Rbz Posts
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.
MoneyDRuffy wrote...
Rbz wrote...
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean, why don't you concede this debate?Oh you. Walls don't know how to give up.
Knock 'em down.
Seriously, who the fuck does Tegumi think she is, talking about nailing and screwing and not even showing some boob. For shame.
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean, why don't you concede this debate?Oh you. Walls don't know how to give up.
Kalistean wrote...
And you think a hammer will work in getting a screw to fasten something securely? Heh, funny.She did mention the nail with respect to the hammer.
Speaking of nailing and screwing, this thread needs more bitches and hoes.
Sisami wrote...
No need to use big words when you're talking about shit you can find at Home Depot, Tegtsutsumi.We're talking about hammering objects. Boners shall be popped.
Jeff Goldblum Fan wrote...
did your parents never told youNo, 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!
Jeff Goldblum Fan wrote...
Did your parents never told you to respect your elders?Haven't your parents ever told you to respect nazis and to drop and give head as soon as you see one?
Haburi-Chan wrote...
Be glad we have somebody with so much life experience and wisdom on this forum in the first place. Did your parents never told you to respect your elders?LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
That's right, obey and believe everything your parents tell you. Critical thinking is bad.
Kuroneko, this shit is fucking classic.
Pocru wrote...
It wouldn't be making many new assumptions about the world at all, actually. It's very well established that people die. And that parts of their lives linger after death, by way of memories and legacies.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.
Pocru wrote...
But what do we do when he actually does it without that kind of preparation, first?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
Pocru wrote...
You do have to remember that there are well-documented cases of this kind of event. While most of these are frauds, when confronted with a legitimate case, skeptics are quick to turn a blind eye.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?
Pocru wrote...
While its true our senses are innately flawed, there’s something to be said for continuity. Each brain works differently (which is a statement of fact more than an opinion) so any †˜hallucination’ of a ghost would look different to each person. There’s something to be said for the continuity with all ghost sightings…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.
Pocru wrote...
hell, you hear more about skeptics-turnd believers than you do believers-turned skeptic, and there’s a reason for that…Once again, I am pressured to not believe a word you say, and no, I've never heard of skeptics becoming believers.
Pocru wrote...
We’re talking about god, remember?You're the one going on tangents here.
Pocru wrote...
But that does mean the actual truths behind these forces can what we don’t expect.Yea, they can, but we don't really have a good reason to think so.
Pocru wrote...
Actually, I made several very good points that you simply ignored. And by calling them 'irrielevant', you're simply proving my point when I say that Athiests can and will minimize any point that's made agains them they can't argue against.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.
Pocru wrote...
Sarcasm? Really? Don’t you think we’re both above that? Besides, in insulting me you forgot to make a valid point other than “ it's illogical” or prove how it's illogical. You’re faltering, buddy.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.
Pocru wrote...
reality is altered through perspective, and we can only experience reality through our own perspectives.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.
Pocru wrote...
If all conscious life in the universe stopped existing, and nothing could perceive reality, reality couldn't exist.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.
Pocru wrote...
As such, something had to be aware of existence at the beginning of time for the begining of time to evolve to the now.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.
Pocru wrote...
I'll also take this time to say you're talking all about finding proof god dosn't exist, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence that tells us he DOSEN'T exist. Evidence works both ways.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.
Pocru wrote...
And, to add, the above has nothing valid in it to dispel my point ABOUT good and evil.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.
Pocru wrote...
Can you even begin to fathom what infinity entails? Clearly you can’t wrap your head around how exactly powerful a being with infinite power would be. Here’s a hint: you can do whatever the fuck you want. What’s more, Infinite, you have to remember, is a number, it grounds its existence in math: to simplify the concept for you, infinite is simply an eternally growing number. Try to think about it in those terms.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".
Pocru wrote...
What's more, there's no guarantee by any means that God is, in fact, infinitely powerful.Okay, there's no guarantee, so why claim god is all powerful if you're not too sure yourself?
Pocru wrote...
If I can rationalize it, it’s not a paradox, now is it? I can’t miss the point if I decide to show you your reasoning is flawed.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.
Pocru wrote...
A force behind our comprehension that wasn’t god? Seriously? I think you’re struggling to counter me more than any reasonable person should.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.
Pocru wrote...
He could have always existed or he could have been created by another higher power. Who was created by another higher power. Who was created by another higher power.These are all fascinating possibilities, but that doesn't mean they're true or that they deserve any kind of credence.
Pocru wrote...
Ultimately, the thing you’re forgetting is the existence of god can coexist with science, logic, and fact.No I'm not, stop pulling bullshit out of your ass.
Pocru wrote...
God himself may be something of an enigma, but he created order in this universeHow did you come upon this knowledge, sir?
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."
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.

[size=29]DISCUSS![/h]

[size=29]DISCUSS![/h]
Pocru wrote...
But, it's much simpler to assume he's actually talking to dead people.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.
Pocru wrote...
Yes, I may have saw a ghost or whatever, and people don't beleive me. Well, thousands of years ago, someone noticed the earth wasn't' the center of the universe, same deal. The problem with believing in the supernatural is, regardless of what you see or what really exists, finding proof of its existence stops making it supernatural and just plain makes it natural... and some things you just can't find proof of outside simple observation, which is just as trustworthy as any of your senses. Like I said, reality exists as you perceive it, and it's impossible to see reality without looking through a lenses. This as much proves what I say as much as it proves what you say, though.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.
Pocru wrote...
The thing about science is, any science, is that evidence can be misleading. Sun rises and sets. Evidence, in ancient times, that the sun circled the earth. While this is a simplified example, it's still true: what we do know of mixed state existence could be wrong, or misleading. This is even more true because there's no way to really test said theory without observing stuff first.It may not be exactly the way we think, but it doesn't mean our observations were wrong.
Pocru wrote...
I'd also like to point out, though, that you only replied to SOME of my points. Is this because you can't think of a logical argument for the others?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.
Pocru wrote...
But back to the main point, the idea that something has to be observed to exist mostly stems from my philosophical beliefs because there's no real way to prove something can exist without it being observed. It's a coin-flip, I'll admit...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.
Pocru wrote...
No it does not. The very principles of good and evil are the principles of good AND evil. Good cannot exist without evil just as evil could not exist without good, given their natures. If we were to just have GOOD, then there would be no axis, and GOOD would just be NORMAL. If good was just normal, then it would be impossible to be virtuous because there's nothing to be better than.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.
Pocru wrote...
Your rock point neglects the concepts of infinity and trivializes the concept of being "all-powerful".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.
Pocru wrote...
Yes, an all powerful being could create a rock so heavy it couldn't lift it. But infinity is a very fluid thing, while a rock is not. The rock would be constant and unchanging while the higher being would then surpass the rock it was once dwarfed by and lift it.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.
Pocru wrote...
If it had always existed, than that means it had ALWAYS had the ability to resist the pressure. So what, then, would cause it to pop?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.
Pocru wrote...
First off, I notice a lot of Atheists acting a lot like other religions: they'll happily, eagerly point out flaws in thinking, plot-holes, and quick to rationalize miracles, but if confronted by something truly out of this world, they'll be just as quick to say it never happened, it's 'a trick of the lights', some sort of hallucination, or that they'll "Someday" rationally discover what caused said phenomenon.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.
Pocru wrote...
ignore scientific findings or historic documentsLike what? Also, historical documents don't do anything to prove paranormal phenomena.
Pocru wrote...
I've noticed a lot of people say they're atheists just because it makes them feel better, or because they don't like the idea of a big man pulling the strings. You're entitled to think in such a way, but if you do, you're no philosopher. You're just a coward who's too afraid to acknowledge there's more to this world than what meets the eye, and you're probably too close-minded to contribute anything meaningful to this conversation. If you can tell me you're an atheist after a lot of hard thought and reasoning, I'll be happy to respect your beliefs.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.
Pocru wrote...
On that note, as one who's had an open mind all his lifeJust 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.
Pocru wrote...
First and foremost, my belief in a higher consciousness spawns from this train of thought: reality is altered through perspective, and we can only experience reality through our own perspectives. If all conscious life in the universe stopped existing, and nothing could perceive reality, reality couldn't exist. As such, something had to be aware of existence at the beginning of time for the begining of time to evolve to the now.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.
Pocru wrote...
Thirdly, the existence of evil does not necessarily prove that god isn't benevolent.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.
Pocru wrote...
Fourth, We may not know where god comes from, but by that token, we don't know where that single atom came from that spawned the big bang, or where the massive amount of pressure that set it off came from. And even if we were to figure that out, we'd still have to ask where THOSE components came from. God, at least, has the potential to give us a definitive answer: he's all powerful, so why couldn't be exist forever? He lacks reason so there's no reason to try to pin logic on it.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.
Zak wrote...
Shit was meh...If you're trying to find good yaoi, but the lulzfactor is > vegeta's power level expectations.
