On one of his noodley appendages. I try to avoid standing anywhere else - might be sensitive.I believe you are. Where do you stand on FSM ?
Atheists here
- Thread starter Tnerb
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Just so you don't forget - I didn't say anything. I merely butted in to a conversation when I couldn't resist the comment.
Oh heh, i see now. Sorry
Do you think its genetic or learned?
Don't entirely know...
Ok then you should know the answer to this question (it should be simple for anyone whom understands the depths of human nature). When presented with an eccentric group, how is that group judged and how does the judgment polarize with time?
I don't understand your question.
How am I falling behind and why does it matter that you're "only 21"?
I am not going to spend much time on on this reply CC. Maybe you are not falling behind, but if you read our argements it seemed so. How old are you? 41?
How did you come to those conclusions? Do you have evidence?
You called me "someone will have a use for rats asses"- this isn't very nice. I guess I don't have evidence, oh well huh
Why do you value epistemology and how is that relevant? What are those "all sorts of things?"
Epistemology is important. All sorts of things are some other things. I value epistemology because truth is very interesting a point of view. Take David Hume for example. His conclusions are mighty interesting, would you agree? Take the perspectives- which you know nothing about- of quantum quack and the examples of truth which are implied by him. I feel epistemology is valueable, yeah. Why? I don't know right now.
What's more important to you. If something is amazing or if something is true?
If something is true and if something is amazing.... You could not type out this description by ozzie like I could. Besides, if something is amazing it is probably going to be true.
Please show me the evidence that I would have a very lame time trying to type out descriptions of nature.
LoL. CC. You couldn't type a monkeys finger if your life depended on it. Probably, you wouldn't be able to describe things such as what the human being really is- and also, you called my description of lost emotion looney- might sound looney- but you can't seem to grasp the concept.
Why would it matter if I do or don't understand what it means to suffer?
Suffering is very important. If you suffer, you learn what it means to love yourself and to love those around you. You know what it means
I can see how it could emotionally wear someone out if they always think they are being attacked due to information misintepretation.
You must be right.
It doesn't disprove him being "considered" a 'God'. It does disprove him being a 'God'. A 'God' is all knowing and can do anything. If QQ is asking for help then he is not all knowing and cannot do anything.
That isn't necessarially what a god is. QQ isn't all knowing in the sence you speak of, but he is in a certain other.
Low in calories too!
Yeah...
The tastiest of all GodsI believe you are. Where do you stand on FSM ?
Interesting.
I'll paraphrase. If a majority of people encounters a minority of people with a new behavior, how will that minority be judged and how will that judgment change with time?
Seemed so... ? No, I am not 41.
I think I said something about there might be a market for rats asses (as in the hind end of rats). I don't know where I called you a rats ass. Could this be another manfistation of that interpretation problem again?
I'll go out on a limb an suggest the reason is because you find epistemology attractive.
Do you often equate amazing as being probably true?
The only evidence that you presented was that I stated the thread topic of losing your emotion sounds looney; however, how does that support your assertion? It doesn't seem relevant.
Are you saying that it cannot be learned what it means to love yourself and those around you without suffering?
A 'God' by his attributes must know everything. Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.
Chalk full of vitamin B!
Last edited:
Interesting.
Yes! It sucks.
I'll paraphrase. If a majority of people encounters a minority of people with a new behavior, how will that minority be judged and how will that judgment change with time?
Not going to answer this question. Likely, the minority would be judged as interesting or somewhat off. Of course. And this is only natural and expected.
BTW: Please don't judge of me too harshly as I am still recovering.
And,
Sorry it's taken me so dang long to reply, I had to leave the place where I type right now.
The judgement will take it's course. We can imagine what will happen. That's obvious though right.
Seemed so... ? No, I am not 41.
Ok... 31!
I think I said something about there might be a market for rats asses (as in the hind end of rats). I don't know where I called you a rats ass. Could this be another manfistation of that interpretation problem again?
I hope not. I thought you called me one though....
I'll go out on a limb an suggest the reason is because you find epistemology attractive.
Very much so perhaps unfortunately. I also find other things attractive.
Do you often equate amazing as being probably true?
No I don't. I somehow have a way about me that says this sometimes, but like I said, don't judge of me too frikkin harshly.
The only evidence that you presented was that I stated the thread topic of losing your emotion sounds looney; however, how does that support your assertion? It doesn't seem relevant.
It might not. But you're saying you don't understand. I understand what it means to lose your emotion.
Are you saying that it cannot be learned what it means to love yourself and those around you without suffering?
I really and honestly do not know. ... I think that it could very well be possible.
A 'God' by his attributes must know everything. Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.
This does not disqualify him as being considered as a "god", undercase. God, capital-case, whatever- he may surely be considered as a god if you understand what "qualities" or attributes that he perhaps contains.
Chalk full of vitamin B!
I can see that. You're one of my fav's. MUNCH MUNCH
That would be incorrect. The majority asks (always) a question. Is the minority mean / destructive? If the answer is 'Yes' then the more they learn about the minority, the more they tolerate them. If the answer is 'No' then the more they learn about the minority, the more they do not tolerate them. The fact that you didn't know this seems to falsify your claim.
I don't care to judge you; however, I will likely hold you accountable to any claims. No problem on any response delay.
Much much closer!
I would suggest looking over my previous posts to find a statement that says "Brent, you are a rats ass". If one cannot be found then it sounds like an interpretation issue.
It is a human behaviror to embrace the things they find attractive.
That's wasn't a judgment. It was a question. It is a common human behavior to associate the attractive / amazing with being true.
I said it sounds looney, not that I did not understand, but regardless it seems irrelevant to your claim.
Then it sounds like your argument of why its important to understand suffering doesn't hold.
Subjectively considering something that it is objectively not is a form of self-deception and an indication that values exist that take precendence over truth.
I can see that. You're one of my fav's. MUNCH MUNCH
Did you know that 2.2 billion Crunchy Cat bars could be sold with the right marketing?
I did not.
I can take the words you used, place them in any order, with every known definition of the words in the English dictionary, and none of the permutations equates to what I said. You're right, I don't speak 'existabrent'. I speak 'English'.
Apparently you do or you would not have bothered responding.
Psychic powers failin' ya still.
Then you value something (IMO pride) over truth.
That wasn't advice.
ooooooooooooook.
I am glad and somewhat surpsided to see you understand this.
Well thats a lie. If you didn't care then you would not have responded or made the initial assertion.
Thats a big perhaps there. Do you have evidence that I dont understand the nature of QQ's claims? Why are they even relevant?
In the Phillipines, Crunchy Cat bars are traded as currency.
Well. That's interesting. Definately a good thing
Have you proven his existence? No? Then you probably shouldn't believe in him.
Your logic:
Have you refuted a giant space monkey race somewhere in the galaxy? No? Then you probably shouldn't refute it.
s0meguy you're as CC says "chalk full" of nonsense. That isn't what the opening post emplied one single bit. I don't need to prove his existence. I simply need to know that God exists, and that there is no denying the idea in my mind that God exists. There is no reason to disbelieve what I don't know at the time, just as there is no reason to deny what does exist of God.
And besides my clarifying my opening post, which I would never DREAM of doing at SCIFORUMS (for crying out loud, the place is full of people who dream about things!), your logic aganist my logic is flawed.
My logic is if you haven't refuted god, then you should not refute it. If you have not refuted your senses or even come to understand them- you should not be refuting your senses. Something like this dig up what you want to of it if you please.
Have you refuted a giant space monkey race somewhere in the galexy is like saying "have you refuted a giant possibility of your existance being somehow related to god"- I don't believe that anyone will ever change any of the pantheists minds, which, is a beliefe in God.
If they do somehow happen to do this, then good for them. God will not exist. Which is the biggest claim to make, ever in existence.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Really.. while writing this you should have realized the nonsense of believe in God not the opposite.existabrent said:
This is not logic at all. You say: if you havent done something, then you should not do it.existabrent said:
I mean, wtf! How is that logic ?No. The "biggest claim to make, ever in existence" is the claim that God exists.existabrent said:
Only in 'Brent-speak'. In English this is not the case.
And you are still responding to that; hence, you're lying.
It amazes me that you continually apply work to the things you supposedly dont care about.
Here Polly, have a cracker.
Whatever thought process led to your comprehension in this case would be something beneficial to reuse.
Still caring I see.
Not quoting 'evidence' means the nature of someone's claims are not understood? Something that might help you is a comprehension of 'Fallacy'. Are you in college? There are critical thinking courses that cover this.
Crunchy Cat bars were the sitmulus that turned the Great Depression around.
Maybe you're right. In every case it proves that I understand what you were talking about.
Maybe I am lying? So what?
Yeah. Weird huh?
Thanks.
Maybe you are right. In ever case it stands that I understand.,
Yeah. I care.
Do you think I could even go to a store properly in the condition i'm in? And don't turn this around you judgemental **** and say "it's because you have lied to yourself and it is because you are a POS, because if that is what you're going to say, then I already understand it.
Not quoting the evidence means that you don't understand it. You refuse to even admit any of QQ's ideas. You don't understand them as far as I am concerned. I don't understand them fully, but I think I got what I want to know, if you (of course not) understand what I mean. I think that QQ is a god, and, until you dis-prove this is so, I will continue to believe that QQ has some sort of powers which are similar to god. There, are you satisfied yet?
Perhaps CC bars turned the great depression around. I would not know. What I would know is that CC bars could use an upgrade
It proves that you interpret English incorrectly and that you claim comprehension after the fact.
If you don't value truth or credibility high enough then you're going to have a tough time on a science site.
Very
One case out of 'n' cases does not equal every case.
Your interpretation problem is kicking in again. BTW, there are online colleges where you don't have to go anywhere.
With that 'logic' you could not understand 1+1=2 without quoting evidence for it. This is why understanding fallacy is helpful.
Can you show me where I have said I refuse to admit any of QQ's ideas?
That's subjective.
If you 'consider' QQ a 'God' then that's localized to your own mind and really doesn't matter outside of it. If however, you assert that QQ is objectively a 'God' then that has already been disproven.
Perhaps CC bars turned the great depression around. I would not know. What I would know is that CC bars could use an upgrade
Another request for fruits and nuts... gotcha.