The Choice I Never Made...

[olylifter420]

WOW, i wont even bother to go into it with you on that,, just to see how much of a hypocrite you are is despicable... what you say about me, in reality everyone on here attacking me is doing the same damn thing...

What specifically was predicted that came true and has been deciphered from the bible?

 

[olylifter420]

I thought it was a cool pic.. I started to use this one.. It was never a matter of me attempting to use something of a realistic nature..

​

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KJkIb2r...i=11puml1v6&sigb=12li9h5od&.crumb=67vFnUDB.76





Heis, I see and Understand the difference. I don't know why this is being misunderstood. The question was not how Scientist or Epistemologist go about rationalizing, but how do believers use rationality. I showed him how they rationalize. And even gave an example of how I would rationalize a certain belief. You have said in the past, (I think) that you cannot use Science to confirm Religion or something along those lines. So I'm didn't use a scientific definition to explain that of a believer.

It's not an Upset thing to my personal satisfaction, its being a hipocrit thing. You are now stating that he should continue pressing forth in a different manner, where as I said he should do the same thing. It's no matter of constructing a better arguement for him. He could either accept me telling him to stop dialoguing the way he was doing and just provide information or not. You told him the exact same thing. I didn't discount his efforts and gave an account of a similar situation when I was discussing matters with someone of the same nature. Did you read what I said, obviously you did and you see that I was not discounting but agreeing with his statment and giving him the same advice you later gave. It was a point to display to him the nature of being a hipocrit as he points out to Oly to which he feels he has been doing which essentially/technically is the same thing he's done. Ignoring information. I even took in account of him missing it and being my mistake to accuse him of such if he did, but clearly you can see for yourself that you are acknowledging it and not him. He was and still is confused as to what I'm talking about. Hypocrit

I second that FACT!

 

[Luger187]

it is promise!!! duhhh

this made me laugh pretty good

 

[guy incognito]

Heis, I see and Understand the difference. I don't know why this is being misunderstood. The question was not how Scientist or Epistemologist go about rationalizing, but how do believers use rationality. I showed him how they rationalize. And even gave an example of how I would rationalize a certain belief. You have said in the past, (I think) that you cannot use Science to confirm Religion or something along those lines. So I'm didn't use a scientific definition to explain that of a believer.

No it wasn't.

You know what I've been wondering lately..? Are there any rational reasons to believe in God or are all believers irrational?

To which you responded with the list of arguments that attempt to rationalize the existence of god.

I do not think their rationale is rational. Your rationale should have good sound reasoning underlying your conclusion, by definition. Attempting to rationalize something does not mean all the assumptions are actually rational. That was my understanding of it.

 

[Luger187]

WOW, i wont even bother to go into it with you on that,, just to see how much of a hypocrite you are is despicable... what you say about me, in reality everyone on here attacking me is doing the same damn thing...

fine, i will ask it

What specifically was predicted that came true and has been deciphered from the bible?

nobody is attacking you. you think you are being attacked because we are questioning your beliefs. would you be attacking us if you were asking questions about what we believe?

 

[Brazko]

I've already answered this in the post you just quoted.
Reading is Fundamental. The ability to Comprehend even more so.

No it wasn't.



To which you responded with the list of arguments that attempt to rationalize the existence of god.

I do not think their rationale is rational. Your rationale should have good sound reasoning underlying your conclusion, by definition. Attempting to rationalize something does not mean all the assumptions are actually rational. That was my understanding of it.

 

[Heisenberg]

Heis, I see and Understand the difference. I don't know why this is being misunderstood. The question was not how Scientist or Epistemologist go about rationalizing, but how do believers use rationality. I showed him how they rationalize. And even gave an example of how I would rationalize a certain belief. You have said in the past, (I think) that you cannot use Science to confirm Religion or something along those lines. So I didn't use a scientific definition to explain that of a believer.

It's not an Upset thing to my personal satisfaction, its being a hipocrit thing. You are now stating that he should continue pressing forth in a different manner, where as I said he should do the same thing. It's no matter of constructing a better arguement for him. He could either accept me telling him to stop dialoguing the way he was doing and just provide information or not. You told him the exact same thing. I didn't discount his efforts and gave an account of a similar situation when I was discussing matters with someone of the same nature. Did you read what I said, obviously you did and you see that I was not discounting but agreeing with his statment and giving him the same advice you later gave. It was a point to display to him the nature of being a hipocrit as he points out to Oly to which he feels he has been doing which essentially/technically is the same thing he's done. Ignoring information. I even took in account of him missing it and being my mistake to accuse him of such if he did, but clearly you can see for yourself that you are acknowledging it and not him. He was and still is confused as to what I'm talking about. Hypocrit

I see. Perhaps you weren't trying to discount his contempt, but your argument left room for it to be interpreted that way. It seemed you were attacking his contempt, while I was suggesting he incorporate some tact. You seem to depend a lot on people inferring your points from your examples, and it can seem ambiguous to those who don't understand your angle.

So to clear up confusion, and I know you've already stated this, but exactly what information is Pad ignoring? How exactly is he being hypocritical. What standards is he holding others to that he is not living up to himself? I am not necessarily saying you're wrong, just asking you to be more concise.

The overall point that is seeming to be expressed in the last few pages of this thread is, maximizing the rationality of the greatest numbers of our fellow citizens is not necessarily the best way to maximize their (and our) well-being. While there is some truth to this statement, I do not see it as reason to accept erroneous conclusions and put them on the same level as truth. To risk making a slippery slope argument, the people in the matrix were pretty content, it was great for their well-being.


"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick

 

[guy incognito]

I've already answered this in the post you just quoted.
Reading is Fundamental. The ability to Comprehend even more so.

Yes but my original objection was never how a believer went about rationalizing the belief, it was that the rationales are not rational. I am familiar with most of the rationalizations, though I think that term is a misnomer because they are actually irrational.

 

[bigbillyrocka]

cant we all just agree to disagree?

 

[beardo]

Originally Posted by beardo
So why not attempt to smash in the skull of any one who disagrees? maybe you could eliminate religious belief that way? Don't they kill flaun gong members in China and harvest their organs? I think China banned religion or has their own state religion.

I don't smash the skull of people that disagree with me because I have respect for other people and know that it would be wrong. If you need god to tell you not to do shit like that you are a terrible, disgusting, worthless human being and the world would be better off without you. I know how to behave like a decent human being without being tricked or coerced by fear.

Originally Posted by beardo
Why don't you? Why not? Don't you think they would taste good?

What is a human being? Is that something God created in his image? Or an animal like a monkey that has evolved to become the dominant species? What is respect? Is that an invention or our mind or our socitey or our parents or government? What is wrong? what makes something wrong?

No one seems to want to touch on this or give any answers, but this might highlight why we need God.

He asked a question and you provided an unsatisfactory answer. .

No answers?

 

[karri0n]

No answers?

Because they are stupid questions. Religion has nothing to do with people not being cannibals, nor does it prevent people from being violent towards those they disagree with. In fact, fundamentalist religious fanatics are the ones who are often seen smashing in the heads of those that disagree with them. This happens to this very day by christians, jews, and muslims alike. This is, in fact, one thing that can not[/i] be said about atheists.

 

[Brazko]

I see. Perhaps you weren't trying to discount his contempt, but your argument left room for it to be interpreted that way. You seem to depend a lot on people inferring your points from your examples, and it can seem ambiguous to those who don't understand your angle.

So to clear up confusion, and I know you've already stated this, but exactly what information is Pad ignoring? How exactly is he being hypocritical. What standards is he holding others to that he is not living up to himself? I am not necessarily saying you're wrong, just asking you to be more concise.

There is no confusion and I didn't leave any room for it. Post #201. I wrote it, you have read it, and several others possibly. I gave him advice and information on how to deal with people. The same advice you just gave and acknowleged as me giving him the same. Me stating a viewpoint that Oly may be holding possibly due to the same fact of him feeling that Pad is doing the same thing isn't twisting the angle. It's giving him a perspective outside of his own. If me giving him a alternate prespective outside of his own accounts for dismissal of the fact of him doing the same thing, then that's being a Hypocrite as well.

Oly may be dismissive of the information giving by Pad because he ultimately holds a viewpoint opposite of Pad. The same thing could be applied to Pad in said situation. Ignoring what I said and being dismissive of it as if I never said it.

Please, tell me how I'm being confusing?

 

[Heisenberg]

cant we all just agree to disagree?

The point of debate is to find common ground and learn more about the others position. If both sides start in the same place, and use the same logic, then they both should reach the same conclusions. When this doesn't happen, we debate to find out why. The problem is that forum debate rarely gets past the point of agreeing on mutually accepted logic and terms, and both sides simply become more entrenched in their point of view.

 

[olylifter420]

yes, that is how you would take it. first off i would not question what you believe in because i respect your decision... If you were able to decide what you wanted to do with your life and how you want to live it, fine by me. I dont pay your bills and you dont pay mine, so why should we question what each of us believe in?

and it is an attack because i disagree with most of you on here that have been ATTACKING me for my beliefs and what i post... It seems that nothing i post will make any sense to, you are insaciatable and are just waiting to see what i post and how you can make it look dumb...

thats cool with me, i dont care... you are free to do as you please and if making fun of me and my beliefs and attacking me for them makes you feel good, by all means do it

fine, i will ask it

What specifically was predicted that came true and has been deciphered from the bible?

nobody is attacking you. you think you are being attacked because we are questioning your beliefs. would you be attacking us if you were asking questions about what we believe?

 

[olylifter420]

finally you say something that correct!

good job

you finally see why i am just posting things to irritate any atheist out there waiting to attack

The point of debate is to find common ground and learn more about the others position. If both sides start in the same place, and use the same logic, then they both should reach the same conclusions. When this doesn't happen, we debate to find out why. The problem is that debate rarely gets past the point of agreeing on mutually accepted logic and terms, and both sides simply become more entrenched in their point of view.

 

[olylifter420]

finally you say something that correct!

good job

you finally see why i am just posting things to irritate any atheist out there waiting to attack

The point of debate is to find common ground and learn more about the others position. If both sides start in the same place, and use the same logic, then they both should reach the same conclusions. When this doesn't happen, we debate to find out why. The problem is that debate rarely gets past the point of agreeing on mutually accepted logic and terms, and both sides simply become more entrenched in their point of view.

 

[olylifter420]

really?

when you stop believing in reality, it tends to stick around

phillip K. vagina

I see. Perhaps you weren't trying to discount his contempt, but your argument left room for it to be interpreted that way. It seemed you were attacking his contempt, while I was suggesting he incorporate some tact. You seem to depend a lot on people inferring your points from your examples, and it can seem ambiguous to those who don't understand your angle.

So to clear up confusion, and I know you've already stated this, but exactly what information is Pad ignoring? How exactly is he being hypocritical. What standards is he holding others to that he is not living up to himself? I am not necessarily saying you're wrong, just asking you to be more concise.

The overall point that is seeming to be expressed in the last few pages of this thread is, maximizing the rationality of the greatest numbers of our fellow citizens is not necessarily the best way to maximize their (and our) well-being. While there is some truth to this statement, I do not see it as reason to accept erroneous conclusions and put them on the same level as truth. To risk making a slippery slope argument, the people in the matrix were pretty content, it was great for their well-being.


"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick

 

[ginjawarrior]

yes, that is how you would take it. first off i would not question what you believe in because i respect your decision... If you were able to decide what you wanted to do with your life and how you want to live it, fine by me. I dont pay your bills and you dont pay mine, so why should we question what each of us believe in?

and it is an attack because i disagree with most of you on here that have been ATTACKING me for my beliefs and what i post... It seems that nothing i post will make any sense to, you are insaciatable and are just waiting to see what i post and how you can make it look dumb...

thats cool with me, i dont care... you are free to do as you please and if making fun of me and my beliefs and attacking me for them makes you feel good, by all means do it

you need to man up a little bit there if you think questions and words are an attack on your faith

when you post you invite people to answer/question your posts

dont get in a hissy fit when they do, if you want to stand tough (like you said your parents told you to)

 

[olylifter420]

Thank you, but it is this that these people do not see themselves... they see that as me being ignorant... pretty stupid if you ask me...

There is no confusion and I didn't leave any room for it. Post #201. I wrote it, you have read it, and several others possibly. I gave him advice and information on how to deal with people. The same advice you just gave and acknowleged as me giving him the same. Me stating a viewpoint that Oly may be holding possibly due to the same fact of him feeling that Pad is doing the same thing isn't twisting the angle. It's giving him a perspective outside of his own. If me giving him a alternate prespective outside of his own accounts for dismissal of the fact of him doing the same thing, then that's being a Hypocrite as well.

Oly may be dismissive of the information giving by Pad because he ultimately holds a viewpoint opposite of Pad. The same thing could be applied to Pad in said situation. Ignoring what I said and being dismissive of it as if I never said it.

Please, tell me how I'm being confusing?

 

[olylifter420]

i am, what i am doing now is just letting them speak their mind... then i post something that will make them hate me more...

it is like arguing with a drunk in here...

if this was a classroom setting, it would be different.. as this is not a higher education forum, i lost all interest to "seem smart enough" to compete with these guys...

you need to man up a little bit there if you think questions and words are an attack on your faith

when you post you invite people to answer/question your posts

dont get in a hissy fit when they do, if you want to stand tough (like you said your parents told you to)