Bias

[lotuseatsvipers]

one last thing ZERO

Lotuseatvipers, please argue logically. "The best defence is a good offense" is not the world's best way to argue. All you seem to be doing is make personal insults and accusations against Ekim. I hope you are not atheist; it is not the way to argue logically.

No I do not define myself through the negation of other's beliefs (athiesm). Curious how you obviously define yourself as such, yet you accuse me of having 'bad logic' because I argue 'offensively'.

************
a·the·ism Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
-dictionary.com
***************

So funny that the very way you define yourself is 'illogical' according to your own statement, I love it when people do this sort of thing.

 

[Zero]

What exactly is it that makes it so tough to be around non christians. oh and btw they always mean catholics when they say this (which makes no sense at all, they are so closed minded and foolish that they can't even recognize their own kind, bunch of stuck up, prideful, arrogant basturds, the whole lot!) hehe.

Hm. I would really consider this to be appropriate when arguing, eh? Very amusing, lotus. That paragraph made no productive effort whatsoever, and you are obviously writing heatedly guided by the force of your own emotions.

My point is, if its the wrong life, and you know this with 'conviction' then what is it that being around it is 'tough'. Are you drawn in by some kind of evil force?

Not insulting, but incoherent. Tantamount to rambling.

or maybe the ways of the sinner just equate to a better life, and you know this, and since its the only life we get a part of you wants to live it to the fullest.

? What is this supposed to mean? You are now assuming that a non christian life is superior to the christian one, and therefore assuming one belief's supremacy. This kind of attitude will prevent debating.

Seems to me YOU are the one that needs to chill out zero, not all argument styles go YOUR way.

Me, need to chill? Moi? Dear Sciforums infant, you haven't seen nothin' yet. Dig through my previous posts and you will see if I inject raw emotion into my posts like you seem to be doing.

No I do not define myself through the negation of other's beliefs (athiesm).

The hell you don't. Point out to me the portions of your posts that do not try to negate other beliefs. I believe you willl search for quite a long time.

Curious how you obviously define yourself as such, yet you accuse me of having 'bad logic' because I argue 'offensively'.

Arguing offensively and spitting with rage is divided by a fine line. Only a seasoned veteran can do that. You, sir, have crossed the line.

So funny that the very way you define yourself is 'illogical' according to your own statement, I love it when people do this sort of thing.

Now I find your posts to be very amusing and cute. Kind of like someone with teen angst. You sound very much like a junior high schooler. Good thing you came to SciForums, there are plenty of opportunities to grow up here.

 

[lotuseatsvipers]

Nice abuse of the quoting system. Maybe you didn't take note, but that post you tore apart was light hearted("hehe"), and just simply observation on many of the people I have come into contact around where I live.

Does that somehow bother you?

I am hardly an angry person, and your effort to somehow belittle me was humorous at best. Nice try.

I do however recognize the tone of my posts sometimes come through with a bitter voice. This is not necessarily intended, and I apologize to everyone but you Zero, who obviously find your position as a long standing member of the sciforums puts you above me. And using that feeling have attempted to make your own illogical contradictions of self view and worth seem better by attacking me.

nice day everyone.

 

[Zero]

Why thank you lotus. I appreciate your compliment.

 

[Xev]

a·the·ism Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
-dictionary.com

WOW! You can look words up in the dictionary! I'm amazed by your superiour debating skills! I'm simply floored! Never mind that athiesm is a bit more complex than a simple dictionary definition, you're a fugging genius for thinking of quoting a dictionary!

Wow! I'm so impressed! Can I bear your children?

Pla·to·nism Pronunciation Key (pltn-zm)
n.

The philosophy of Plato, especially insofar as it asserts ideal forms as an absolute and eternal reality of which the phenomena of the world are an imperfect and transitory reflection.

-Dictionary.com

Well, I think that's a full explanation of Platonism! Gee, Dictionary.com is a lifesaver!


P.S: I am cognizant of your intellectual level, lotus, so I am assuring you that this post is meant to be sarcastic.

Sar·cas·tic. Look that one up.

P.P.S: How long did you try to open a Websters before you gave up and went to dictionary.com?

 

[Zero]

Wow. Thank you Xev. You're much more articulate than I am, my thoughts exactly. *rests head on Xev's shoulder*

 

[lotuseatsvipers]

Was the definition provided by dictionary.com somehow errant? Yes it was breif, but I just wanted to make sure that Zero recognized that Atheism is a philosophy of negation. S/he was accusing me of arguing in a manner that would imply negation (as in criticising or attacking rather than...well whatever, how else do you point out errors in logic?). Anyways, she said that is not the logical way to argue if one is an athiest (I guess s/he thinks only athiests are logical?), but really it is the very way Athiests define themselves and the only point of view they can really argue from (whenever religion is the topic).


Yes, that is simplified, and other sides can fit into it, but certainly my point still works.

As for dictionary.com, I always use that site, always have always will. Is there a problem with online dictionaries compared to print dictionaries somehow? I fail to see the problem with its use in my post.

 

[Xev]

I'm taking this to mean I can't bear your children, lotus?

Okay, I was a twee bit bitchy there.

Lotus, athiesm is a simple "I don't believe in God(s)". It is a negation, but not simple negation.

How can one negate a negative (nonexistant) entity?

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny either. Have I thus formed a negative philosophy? No. I simply state a negation.

Zero: Thanks.

 

[BatM]

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
I am totally biased against atheism and a sinful life.

Great.

Another discriminatory and prejudiced person rears their head who refuses to understand the harm they do.

 

[lotuseatsvipers]

I'm taking this to mean I can't bear your children, lotus?

Artificially, I wouldn't mind that at all. Just don't make me pay child support.

How can one negate a negative (nonexistant) entity?

It's negating the belief in that entity. We are just getting into semantics now anyways, I think my point would remain the same no matter.

 

[Increan]

Originally posted by Ekimklaw


I had an open mind... until I became convinced. Then, since I was convinced... I felt my mind close to certain other options. We're not so different in this regard I think. I still have an open mind about a host of things.

If oyur mind is open to somethings and not others then you have a really screwed-up mind. If you were convinced then you probably didn't have an open mind to begin with. If you did then you would noy have been able to be convinced. You would have questioned it all and when no satisfactory answers would have been givin, you would have dismissed it. An open minded person is an athiest basically by definition. A tru athiest anyway. If any athiest is converted then they were never an athiest to begin with.

 

[BatM]

Originally posted by Increan
If oyur mind is open to somethings and not others then you have a really screwed-up mind. If you were convinced then you probably didn't have an open mind to begin with. If you did then you would noy have been able to be convinced. You would have questioned it all and when no satisfactory answers would have been givin, you would have dismissed it. An open minded person is an athiest basically by definition. A tru athiest anyway. If any athiest is converted then they were never an athiest to begin with.

Not true. An atheist refuses to be convinced. A skeptic can be convinced after finding "satisfactory" evidence. The problem with your statement is that you wrongly interpret "satisfactory" to be the same as "proven". The first is subjective in nature while the second is objective in nature.

 

[Increan]

Originally posted by BatM


Not true. An atheist refuses to be convinced. A skeptic can be convinced after finding "satisfactory" evidence. The problem with your statement is that you wrongly interpret "satisfactory" to be the same as "proven". The first is subjective in nature while the second is objective in nature.

No, athiests do not refuse to be convinced, people just fail to convince them. A skeptic is an athiest in training, they can go either way.

 

[BatM]

Originally posted by Increan

No, athiests do not refuse to be convinced, people just fail to convince them.

A rose by any other name...

Hint: if they could be convinced, they'd be agnostic.

A skeptic is an athiest in training, they can go either way.

By your own statement above, so can atheists (note spelling) if they are convinced.

 

[Increan]

Originally posted by BatM

By your own statement above, so can atheists (note spelling) if they are convinced.

Athiests can be convinced if there is factual scientific evidence. Otherwise no they cannot.

 

[lotuseatsvipers]

Athiests can be convinced if there is factual scientific evidence. Otherwise no they cannot.

Well what would you like them to be convinced by? Your overwhelming personality??

Pull on a few heart strings and maybe we'll come running to the alter...just maybe...

 

[BatM]

Originally posted by Increan

Athiests can be convinced if there is factual scientific evidence. Otherwise no they cannot.

In other words, atheists are not "open-minded", but rather have a preset belief that only "factual scientific evidence" will shake.

Will the atheist seek to design tests that, if successfully taken, will prove their belief is wrong? If not, then the skeptics are a little more "open-minded" in their beliefs.

 

[Increan]

Originally posted by BatM


In other words, atheists are not "open-minded", but rather have a preset belief that only "factual scientific evidence" will shake.

Will the atheist seek to design tests that, if successfully taken, will prove their belief is wrong? If not, then the skeptics are a little more "open-minded" in their beliefs.

I am an athiest and I am very open-minded. I have looked at and belonged to many religions and found all of them to be misleading or just plain stupid, but even as an athiest I look at everything with an open mind.

 

[BatM]

Originally posted by Increan
I am an athiest and I am very open-minded. I have looked at and belonged to many religions and found all of them to be misleading or just plain stupid, but even as an athiest I look at everything with an open mind.

There is nothing wrong with being atheistic and I'm not trying to imply that there is. There is also nothing wrong with being agnostic or skeptical. However, it is three different words with three different meanings.

Note that being an "atheist" means that you do NOT believe in God. It is not about a belief in religion. So, after all your tries at many religions, do you, in your heart, still leave open the small possibility that there might be a God out there? If so, that's the definition of "agnostic". If not, then how are you "open-minded"?

 

[overdoze]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/02/uk.vampire/index.html

LONDON, England -- A British teenager has been jailed for 12 years for murdering his elderly neighbour and drinking her blood in a vampire ritual.

...

He sliced the 90-year-old's chest open and cut her heart out before wrapping the blood-soaked organ in newspaper and placing it next to two pokers arranged in the shape of a crucifix at her feet, the court was told.

Hardman put the heart into a saucepan containing the pensioner's blood and drank the blood -- believing the ritual would make him immortal, the jury heard.

The teenager was obsessed by vampires and killed Leyshon in a bid to become one of the creatures, the court heard.

...

Hardman, who had turned 17 only a few weeks before the murder, had already dropped a chilling hint of what was to come during a conversation with a teenage German girl student, who was on an exchange visit to Llanfairpwll, the court was told.

He told her that he believed it was "a perfect place for vampires" because there were a lot of old people there, and if any of them died after being bitten it would be assumed that they had had a heart attack.

She said that after talking about "gothic" fashions, vampires and the paranormal he accused her of being "one of them" and begged her to bite his neck so that he too could become a vampire.

By the time he was arrested he had regularly accused locals of being vampires. Hardman had also deliberately punched himself on the nose to draw blood in a bid to "tempt" them to bite him.

Police were called and as an officer handcuffed Hardman he repeatedly yelled "bite my neck, bite my neck."

See? That's where "faith" can get you.