Page 4 of 4
DeadlyIllness
UG Member
Join date: Feb 2009
10 IQ
#121
Quote by willT08
Okay cool. I'm not a scientist though so I'm not gonna worry about other dimensions until I know what I'm even worrying about.


Consider other dimensions just other versions of horizontal, vertical, and depth that we cannot perceive that our perceived dimensions can interact with but we cannot observe.
willT08
Banned
Join date: Jul 2009
211 IQ
#122
Quote by DeadlyIllness
One of the informal fallacies of logic is a false dichotomy where one would state a claim is true because there is not enough evidence to prove it's false, vice versa. For example if there is no evidence of a god, then you cannot disprove the idea and just because there is no evidence against the idea, does not mean the idea is true. Absence of evidence does not determine a truth value either way.

I don't need to disprove the notion of a God. Why would I waste my time on such a childish question?
Consider other dimensions just other versions of horizontal, vertical, and depth that we cannot perceive that our perceived dimensions can interact with but we cannot observe.
Yeah lovely. Except I, and as far as I understand, no-one else really knows what that means in the real world. So I'm kinda chill about it.
Last edited by willT08 at Feb 15, 2013,
crazysam23_Atax
Feuergesicht
Join date: Oct 2009
490 IQ
#123
Quote by Arby911
I've often wondered why people are so eager to append 'Einstein' to anything they want to lend credibility to?

Granted, his was a great intellect IN HIS FIELDS OF EXPERTISE, outside of that he was in many ways a ****ing idiot...

Just like the rest of us.

Because, for some reason, they think it makes the story/anecdote/whatever more clever that way. Of course, what it usually does is make them out to be a liar and a hack when people figure out that Einstein had nothing to do with said story/anecdote/whatever.
Arby911
Finding the Pattern
Join date: Jul 2010
110 IQ
#124
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Because, for some reason, they think it makes the story/anecdote/whatever more clever that way. Of course, what it usually does is make them out to be a liar and a hack when people figure out that Einstein had nothing to do with said story/anecdote/whatever.


I agree (and TBH, the question was rhetorical...), the appeal to authority is perhaps the most common form of justification.

Unfortunately it's also one of the most unreliable, or at least that's what Einstein said...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Feb 15, 2013,
Jostry
UG Member
Join date: Dec 2010
100 IQ
#126


This is probably the best facebook post ever.
Quote by progdude93
my fetish is dudes with dicks small enough to pee on their own sacks.
girlgerms007
mostly harmless
Join date: Nov 2011
20 IQ
#128
Just read the OP, seriously those 8 examples are laughable.
not going viral


Hot E-Cousin of rjaylaf

Non Evil E-Twin of stealstrings

E-NEMESIS of deathdrummer
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
10 IQ
#129
Quote by Thrashtastic15
Yeah, it's a two way thing. If the person isn't interested in what you have to say and you don't have anything to gain from the situation, it makes no sense to go on about it really. I don't care about what you or others perceive to be the "true spirit of debating" or any nonsense like that. You're just trying to illogically demonize mindsets that aren't your own without any legitimate backing that isn't just subjective drivel. Don't want to waste my time on this again so I'm out. See how that works?


Both parties were consenting participants, they both voluntarily took place in a debate in which they knew that people hold some very different opinions to their own, but I don't know why you should have a problem with other people debating with each other.

That's why the religious kid in the debate looks like such a dick, because he willingly participated in a debate, then when the TS disagreed with him, rather than 'debating' him he just went off the deep end and started making threats and personal insults.

As I said before, it's just a competition, would you complain about soccer players scoring goals against each other in case someone gets upset about having a goal scored against them or would you say that if you're going to participate in a soccer match then you ought to know how to be able to handle having goals scored against you?

Quote by Arby911
No, I'm stating that G_D either exists or does not, thus either Atheism or Belief is 'correct'. For the purposes of our discussion which one it is doesn't matter.

Are you sure about that?
I mean, considering that we know absolutely nothing about the nature of God because we don't even know if he exist or not, but also considering that we usualy define God as a being that can achieve seemingly impossible and contradictory things, how can you possibly claim to know that it has to be one way or the other?

Imagine that God is just an ordinary physical being, an alien who cannot do seemingly impossible and contradictory things as most people define him and who somehow was accidently responsible for the creation of the universe. Imagine that God exists, but in a completely different way to what we normaly define as a 'god', wouldn't that make both theism and atheism correct at the same time?


Quote by Arby911

"It can't be proven" isn't a claim exclusive to Agnostics, it's also conceded by honest Atheists and Believers and as such isn't a differentiating factor.

Agnosticism holds no opinion, thus cannot be 'correct' as it makes no claims. It has nothing to be 'correct' or 'wrong' about.

You've just completely contradicted yourself, first you say that the agnostic opinion of "It can't be proven" is a claim, (one that you said agnostics share with other groups when you said that it 'wasn't exclusive to Agnostics') then you say that agnosticism makes 'no claims'. How can you possibly claim that agnosticism shares its claims with other groups while at the same time making no claims? Or are you considering that the claim that you just made doesn't really count as a claim?

Of course agnosticism holds an opinion, it holds the opinion (and the claim) that it's impossible to know if God exists or not, and because we have no empirical evidence that we can say 'proves' God's existence or non-existence then we can consider that opinion about our lack of knowledge to be 'correct'. It's the one thing that we do know for definate about God, the fact that it's impossible to know if he exists or not.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Feb 16, 2013,
Arby911
Finding the Pattern
Join date: Jul 2010
110 IQ
#130
Quote by SlackerBabbath


You've just completely contradicted yourself, first you say that the agnostic opinion of "It can't be proven" is a claim, (one that you said agnostics share with other groups when you said that it 'wasn't exclusive to Agnostics') then you say that agnosticism makes 'no claims'. How can you possibly claim that agnosticism shares its claims with other groups while at the same time making no claims? Or are you considering that the claim that you just made doesn't really count as a claim?

Of course agnosticism holds an opinion, it holds the opinion (and the claim) that it's impossible to know if God exists or not, and because we have no empirical evidence that we can say 'proves' God's existence or non-existence then we can consider that opinion about our lack of knowledge to be 'correct'. It's the one thing that we do know for definate about God, the fact that it's impossible to know if he exists or not.



Allow me to edit:

"It can't be proven" isn't a claim exclusive to Agnostics, it's also conceded by honest Atheists and Believers and as such isn't a differentiating factor.

Agnosticism holds no opinion, thus cannot be 'correct' as it makes no differentiating claims. It has nothing to be 'correct' or 'wrong' about.

A claim held in common across all three groups can scarcely be considered as a valid contrast point.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
mystical_1
Doomed
Join date: Jul 2008
20 IQ
#131
Quote by Pagan_Poetry
Sadly this is Ultimate-guitar, not Simple-guitar. We can't help you.


Twofly
UG's official GhostHunter
Join date: Dec 2005
185 IQ
#132
TL;DR TS's life is in danger because he offered his opinion on a ******'s religious post. Now that ****** is having homosexual fantasies about TS that he wants to act out....

So y'all need to

Hide your kids, hide your wife
And hide your husband cuz they're rapin everybody out here
I'm not saying not to trust the internet, but there's an alarming discrepancy between the number of iPads I've won & the number of iPads I own.
lncognito
Registered User
Join date: Dec 2011
10 IQ
#133
Quote by Arby911
Allow me to edit:

"It can't be proven" isn't a claim exclusive to Agnostics, it's also conceded by honest Atheists and Believers and as such isn't a differentiating factor.

Agnosticism holds no opinion, thus cannot be 'correct' as it makes no differentiating claims. It has nothing to be 'correct' or 'wrong' about.

A claim held in common across all three groups can scarcely be considered as a valid contrast point.
Yes, but agnosticism is not incompatible with these other beliefs. Agnosticism makes the claim that we cannot know 100% the truth (of religion). This is not contrary to theism or atheism, but merely gnosticism, which would claim one knows/can know.
As such agnosticism can be true - or false.

Agnostics can often be hold theistic or atheistic persuasions, just as gnostics can. For instance, I consider myself an atheistic agnostic, because I fundamentally cannot know enough to be certain in my persuasion, but I'm leaning heavily towards believing that none of the religions I know of hold true.
jrcsgtpeppers
Tab Contributor
Join date: Feb 2009
171 IQ
#134
Quote by girlgerms007
Just read the OP, seriously those 8 examples are laughable.

it was literally the first google search response.
evolution have peen proven. its a theory, its been proven.
YoTimDog
tips fedora
Join date: Mar 2012
20 IQ
#135
This is what you look like when you argue about religion over the internet.

willT08
Banned
Join date: Jul 2009
211 IQ
#136
Depends how you argue. I've always thought that people who complain about religious discussion look like fools compared to the people willing to debate.
SlackerBabbath
Est. 1966.
Join date: Apr 2007
10 IQ
#137
Quote by Arby911
Allow me to edit:

"It can't be proven" isn't a claim exclusive to Agnostics, it's also conceded by honest Atheists and Believers and as such isn't a differentiating factor.

Agnosticism holds no opinion, thus cannot be 'correct' as it makes no differentiating claims. It has nothing to be 'correct' or 'wrong' about.

But agnosticism does hold an opinion, the opinion that it's impossible to know if God exists or not, infact it's that opinion that 'defines' agnosticism, and it can also be considered as a differentiating claim because there are plenty of theists who will readily make the counter-claim that it is possible to 'know' that God exists.
Of course, their evidence for such a claim always boils down to faith because so far there has been nothing found that we can consider as 'empirical' evidence for the existence of God, and without any form of empirical evidence for God's existence then it's obviously impossible to 'know' for definate if God exists or not.

Ergo, logicaly, the claim of it being impossible to know if God exists or not that agnosticism makes is a 'correct' claim.
Quote by Arby911
'
A claim held in common across all three groups can scarcely be considered as a valid contrast point.

But why does it have to contrast other opinions for it to be considered as true?
Surely something that can be agreed upon by all opposing sides can be considered as more likely to be the truth than something that is contradicted by different sides?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Feb 19, 2013,
lolmnt
Earth of the Butt
Join date: Sep 2006
300 IQ
#138
Quote by willT08
Depends how you argue. I've always thought that people who complain about religious discussion look like fools compared to the people willing to debate.

It depends on where you're discussing. If it's a thread about religion or a conversation turns into a religious discussion, cool. But if you see a Facebook status that's like "Thank The Lord for this beautiful day" and you comment on it like "omg god isn't real so dumb" then you're a dickface.
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
vIsIbleNoIsE
The Asian-Viking Paradox
Join date: Feb 2006
60 IQ
#139
he sounds batshit insane, don't get him angry dude.
Quote by archerygenious
Jesus Christ since when is the Pit a ****ing courtroom...

Like melodic, black, death, symphonic, and/or avant-garde metal? Want to collaborate? Message me!
kimberlydawn
Princess Pineapple
Join date: Apr 2012
20 IQ
#140

I stopped at the part when I clicked the "show" button and that whole novel came up


Quote by Todd Hart
So 'crunk and 'gandhi are already pussy-whipped, impressive.

Quote by Burgery
you just think they're being mean to you because you have fragile girl feelings
YoTimDog
tips fedora
Join date: Mar 2012
20 IQ
#141
Quote by element4433
It depends on where you're discussing. If it's a thread about religion or a conversation turns into a religious discussion, cool. But if you see a Facebook status that's like "Thank The Lord for this beautiful day" and you comment on it like "omg god isn't real so dumb" then you're a dickface.


Good point. I guess it looks like I've been on Memebase too long; I must adjust to the improved quality of debate on UG. Please continue discussing