Rbz Posts

As long as artefag posts the sources of his little news it shouldn't really be a problem.

Samus Aran of Metroid

^Will stay mine.

Did he offer to spit-shine your balls?

Cats should be genetically engineered to die from soda.

This way, cats and dogs are even again.

OWNED!

This goes to show that not only is the FBI watching you fap, but your ISP too.

What the fuck?

Fuck bitches, get money, motherfucker, not a difficult concept to grasp.

This is where we diverge in views once more. Accepting that such things are possible is not me believing in god to some "crucial point" because that's not belief in any way, it's just the acceptance of having no absolute knowledge and admitting ignorance. If I knew everything there was to know about the universe and it's possibilities, only then I would be able to declare god impossible. Until then, the intellectually honest thing to do is accept the possibility. Shit, that's like saying that because I have the concept of god in my mind I believe it to a certain extent. No, no I do not.


Wuaa, mindfuck.

What the fuck? That's awesome.

More thought provoking:

Not just yet.


Believing in both the existence and non-existence of something is a mindfuck, and accepting the possibility of them being true is not belief in either of them, as I also accept the possibility of god's existence.


Okay, but having accepted that whether or not god exists can't be known, the question remains: do you believe in a god/higher power/etc.?

Having answered no to that question, it doesn't mean I actively believe god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean I don't hold that there is a chance god might exist, and it doesn't mean I've closed my mind to future evidence of such existence, it simply means I lack belief.

Zak sucks.

^Fact

You're still mixing non-belief and belief of non-existence. One is actually a belief, the other isn't. Being oblivious to the existence of something is the same as lacking belief in it, since you can't actively believe in something you don't know about. Before you read them, you had an unconscious lack of belief in the existence of the gay unicorn fairy, satan's jewish wife, or even liquid penguins, but now that you've read these concepts, you have a conscious lack of belief in their existence. When we are introduced to such concepts, a healthy skepticism and logic keeps us from crossing that line of belief. When we are oblivious to such concepts, our lack of knowledge keeps us from having any sort of belief.

If your response is still the same, mine will be too.


And that there will be no belief in either of them. "Skepticism of either conclusion."


Being an agnostic-atheist, I would add to that that until evidence of such a being's existence comes to light, I will remain lacking in belief that such a being exists. That lack of belief is the atheist part of agnostic-atheist.

What da fuck is a Zak?

Gas cylinders in chairs, you might get your ass raped by them.

^I don't fucking need sankaku to remind me of the risks inherent in such comfortable objects.


You know the kind where you pull a little level while you're sitting to lower the chair, and then stand up while pulling the level to raise the chair?

God doesn't believe in atheists.

Mannequins aren't to be trusted. I've watched "I am Legend." I won't make the same mistake will smith did.

You're forgiven.

"...hence, I shall not have a belief in either." is what seems to me logically follows.


And until we can have that opinion, we lack belief in a god.


Following this analogy, the guy neither believed the cat was dead, nor did he believe it was alive. Doesn't matter if he knew about any sort of cat to begin with, the fact that he never held the aforementioned beliefs stands. Let's call this "unconscious atheism." After all is explained, another guy (Dipshit) tells the first guy (Douchebag) that he believes the cat is alive. Douchebag, who was initially confused now has an understanding of what is happening, and using the lack of evidence for Dipshit's claim, he says, "I don't believe you. I don't believe the cat is alive." That can be called "conscious atheism." In both cases, Dipshit doesn't claim the belief in the the death or life of the cat.


Let's say a reasonable/rational/logical person was told that "god is an intelligent being who created the universe." Now, having a conclusion on whether god exists or not means there is belief involved. Being a logical person, they wouldn't be able to conclude that god exists as there is no evidence or justification for such a conclusion, meaning to believe such a thing involves bad logic, and bad logic is not desired by that person. On the other hand, how can this person conclude that god doesn't exist? As with the first case, there is no evidence or justification for such a belief, and to try and prove such a conclusion is illogical since you can't prove a negative in this case (just like it is impossible to prove that there isn't an invisible and untouchable alien spaceship floating in the sky). Since both conclusions involve active belief, the most reasonable conclusion is to believe neither, and just stick with non-belief. Skepticism of either conclusion is the conclusion that logical person would take.

Gravity is the reason why the piss doesn't hit your face when you relieve yourself. Be grateful, faggots.

That's what real war is all about.

Explosions > Bullets.

Oh, and I believe the term is Protubing.