's go back to 123's gambling example.
Would you place all your money in a bet in hopes of getting a royal flush?
If you say no, why not, when you're believing in a religion with 1/infinity chance of being right?

I've never claimed to believe in God, as I have mentioned already. Nor am I saying that because there is a 1/infinity chance that anyone should believe it. And no, I would not make that bet.

What I am saying is that if something is even remotely probable, and you have no way of disproving it, then you cannot claim it is impossible. As with the gambling example, it is not impossible in that one game that you would get a royal flush. It is a possibility, and to deny that is absurd.

Godslayer Jillian · 08-04-2007, 01:54 PM

Atheists almost never say the existence of God is impossible; just highly improbable.
Some people could say that it's this chance the reason they believe in him, but that's stupid.
We're saying that only 10% of people decide not to try to get a royal flush.

psyches_reflection · 08-04-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Some people could say that it's this chance the reason they believe in him, but that's stupid.

Why is it stupid?

Let's go back to the card's analogy. A royal flush consists of five cards of the same suit. So, the chances of getting said royal flush are 1/311875200, based on getting five specific cards from a deck.

(Obviously, this is not completely accurate, poker cards are not dealt directly to you, they are normally alternated, which creates all kinds of variables. This is merely an example.)

It can also be argued that the chances of getting a royal flush is 1/2, because you either will or you wont.

I'd like to say that my argument isn't directed at most atheists. I am an atheist, so that would be a bit silly. My argument is specifically aimed at Onetwothree. Unlike you, he claims that anyone who believes in God is mentally deficient in some way - in spite of his own statistical admission that God is a possibility. I'm only trying to point out that his insistence that God does not exist is equally 'insane'.