Rbz Posts

Cars are pretty much planes anyway. Wow, thanks TMS, I've always wanted a flying car.

And lo, the wall hath spoken. Unmoved and unshaken, clinging to its place despite someone suggesting the ground which it occupies is littered with horseshit.

Seriously, who the fuck does Tegumi think she is, talking about nailing and screwing and not even showing some boob. For shame.

Oh you. Walls don't know how to give up.

She did mention the nail with respect to the hammer.

Speaking of nailing and screwing, this thread needs more bitches and hoes.

We're talking about hammering objects. Boners shall be popped.

No, but yours did right? Don't try to hide your parent's coolness. To bad it didn't rub off on you. RESPECT NAZIS, FAGGOT!

Haven't your parents ever told you to respect nazis and to drop and give head as soon as you see one?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

That's right, obey and believe everything your parents tell you. Critical thinking is bad.

Kuroneko, this shit is fucking classic.

Because you suck, lol.

Established by what? Support your claim. Why don't famous skeptics like James Randi know about this? That's because it isn't established, and there is absolutely no evidence that anything remains of a person's consciousness after death.



Doing it without preparation is what cold reading is. The guy pretending to speak to dead people spouts some vague bullshit until they get a response, and when cold reading a specific person, they constantly try to find clues from their reactions.
All shown here: http://www.megavideo.com/?v=6HL7IFHQ



The best thing about being a skeptic is that I will not believe a single claim you make until you provide justification for them. Show a legitimate case. How would we know it's legitimate apart from the other bullshit?



I'll assume by "continuity" you mean consistency. It's consistent because it's in our culture. When people get it into their minds, they see the kind of things they heard other people were seeing. Just like how "alien" sightings are sometimes consistent with what other people have seen, it's all just something these people took out of our culture. You don't have to leap to the conclusion that these phenomena actually exist, because you still have no actual evidence for their existence.



Once again, I am pressured to not believe a word you say, and no, I've never heard of skeptics becoming believers.



You're the one going on tangents here.



Yea, they can, but we don't really have a good reason to think so.



Okay, if you really feel like these points are super fucking epic, then quote them to me so I know what important business I've been missing out on.



That was not sarcasm in the least. I meant every word I said. Your "philosophical train of thought" was an unfalsifiable hypothesis and it contains bad logic. If you need that pointed out for you, I'll gladly demolish your argument and show it as the illogical mess that it is.


Yes, we can experience reality through our own perspective, but where did you get the information that we alter reality by observing it? Or do you mean how our minds can create certain things we perceive in reality, for example, colors don't exist outside of our minds, our brain creates them depending on the wavelength of the visible light. That still says nothing about our minds being able to affect anything outside of itself.

How the fuck could you possibly know that? What do you have to justify that claim? Why couldn't reality exist outside of our minds? Sure, nothing conscious would know about its existence, but that doesn't mean it just magically disappears. What's with this false dichotomy: either reality exists as long as something is observing it, or it doesn't exist. That's bad logic, since, as I mentioned, it could exist without anything to observe it.

The conclusion is bunk since it was derived from an unjustified assumption and bad logic. By the same logic, how the fuck did god exist without something to be aware of his existence. Now we're stuck in an infinite regression of causes.



No, it doesn't. You see, you're the one making a claim for the existence of god, not me. You're the one who claims he exists, so if you want others to believe you, you're the one who should provide the evidence. Also, there's no evidence disproving the existence of leprechauns, therefore leprechauns exist? No, that's stupid and completely illogical. Just because there's no evidence to disprove something, doesn't make it a good idea believe in it.



Because it was irrelevant. Saying there's good AND evil doesn't say anything about the disposition of god. God may be good and he might be evil, but the reason why he isn't benevolent is because that entails being inclined to do good. His actions do not show him to be benevolent. If you think we're both right, then you might as well drop the subject and quit arguing about it.



I don't need to wrap my head around it, because no matter how you think about it, the paradox never goes away. It only shows infinite power is impossible. Oooooh, they use it in math. It doesn't magically grant it the status of "something that happens in reality".



Okay, there's no guarantee, so why claim god is all powerful if you're not too sure yourself?



Attempting to rationalize it doesn't make the paradox go away. If there's an infinitely heavy rock, and an infinite force trying to lift it, saying one will win over the other makes no sense as both are infinite.



The whole point of bringing that up was to show that there are a whole bunch of possibilities out there that don't have to be god, as theists would argue that it has to be god.




These are all fascinating possibilities, but that doesn't mean they're true or that they deserve any kind of credence.



No I'm not, stop pulling bullshit out of your ass.



How did you come upon this knowledge, sir?

While he's downloading, fuck his sister. Flawless logic. /thread.

Criminal Justice is up.

If only more people weren't assholes and didn't support this stupid drug war america has. Some people actually treat the druggies as criminals, even though they're criminals only because the government says so, and apparently, we don't have the individual freedom in this country to do what the fuck we want to our own mind. But it's all well and good when people buy alcohol. They're saying, "only buy our drugs, and if you buy someone else's drugs or make your own, you'll go to prison."

Want to have japanese people treat you as one of their own and not some piece of shit loser pikachu humping, stupid figurine collecting, anime ringtone setting, "kawaii" saying, whitey? You might even get other insipid anime music video watching white people to treat you all special.

Occam's Razor is not to take the simplest explanation, it's take the explanation that requires the fewest new assumptions (which in non-elaborated form, is the "simplest explanation". It's commonly misinterpreted.). Either he's crazy or he's faking it is more favorable by Occam's Razor than saying he's talking to dead people, which requires us to make new assumptions about the world.



The thing is, ghosts can't be measured. We may use our senses, but they're flawed (illusions, hallucinations, etc.). This is where scientific rigor comes in to study whatever we want to observe in such a way that the flawed human observation is factored out. Seeing something and interpreting it in some way does not make it reality, in your case, thinking you saw a ghost.



It may not be exactly the way we think, but it doesn't mean our observations were wrong.



I only replied to what I felt needed replying to. You want me to waste time arguing with you about every little point you bring up? Some things you say are just irrelevant and pointless to mention.



Unfalsifiable hypothesis, gotcha. Still no valid logic in god arguments. Even worse is using that argument as if it has any factual basis in reality. Just because something is possible doesn't mean you should give it credence.



How does this necessarily make god good? He's responsible for the existence of good and evil, but I don't see how that magically makes him benevolent. A douchebag god remains.



Because it is trivial after you see the paradox that claiming such a thing creates. The idea of all powerful implies infinity, so no, it isn't neglected. If god is infinitely powerful, that doesn't mean the paradox goes away.



Trying to rationalize how it would happen misses the point of the paradox. It's a mindfuck, and in either case, being infinitely powerful is an impossibility.



Who knows, maybe it was a force beyond our comprehension that wasn't god. Maybe it didn't always exist, we don't know, but using god in the place of atoms causes just as many problems, except in god's case, he is made exempt from scrutiny by apologists who say he doesn't need a cause. He doesn't need a cause because it's convenient for the theist. This bias created in god's favor is justified by made up bullshit that has no merit. Point being, saying that god is the cause of everything, and that he doesn't need a cause is a piece of shit argument that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and should instantly be dismissed as garbage.

I'll bite.



That's not acting like other "religions", that's being skeptical (something religions aren't fond of us being). Skepticism has nothing to do with atheism. Don't link atheism to shit that's irrelevant. Atheism only concerns itself with god (that is, it's a lack of belief in a god), and nothing more. Skepticism is also not exclusive to atheists. There are theists who would dispute the claim of something "out of this world" happening as well. When a miracle is claimed to have occurred, it's always anecdotal evidence. Shit, even god is just anecdotal evidence. Why should anyone believe it? Most of the time, the situation is just a misinterpretation by the person who claims that some crazy magical shit happened. Maybe you yourself have been tricked into believing magical phenomena actually happened.



Like what? Also, historical documents don't do anything to prove paranormal phenomena.



Sure, I wouldn't have much respect for any atheist who didn't intellectually reach atheism, but don't act like there really is more to this world. You have nothing to base that claim on, and by nothing, I mean something besides anecdotal evidence like saying "I saw it with my own eyes." That's not good enough. Oh, and yeah, I've thought about it long enough to reach the conclusion that there's no reason (by that, I mean there's no evidence to support god's existence) to believe in a god.



Just going to mention, being open minded doesn't mean accepting everything you come upon. Being skeptical and dismissing things that have no reason to be believed while believing things for which there is evidence is also being open-minded. If you're going to say, "I never said blah blah blah about open mindedness", I know you didn't say anything, I just thought this is something that needs mentioning.



Every so-called logical argument for god that I have ever come upon has been illogical. Any argument for god will always have either bad logic and/or a false premise (or just an unproven assumption). This argument is no exception. It stems from a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. You'll find your rebuttal here. I hope you adhere to the claim of being open minded.



Yes it does. I don't believe in any force of evil, but there are acts which we consider evil (because evil is an act). If god created everything including human beings, he created us with the ability (and some of us with the tendency) to do evil. You cannot claim god is good when god is responsible for all evil done throughout the world and as far as I've seen, (if he exists) he just stands around and watches as it occurs.



Ah, yes, god lacks reason, so we can't rationalize him. The same pussy cop-out heard throughout a dickload of discussions about god. If we can't "pin logic on it", why the fuck did you try to make a logical (more like lolgical) argument for his existence? You might as well say he exists just because. Saying he's "all powerful" doesn't mean shit. If you haven't heard the paradox that the idea creates, it goes like so: Can god create a rock so big he couldn't lift it? If he can, he's not all powerful, if he can't, he still isn't all powerful. Also, why does one need to be all powerful to exist forever? Why couldn't energy and matter have always existed? The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. One of those "rules of the universe" we have observed. So why couldn't they exist forever? It's much more reasonable to think that than believe god is all powerful and always existed.

Good man. I'm glad you saved it for personal use.

If you're trying to find good yaoi, but the lulzfactor is > vegeta's power level expectations.

Does some oldfag have it? Does anyone want their post deleted the moment waar sees it? Come on, there has got to be someone from the old days who saved that motherfucker. Post it, bros.