Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs [Archive] - Page 4

Blake

10-31-2014, 05:27 PM

1. In practicality, they shouldn't have to. In practicality, they should be respectful of others beliefs. In reality, that is not the case. If there is an attempt to ridicule another for their beliefs, should they not provide their own proofs to justify such an act? There are many proofs of atheists ridiculing religion and theism in general. Flying Spaghetti monster is an obvious slap in the face to those who believe in God. Atheists claim that they cannot trust a religion because of how religion can treat people. Are the atheists not doing the same? If theists can be held responsible for their actions by atheists, shouldn't atheists be held responsible for their actions by theists as well?

there are plenty of examples of Christians ridiculing atheists, but the ridicule is irrelevant.

What is relevant is when Christians try to push their Bible morals and beliefs into the public domain and the debate at "....because God says so".

That's a problem.

2. I already said that I am no expert in geometric time, or physics for that matter. The points I found were in the way the video explained it to me. If you have anything to add or respond in addition to the video, I would be more than willing to listen as I am not confident in my grasp of the subject.

So you don't really know what the good points are; only that they're somewhere in that hour and a half long YouTube.

K.

spurraider21

10-31-2014, 05:36 PM

xmas1997

10-31-2014, 05:38 PM

xellos88330

10-31-2014, 05:44 PM

there are plenty of examples of Christians ridiculing atheists, but the ridicule is irrelevant.

What is relevant is when Christians try to push their Bible morals and beliefs into the public domain and the debate at "....because God says so".

That's a problem.

So you don't really know what the good points are; only that they're somewhere in that hour and a half long YouTube.

K.

1. I have a school of 1000 kids. Of those kids only 5 are atheist. So 995 of the kids should do without their beliefs because of the beliefs of 5? In what universe does that make logical sense? Why don't the atheists instead make their own schools and learn within the environment that they see as acceptable. They are certainly free to do that.

2. I have provided you the paper and the video with the points of the person who DOES know the subject as he is more qualified than myself (it is also not my personal revalation so I take no credit from it). Apparently, my incapability to explain it myself makes the entire segment on geometric time irrelevant. Because logic my ass.

xmas1997

10-31-2014, 05:47 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

10-31-2014, 05:51 PM

Yet you can provide no evidence of your own that it can't. In fact, there is evidence of underground water on Mars. Water is essential to life as we know it. Wouldn't an atheist choose to follow the evidence and not say anything until they found out for fact that it doesn't?

The answer is no. It is just too much fun and feeds their ego because they are "insignificant". It is a way for them to differentiate themselves and stand out from the crowd. Atheism just seems like a way to toss ones own salad.

Could your God be a multidimensional being? Sure but that kinda misses the point of the last 300 years.

I don't know if there is a more perfect example of moving the goalposts.

I won't say negate with certainty but when it comes down to proselytizing and attempts at social control, I think that is a different matter.

If you are right though then I do think it likely that your god would not be the only one. Why would there only be one creature of light?

xellos88330

10-31-2014, 05:57 PM

Could your God be a multidimensional being? Sure but that kinda misses the point of the last 300 years.

I don't know if there is a more perfect example of moving the goalposts.

I won't say negate with certainty but when it comes down to proselytizing and attempts at social control, I think that is a different matter.

If you are right though then I do think it likely that your god would not be the only one. Why would there only be one creature of light?

Christians believe in the existence of angels as well which also exist within the realm of God. There isn't one creature of light, but there is one greater than the others.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-31-2014, 06:03 PM

Christians believe in the existence of angels as well which also exist within the realm of God. There isn't one creature of light, but there is one greater than the others.

Yeah but that is not a limiting factor. If there are extradimensional beings influencing humans then I think it likely many of the other accounts of God from other regions of the world are equally as valid as yours.

What do I say to the Muslim or the Sikh? Both of your Gods make claims that are mutually exclusive.

If we are proxies then I don't know if I like that arrangement.

xmas1997

10-31-2014, 06:05 PM

Christians believe in the existence of angels as well which also exist within the realm of God. There isn't one creature of light, but there is one greater than the others.

I guess you are aware you are talking to a stone wall.

And most of them are dumber than a bag of rocks when it comes to this subject.

:lmao

Chinook

10-31-2014, 06:11 PM

Well you have now joined Darrin in sophist piece of shit land. Winehole will be pleased.

You're the one who used fallacious methods. I said, "look it up" the whole time. Had you done so when I told you to, you would have been able to make this (poor) counterargument a lot sooner.

Let's recap this 'categorical' debate:

-You said that I had a categorical imperative, supposedly meaning that I had a mandate to put things in categories.
-I said that that's not what CI meant.

-You acted like a bitch and didn't look it up, saying that 'categorical' meant "of categories" and that your idea of the CI was correct.
-I refuted that by demonstrating that a dictionary says that it means absolute, and that Kant's own words support that usage.

-You said that 'categorical' was translated from German, meaning that it was used in the way you think it was.
-I showed that the German word Kant used means, "absolute."

-You argued that Kant was borrowing from Aristotle, and that as a result, 'categorical' meant what it did back in Greek times.
-I showed categorical meant "absolute" even back then.

-You found a sub definition that says it can also mean "of categories" and are trying to claim victory.

Where did we start again? Does you sub definition mean that your original use of "categorical imperative" was correct? Does it mean that Kant was off his rocker to call his universal morality the "categorical imperative"?

No. Hell no, even. I'll admit to trolling a bit by telling you to read a dictionary when I knew what the result would be. This might be a strange concept to you, but I don't tell someone to research a topic without me also researching it. I never sit there and exclude the possibility of me being wrong or off base. I knew 'categorical' had a sub definition just like I know Wikipedia says that mathematicians use infinity like a number. But I also knew what 'categorical's main definition was and the way Kant used it in the CI. And I knew that infinity is considered a concept even by mathematicians despite getting treated as a number. Funny thing happens when you do research: You see multiple sides to issues. But you were significantly less honest in that you are trying to change this around to make it fit your original stance. The CI has nothing to do with "boxes" (which is definitely the second most stupid rabbit hole you went down).

Your intellectual cowardice is impressive.

Anyway that quote there is to your rejoinder after you dodged for 5 days. Are you really going to strut with TSA and m>s? You're a bigger douche than I thought.

It's actually pretty funny, because everyone here seems to put you in the worst-poster category. I'm glad you're giving up the ghost on this one, though. You've more than run your course.

xellos88330

10-31-2014, 06:15 PM

Yeah but that is not a limiting factor. If there are extradimensional beings influencing humans then I think it likely many of the other accounts of God from other regions of the world are equally as valid as yours.

What do I say to the Muslim or the Sikh? Both of your Gods make claims that are mutually exclusive.

If we are proxies then I don't know if I like that arrangement.

Unless I am mistaken, I do believe that the existence of angels is within the Qu'ran. I don't think this is true with Sikhism. Actually I think that Sikhism doesn't have a heaven or a hell thus giving God no place to reside except for the Earth.

It isn't that I reject the other faiths altogether. I like to think that there are kernels of truth in each one which could lead us to a better life. Compared to the other holy scriptures of other religions, the Bible has far more information. This could be a reason why Christianity is the most dominant faith.

xmas1997

10-31-2014, 06:31 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

10-31-2014, 06:43 PM

You're the one who used fallacious methods. I said, "look it up" the whole time. Had you done so when I told you to, you would have been able to make this (poor) counterargument a lot sooner.

Let's recap this 'categorical' debate:

-You said that I had a categorical imperative, supposedly meaning that I had a mandate to put things in categories.
-I said that that's not what CI meant.

-You acted like a bitch and didn't look it up, saying that 'categorical' meant "of categories" and that your idea of the CI was correct.
-I refuted that by demonstrating that a dictionary says that it means absolute, and that Kant's own words support that usage.

-You said that 'categorical' was translated from German, meaning that it was used in the way you think it was.
-I showed that the German word Kant used means, "absolute."

-You argued that Kant was borrowing from Aristotle, and that as a result, 'categorical' meant what it did back in Greek times.
-I showed categorical meant "absolute" even back then.

-You found a sub definition that says it can also mean "of categories" and are trying to claim victory.

Where did we start again? Does you sub definition mean that your original use of "categorical imperative" was correct? Does it mean that Kant was off his rocker to call his universal morality the "categorical imperative"?

No. Hell no, even. I'll admit to trolling a bit by telling you to read a dictionary when I knew what the result would be. This might be a strange concept to you, but I don't tell someone to research a topic without me also researching it. I never sit there and exclude the possibility of me being wrong or off base. I knew 'categorical' had a sub definition just like I know Wikipedia says that mathematicians use infinity like a number. But I also knew what 'categorical's main definition was and the way Kant used it in the CI. And I knew that infinity is considered a concept even by mathematicians despite getting treated as a number. Funny thing happens when you do research: You see multiple sides to issues. But you were significantly less honest in that you are trying to change this around to make it fit your original stance. The CI has nothing to do with "boxes" (which is definitely the second most stupid rabbit hole you went down).

It's actually pretty funny, because everyone here seems to put you in the worst-poster category. I'm glad you're giving up the ghost on this one, though. You've more than run your course.

Oh nice you came back for more.

:lol bolded for cowardice

It's not my fault that you cannot keep up with the argument. I will now quote the same fucking quote that I have been saying for two days now and that somehow is not considered in the above yet subsumes all of it.

You just are not on the level and can only say negations and google basic definitions. Google came up with "true regardless of circumstance" and to me that sounds just like "universal truth" which sounds an awful like Platonic forms and Aristotelian categories. It's in the fucking name for fuck's sake. What do not mutually exclusive mean? Funny how things come full circle nonetheless your assertions.

Since you did the asinine line by line I can quote your direct rebuttal:

The hell? So it turns out you did Google 'categorical', saw that it didn't mean, "of categories" and are now trying to claim that it's wrong and you're right because ... what? Kant argued that there is such a thing as objective morality, but his only example is so weak that no one even cites it. I'm sorry that you keep trying to revive it by incorrectly using the term 'categorical imperative', but it's never meant what you think it means.

You really are a piece of shit.

xmas1997

10-31-2014, 06:50 PM

^^^ See what I mean? ^^^ His last sentence pretty much sums up the essence of his whole pseudo-debate tactics!

:lmao

FuzzyLumpkins

10-31-2014, 07:09 PM

Unless I am mistaken, I do believe that the existence of angels is within the Qu'ran. I don't think this is true with Sikhism. Actually I think that Sikhism doesn't have a heaven or a hell thus giving God no place to reside except for the Earth.

It isn't that I reject the other faiths altogether. I like to think that there are kernels of truth in each one which could lead us to a better life. Compared to the other holy scriptures of other religions, the Bible has far more information. This could be a reason why Christianity is the most dominant faith.

Sharia law doesn't have the same live and let live attitude. That authoritarian nonsense from the monotheistic orders is often directly exclusionary. Muslims do not buy your notions of salvation through Jesus for example.

All you have done to this point is made the argument against atheism as a certainty. I agree with you there but you have not affirmed the positive. I am just entertaining the thought that you could be right.

I think the better question -because I personally think that religion has much more to do with the human will to power than it does with an extra-dimensional being- is 'From what does the authority of god derive?' Why should we listen you about what 'god' means and not the Levites or the Salafists?

FuzzyLumpkins

10-31-2014, 07:12 PM

This message is hidden because xmas1997 is on your ignore list.

You are going to have to get on another account if you want to talk to me.

xmas1997

10-31-2014, 07:15 PM

I am quite content not to have to.

Baam

10-31-2014, 07:38 PM

xellos88330

10-31-2014, 07:47 PM

Sharia law doesn't have the same live and let live attitude. That authoritarian nonsense from the monotheistic orders is often directly exclusionary. Muslims do not buy your notions of salvation through Jesus for example.

All you have done to this point is made the argument against atheism as a certainty. I agree with you there but you have not affirmed the positive. I am just entertaining the thought that you could be right.

I think the better question -because I personally think that religion has much more to do with the human will to power than it does with an extra-dimensional being- is 'From what does the authority of god derive?' Why should we listen you about what 'god' means and not the Levites or the Salafists?

To add onto the previous poster, Jesus seems to be mentioned more times than the Muhammed. It is also my understanding that they believe Muhammed to be the seal of all the prophets combined. I think they believe that Jesus was only meant to be a prophet to his own people. Mainly the Jews.

This however means that Muhammed did have some teachings of Christ. Because Jesus helped to indirectly teach Muhammed, he is owed reverence according to the Qu'ran because they are taught to love all the prophets. Take this with a grain of salt as I am in no way affiliated with the Muslim faith and could very well be wrong. It is simply my basic understanding.

xmas1997

10-31-2014, 07:50 PM

To add onto the previous poster, Jesus seems to be mentioned more times than the Muhammed.

However Jesus preached love and forgiveness, not beheadings.

xellos88330

10-31-2014, 07:58 PM

However Jesus preached love and forgiveness, not beheadings.

Jesus did. The Qu'ran also teaches those same things. The only reason why Christianity and Islam have trouble these days is because of the spice trade in the time of the crusades. The greed of those in power wished to posses the wealth of the spice trade. To hide their own greed, they used the Christian faith to incite the people to take up arms and die for their greed. We are still paying the price for it to this day. Had the crusades never happened, I do not doubt that there would be such animosity between the two religions. As far as the hatred for the Jews, the Islamic people were persecuted by them.

Osama Bin Laden was hailed as a hero of Islam as well as his Mujahadeen. When Saudi Arabia was threatened by Iraq, he offered his assistance to protect the land from the aggressor. The Saudi government turned him away and instead chose to use the Western coalition. This could easily have shamed Osama and he declared a jihaad inciting the people under religion to accomplish his own selfish goals.

xmas1997

10-31-2014, 08:01 PM

Jesus did. The Qu'ran also teaches those same things. The only reason why Christianity and Islam have trouble these days is because of the spice trade in the time of the crusades. The greed of those in power wished to posses the wealth of the spice trade. To hide their own greed, they used the Christian faith to incite the people to take up arms and die for their greed. We are still paying the price for it to this day. Had the crusades never happened, I do not doubt that there would be such animosity between the two religions. As far as the hatred for the Jews, the Islamic people were persecuted by them.

And to think, even the Israelis were none other than another Arab tribe. And all of these Arab tribes have been at war over desert like land all through the ages under the guise of religion.

xellos88330

10-31-2014, 08:02 PM

And to think, even the Israelis were none other than another Arab tribe. And all of these Arab tribes have been at war over desert like land all through the ages under the guise of religion.

Yep. It sucks, but the truth often does.

Chinook

10-31-2014, 08:15 PM

:lol bolded for cowardice

So cowardly of me to admit that part of my argument is weak. Totally not as brave as you continuing to lie about your understanding of 'categorical'.

It's not my fault that you cannot keep up with the argument. I will now quote the same fucking quote that I have been saying for two days now and that somehow is not considered in the above yet subsumes all of it.

Sorry, I didn't say it there. I responded to the rest of your post. But sure, I can address it again. First, I still don't know why you keep bringing up mutual exclusivity. Second, I said why Kant's view of 'categorical' could be in line with those Greek philosophers, because 'categorical' as "absolute" is part of Greek just like it is in German and English. Third, don't get it twisted. 'Categorical' is related to 'categories' and has been for years. No one's arguing that. However, that doesn't mean that 'categorical imperative' means "an imperative to categorize". It doesn't, and you won't find any reliable source that suggests that. Everything else you've been doing has been trying to justify that belief. Your quote just confirms that.

xellos88330

10-31-2014, 08:18 PM

Water doesn't guarantee life. It might be a necessary condition but that's different from being a sufficient condition

You mock the very scientific method you use to refute all theism. If you cannot take your process seriously, you have zero right to use it to refute those that are genuinely working the process. Of course we cannot say "because there is water, there is life on mars" as only one of the conditions have thus far been met. So why keep looking there? Simple... that is only a piece to the puzzle of extraterrestrial life and we continue to look for new pieces.

xmas1997

10-31-2014, 08:30 PM

So cowardly of me to admit that part of my argument is weak. Totally not as brave as you continuing to lie about your understanding of 'categorical'.

Sorry, I didn't say it there. I responded to the rest of your post. But sure, I can address it again. First, I still don't know why you keep bringing up mutual exclusivity. Second, I said why Kant's view of 'categorical' could be in line with those Greek philosophers, because 'categorical' as "absolute" is part of Greek just like it is in German and English. Third, don't get it twisted. 'Categorical' is related to 'categories' and has been for years. No one's arguing that. However, that doesn't mean that 'categorical imperative' means "an imperative to categorize". It doesn't, and you won't find any reliable source that suggests that. Everything else you've been doing has been trying to justify that belief. Your quote just confirms that.

Problems with "categorical" similar to problems I had with a few when I said a certain religious book was written in an allegorical style of writing common back then, but not so much nowadays.

Some here still wanted to pin me down to a "black or white" definition rather than see most of the gray.

spurraider21

10-31-2014, 08:59 PM

You mock the very scientific method you use to refute all theism. If you cannot take your process seriously, you have zero right to use it to refute those that are genuinely working the process. Of course we cannot say "because there is water, there is life on mars" as only one of the conditions have thus far been met. So why keep looking there? Simple... that is only a piece to the puzzle of extraterrestrial life and we continue to look for new pieces.
if a scientist right now said "there is life on mars! i found water, therefore there is life" he'd be mocked in the scientific community. i never said we should stop looking, but it would be an extraordinary claim to make

xellos88330

10-31-2014, 09:02 PM

if a scientist right now said "there is life on mars! i found water, therefore there is life" he'd be mocked in the scientific community. i never said we should stop looking, but it would be an extraordinary claim to make

So it is wrong to form a hypothesis that life exists on Mars based on evidence gathered.

That is all that statement is. A hypothesis, it has yet to be proven.

Since you mock the hypothesis, you are mocking the process.

spurraider21

10-31-2014, 09:23 PM

So it is wrong to form a hypothesis that life exists on Mars based on evidence gathered.

That is all that statement is. A hypothesis, it has yet to be proven.

Since you mock the hypothesis, you are mocking the process.
it's not wrong to form a hypothesis. the hypothesis needs to be tested before it becomes accepted. THAT is the scientific method.

merely saying "there is water" is not sufficient in demonstrating life. perhaps a sample, a fossil, even some complex organic molecules. something

xellos88330

10-31-2014, 09:53 PM

it's not wrong to form a hypothesis. the hypothesis needs to be tested before it becomes accepted. THAT is the scientific method.

merely saying "there is water" is not sufficient in demonstrating life. perhaps a sample, a fossil, even some complex organic molecules. something

1. Ask a question.
2. Do background research.
3. FORM A HYPOTHESIS
4. Test the hypothesis
5. Analyze and conclude
6. Communicate results

This is the scientific method. I reject your description of the scientific method. You sir are mocking the process of scientific method.

xellos88330

10-31-2014, 10:59 PM

Quoted myself....

FuzzyLumpkins

10-31-2014, 11:42 PM

So cowardly of me to admit that part of my argument is weak.

So you think that saying:

I'll admit to trolling a bit by telling you to read a dictionary when I knew what the result would be.

Means that? You are a cowardly piece of shit because you dissemble as a matter of course. Example from the previous post:

You didn't look up 'categorical', did you? 'Category' may mean whatever it does in whatever language, but 'categorical' doesn't mean "of categories" in English.

and then of course you go further:

The hell? So it turns out you did Google 'categorical', saw that it didn't mean, "of categories" and are now trying to claim that it's wrong and you're right because ... what?

So you knew that I looked it up but you knew that I didn't.

You knew the word didn't mean 'of categories' but you really did and were just trolling.

You are a deceitful piece of shit. There really is not two ways about it. When its put in your face you dissemble more like your alter ego, xmas.

:lol claiming to have 3 degrees when you're getting your ass handed to you

FuzzyLumpkins

10-31-2014, 11:52 PM

1. Ask a question.
2. Do background research.
3. FORM A HYPOTHESIS
4. Test the hypothesis
5. Analyze and conclude
6. Communicate results

This is the scientific method. I reject your description of the scientific method. You sir are mocking the process of scientific method.

Let me know how you intend on experimenting the existence of God. Making untestable hypothesis and passing it off as science is fun I guess.

TheSanityAnnex

11-01-2014, 02:08 AM

So you think that saying:

Means that? You are a cowardly piece of shit because you dissemble as a matter of course. Example from the previous post:

and then of course you go further:

So you knew that I looked it up but you knew that I didn't.

You knew the word didn't mean 'of categories' but you really did and were just trolling.

You are a deceitful piece of shit. There really is not two ways about it. When its put in your face you dissemble more like your alter ego, xmas.

:lol claiming to have 3 degrees when you're getting your ass handed to you

It is clear you should have prepared for this internet argument more.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 04:15 AM

It is clear you should have prepared for this internet argument more.

The peanut gallery is great. None of you guys ever have anything constructive to say. I get that I am cynic myself but you guys guys are a bunch of nihilist dimwits. Talk about guns or how minorities are responsible for crime then fuck yeah but don't you dare try and talk smart. A true tribute to the stupid.

There are three of you lackwits that chimed in on the categories debate before I finally had to post the what was to me very obvious in the actual definition of the word. You people's reading skills suck.

When I was in kindergarten our teacher had these screw cabinets that they put all the various suffix's and prefix's into and that is how I learned how to learn words. That was the first time I remember learning about the specific subject at hand.

I'm just writing what comes to mind for the most part. I can talk about asymptotes and convolution all day too. I picked that up in college.

At the end, how can you really say that considering how you spend your time at the political forum? You are one to often cite articles that you don't understand or where the headline mislead you as to content as you spam your google/email/fb/rss.

Th'Pusher

11-01-2014, 09:41 AM

Blake

11-01-2014, 10:06 AM

1. I have a school of 1000 kids. Of those kids only 5 are atheist. So 995 of the kids should do without their beliefs because of the beliefs of 5? In what universe does that make logical sense? Why don't the atheists instead make their own schools and learn within the environment that they see as acceptable. They are certainly free to do that.

nobody is saying the 995 shouldn't do without their beliefs. In this example, I'm just saying the 995 need to keep their beliefs out of the public school curriculum.

What if your Christian kid was one of the five in the 1000 kid public school where the Muslim teacher told everyone to pray to Allah each morning?

2. I have provided you the paper and the video with the points of the person who DOES know the subject as he is more qualified than myself (it is also not my personal revalation so I take no credit from it). Apparently, my incapability to explain it myself makes the entire segment on geometric time irrelevant. Because logic my ass.

You're not even giving the time mark where he might be discussing the points you find riveting.

It's illogical to expect anyone to sit through an hour and a half YouTube to try to find them.

xellos88330

11-01-2014, 10:08 AM

Let me know how you intend on experimenting the existence of God. Making untestable hypothesis and passing it off as science is fun I guess.

If you watched that video I posted, you can see that there are theists that are currently trying to test or develop tests to test such a hypothesis. I guess making assumptions that the existence of God will never be able to be tested is fun I guess.

xellos88330

11-01-2014, 10:11 AM

nobody is saying the 995 shouldn't do without their beliefs. In this example, I'm just saying the 995 need to keep their beliefs out of the public school curriculum.

What if your Christian kid was one of the five in the 1000 kid public school where the Muslim teacher told everyone to pray to Allah each morning?

You're not even giving the time mark where he might be discussing the points you find riveting.

It's illogical to expect anyone to sit through an hour and a half YouTube to try to find them.

1. It is the same as the answer above. I would send my child to a Christian school as there are many Christian schools available. I also wouldn't really mind sending my child to a Muslim school. It is a great opportunity to learn and understand a different faith. My child will become educated in the beliefs of another faith and will learn how to treat them with respect and love without any bias.

2. It is around the 1 hour and 7 minute mark. It is also illogical to debate without hearing the entire argument. I also wonder how you can have time to debate for pages, but not have time to sit through an hour and a half youtube video.

Blake

11-01-2014, 11:03 AM

If you watched that video I posted, you can see that there are theists that are currently trying to test or develop tests to test such a hypothesis. I guess making assumptions that the existence of God will never be able to be tested is fun I guess.

How exactly are they trying to test the existence of god?

Sounds like he's just feeding sheep some garbage to eat up

Blake

11-01-2014, 11:07 AM

1. It is the same as the answer above. I would send my child to a Christian school as there are many Christian schools available. I also wouldn't really mind sending my child to a Muslim school. It is a great opportunity to learn and understand a different faith. My child will become educated in the beliefs of another faith and will learn how to treat them with respect and love without any bias.

I said "public school"

2. It is around the 1 hour and 7 minute mark. It is also illogical to debate without hearing the entire argument. I also wonder how you can have time to debate for pages, but not have time to sit through an hour and a half youtube video.

It's taking me +/- 20 seconds to read your post and type a response.

if you don't want to discuss your YouTube, what makes you think anyone else wants to do it for you?

xellos88330

11-01-2014, 11:19 AM

How exactly are they trying to test the existence of god?

The beginning of the universe is being tested. God created the universe. Since everything in the universe is being tested, every test is testing God.

Sounds like he's just feeding sheep some garbage to eat up

I knew this would be the reaction. Hence why I was so adamant that you watch the video in it's entirety.

xellos88330

11-01-2014, 11:23 AM

I said "public school"

I also stated that I wouldn't mind sending my child to a Muslim school.

It's taking me +/- 20 seconds to read your post and type a response.

if you don't want to discuss your YouTube, what makes you think anyone else wants to do it for you?

Since you are reading all of my posts, I also sent the pdf of geometric time. You clearly have time to read don't you? Or should I just compile it into a picture for you.

Blake

11-01-2014, 11:28 AM

The beginning of the universe is being tested. God created the universe. Since everything in the universe is being tested, every test is testing God.

there's not one test out there that will ever be able to test the existence of God.

"ah damn.....you guys found me finally"

I knew this would be the reaction. Hence why I was so adamant that you watch the video in it's entirety.

sorry but nobody is going to discuss your video for you.

Blake

11-01-2014, 12:36 PM

I also stated that I wouldn't mind sending my child to a Muslim school.

Well your 995 to 5 ratio only matters in a public school setting, not the private school.

You do understand the difference between private and public schools?

Since you are reading all of my posts, I also sent the pdf of geometric time. You clearly have time to read don't you? Or should I just compile it into a picture for you.

make a direct argument based on your pdf. I don't want to spend time guessing what your argument is.

xmas1997

11-01-2014, 01:21 PM

I also stated that I wouldn't mind sending my child to a Muslim school.
Since you are reading all of my posts, I also sent the pdf of geometric time. You clearly have time to read don't you? Or should I just compile it into a picture for you.

You do realize you are arguing, not debating, with blake and fuzzy, don't you?

Neither one has any interest in debating, never did and never will.

Their sole interest is to make fun of you and ridicule your beliefs i.e. troll you, that is their MO on here and nothing else.

You should just ignore any reply from either of them because that is the sum total of what in essence they are doing to you and to chinook, or any of us for that matter.

And you will never convince them of anything, it would be easier to convince chump is wrong about something! :lol

However if you want a fun competent informative substantive debate, then pick someone like chinook or a few others like spurraider.

They have definite views that are different than yours and will concede points that they logically see when seen and make others as long as you remain open minded.

xellos88330

11-01-2014, 01:56 PM

Well your 995 to 5 ratio only matters in a public school setting, not the private school.

You do understand the difference between private and public schools?

make a direct argument based on your pdf. I don't want to spend time guessing what your argument is.

1. Public school is only an option. You understand what an option is right? It does not matter if it is public, private or home. School is school. If public schools were Muslim, I wouldn't care. If private schools were Muslim, I still wouldn't care. Is exploring the options available to you really that hard to do? My argument isn't confined to just a public school. It is based on school in general. If the children were in a private school with one dominant religion, wouldn't the circumstances still be the same? You still have a 5 children who are of a minority faith or belief.

2. The argument is that there are limits to how time functions in our linear timeline. You cannot reverse and it doesn't repeat, has beginning and has end as space time theorums indicate. This requires some kind of cause. In geometric time, there is no beginning and there is no end. The necessity of creation no longer exists within the dimensions of geometric time as unlike our universe, things do not require a cause to exist. Therefore God could dwell within geometric time and affect the physical universe as we know it. That is the argument Dr. Ross was making using scientific evidences to explain how God could exist before the big bang and not require creation himself.

xellos88330

11-01-2014, 01:59 PM

You do realize you are arguing, not debating, with blake and fuzzy, don't you?

Neither one has any interest in debating, never did and never will.

Their sole interest is to make fun of you and ridicule your beliefs i.e. troll you, that is their MO on here and nothing else.

You should just ignore any reply from either of them because that is the sum total of what in essence they are doing to you and to chinook, or any of us for that matter.

And you will never convince them of anything, it would be easier to convince chump is wrong about something! :lol

However if you want a fun competent informative substantive debate, then pick someone like chinook or a few others like spurraider.

They have definite views that are different than yours and will concede points that they logically see when seen and make others as long as you remain open minded.

I understand what you are saying, but I actually do enjoy this kind of thing. It is almost like a morning cup of coffee for me.

xmas1997

11-01-2014, 02:08 PM

I understand what you are saying, but I actually do enjoy this kind of thing. It is almost like a morning cup of coffee for me.

Then I understand where you're coming from.

I do the same thing on here.

And I love slinging the shit back in chumps, blakes, and others faces, when they try to sling shit at me and others.

Blake

11-01-2014, 02:34 PM

1. Public school is only an option. You understand what an option is right? It does not matter if it is public, private or home. School is school. If public schools were Muslim, I wouldn't care. If private schools were Muslim, I still wouldn't care. Is exploring the options available to you really that hard to do? My argument isn't confined to just a public school. It is based on school in general. If the children were in a private school with one dominant religion, wouldn't the circumstances still be the same? You still have a 5 children who are of a minority faith or belief.

Wow. You really don't understand the difference between public and private schools and what you legally can and can't do as far as religion goes.

And no, private school isn't an option for everyone.

2. The argument is that there are limits to how time functions in our linear timeline. You cannot reverse and it doesn't repeat, has beginning and has end as space time theorums indicate. This requires some kind of cause. In geometric time, there is no beginning and there is no end. The necessity of creation no longer exists within the dimensions of geometric time as unlike our universe, things do not require a cause to exist. Therefore God could dwell within geometric time and affect the physical universe as we know it. That is the argument Dr. Ross was making using scientific evidences to explain how God could exist before the big bang and not require creation himself.

meh. That's just him making up his own idea of what happened before the big bang.

And his idea has no more merit than me saying spaghetti monster was there before the big bang.

Nothing to debate there.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 03:18 PM

If you watched that video I posted, you can see that there are theists that are currently trying to test or develop tests to test such a hypothesis. I guess making assumptions that the existence of God will never be able to be tested is fun I guess.

You like to put the cart before the horse. Trying is fine but it's what makes you different from empirical science.

xellos88330

11-01-2014, 03:19 PM

Wow. You really don't understand the difference between public and private schools and what you legally can and can't do as far as religion goes.

And no, private school isn't an option for everyone.

meh. That's just him making up his own idea of what happened before the big bang.

And his idea has no more merit than me saying spaghetti monster was there before the big bang.

Nothing to debate there.

1. You can't be serious. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to prove that you cannot face facts and try to make an argument of private vs. public to attack my credibility on the matter? I am a parent and have to have a clue on how the education system works. If that isn't enough to satisfy your ignorance, both of my parents are educators. Still not enough? 3 of my siblings are educators. Still not enough? 2 of my aunts are educators. Still not enough? Their parents were educators.

I admire them all even more for having to deal with this kind of smugness face to face.

2. Once again, that is why you should watch the entire video to see how the conclusion is formed. It is ok though. Keep being an atheist sheep and blind yourself to scientific evidence all for the sake of popularity and a small taste of significance. Wait, atheists love science. Well, I am not sure what the hell kind of sheep you would be. Maybe you would be a spaghetti monster.

mouse

11-01-2014, 03:23 PM

i never said we should stop looking, but it would be an extraordinary claim to make

And then what?

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 03:26 PM

I understand what you are saying, but I actually do enjoy this kind of thing. It is almost like a morning cup of coffee for me.

You do see how I treat you like a normal person and completely different than them I hope. It should be obvious that I treated Chinook the same way until he started going back and taking the double positions. I am fairly certain seeing how they're on each other's friends list that that xmas is chinook or they know each other irl. I am very hostile towards people that try deceit.

Notice how even in the 'x is trolling' discussion, xmas will take any and all positions available to argue logical consistency be damned. He will troll for days and then when people start getting banned start getting more frantic and doing 'I'm not trolling they are trolling."

Same thing with the defintion of category. Chinook at the end here claims he knew what the definition was the entire time and at the same time knew that I knew but for two days he was calling me an idiot and how I should look up categorical in the dictionary.

xellos88330

11-01-2014, 03:29 PM

You like to put the cart before the horse. Trying is fine but it's what makes you different from empirical science.

I am a rationalist by nature. I do not ignore empirical science though. I just do not want to jump to a conclusion when there is no empirical conclusion to the hypothesis of God exists.

Besides, empirical evidence is to be had by both sides of the hypothesis. And from my standpoint, I rationalize that the empirical evidence I have gathered thus far (either by my own experiences or those of another) leads to the answer of God existing. Hence the hypothesis of a universe created by God.

xellos88330

11-01-2014, 03:35 PM

rogues

11-01-2014, 03:58 PM

FuzzyLumpkins do you have a job or life outside SpursTalk, HuffingtonPost, reddit and 4chan, tbh?..We all know you're a 30+ year old pothead loser still living in momma's basement..I still don't get why you continue to come back to a thread that you got your ass handed to you in..have some dignity..whatever is left of it..go do something productive that benefits society, get laid, etc..

This thread is a train wreck, but the long and short of it appears to be that chinook has done some ridiculous mental gymnastics in order to justify his default belief in god, then claims that anybody that hasn't done that same "work" is lazy. Meh.
FuzzyLumpkins alter account bumping a thread 5 hours later after Fuzzy thought he owned Chinook and TSA in a weak shitty take about his learning of words in Kindergarten as if that somehow saves his ass..

Blake

11-01-2014, 04:01 PM

1. You can't be serious. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to prove that you cannot face facts and try to make an argument of private vs. public to attack my credibility on the matter? I am a parent and have to have a clue on how the education system works. If that isn't enough to satisfy your ignorance, both of my parents are educators. Still not enough? 3 of my siblings are educators. Still not enough? 2 of my aunts are educators. Still not enough? Their parents were educators.

I admire them all even more for having to deal with this kind of smugness face to face.

Well then you should ask them why it would be wrong for the 995 to push their religious views on the 5 non-religious kids in a public school .

It obviously would mean more coming from them than me.

....or you could Google it.

2. Once again, that is why you should watch the entire video to see how the conclusion is formed. It is ok though. Keep being an atheist sheep and blind yourself to scientific evidence all for the sake of popularity and a small taste of significance. Wait, atheists love science. Well, I am not sure what the hell kind of sheep you would be. Maybe you would be a spaghetti monster.

Or you could give a conclusion here instead of begging me to watch it.

Which I'm not going to. And neither is anyone else.

Blake

11-01-2014, 04:04 PM

FuzzyLumpkins do you have a job or life outside SpursTalk, HuffingtonPost, reddit and 4chan, tbh?..We all know you're a 30+ year old pothead loser still living in momma's basement..I still don't get why you continue to come back to a thread that you got your ass handed to you in..have some dignity..whatever is left of it..go do something productive that benefits society, get laid, etc..

FuzzyLumpkins alter account bumping a thread 5 hours later after Fuzzy thought he owned Chinook and TSA in a weak shitty take about his learning of words in Kindergarten as if that somehow saves his ass..

This post reeks of salt.

rogues

11-01-2014, 04:36 PM

This post reeks of salt.
Nah this one does..addressing a post out of nowhere that doesn't even concern you:lol..

Blake

11-01-2014, 04:45 PM

Nah this one does..addressing a post out of nowhere that doesn't even concern you:lol..

Oh you mean like how you came out of nowhere to talk about fuzzy.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 04:52 PM

FuzzyLumpkins do you have a job or life outside SpursTalk, HuffingtonPost, reddit and 4chan, tbh?..We all know you're a 30+ year old pothead loser still living in momma's basement..I still don't get why you continue to come back to a thread that you got your ass handed to you in..have some dignity..whatever is left of it..go do something productive that benefits society, get laid, etc..

FuzzyLumpkins alter account bumping a thread 5 hours later after Fuzzy thought he owned Chinook and TSA in a weak shitty take about his learning of words in Kindergarten as if that somehow saves his ass..

Nice story.

My parents are dead and I only have one account. I live where I live and I wasn't here for the gnsf bonanza. You have always struck me as white trash living in a trailer tbh.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 04:59 PM

The peanut gallery is great. None of you guys ever have anything constructive to say. I get that I am cynic myself but you guys guys are a bunch of nihilist dimwits. Talk about guns or how minorities are responsible for crime then fuck yeah but don't you dare try and talk smart. A true tribute to the stupid.

There are three of you lackwits that chimed in on the categories debate before I finally had to post the what was to me very obvious in the actual definition of the word. You people's reading skills suck.

When I was in kindergarten our teacher had these screw cabinets that they put all the various suffix's and prefix's into and that is how I learned how to learn words. That was the first time I remember learning about the specific subject at hand.

I'm just writing what comes to mind for the most part. I can talk about asymptotes and convolution all day too. I picked that up in college.

At the end, how can you really say that considering how you spend your time at the political forum? You are one to often cite articles that you don't understand or where the headline mislead you as to content as you spam your google/email/fb/rss.

This post reeks of salt.

There's the shaker. I guess he identified with who I was talking about.

rogues

11-01-2014, 04:59 PM

Oh you mean like how you came out of nowhere to talk about fuzzy.
I've been calling him out for his shit during the entire existence of this thread:lol..go back and read, you semen shielding cuck..

rogues

11-01-2014, 05:06 PM

Nice story.

My parents are dead and I only have one account. I live where I live and I wasn't here for the gnsf bonanza.
:wow So on top of living off government handouts, you also reap the benefit of living in dead mommeh and daddeh's home you pothead bum?..you're a bigger piece of shit than I thought, tbh..

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 05:06 PM

Oh you mean like how you came out of nowhere to talk about fuzzy.

He just didn't want to quote the post above or people would see it.

Schadenfreude is bad but this shit is too easy.

Blake

11-01-2014, 05:08 PM

I've been calling him out for his shit during the entire existence of this thread:lol..go back and read, you semen shielding cuck..

sure. carry on with your non-salty obsession with fuzzy.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 05:10 PM

:wow So on top of living off government handouts, you also reap the benefit of living in dead mommeh and daddeh's home you pothead bum?..you're a bigger piece of shit than I thought, tbh..

:lol so what point of that made you this mad? Let me know while it's fresh.

Was it the nihilist dimwit no construction? Minorities and guns? Poor reading skills? Spam posting?

Or was it the whole that was required?

rogues

11-01-2014, 05:13 PM

:lol I like how this faggot tried to avoid my criticism of his..too easy, tbh..

Oh shit, watch out his alt account has signed in to gather up with the other libtard semen shields..

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 05:24 PM

:lol I like how this faggot tried to avoid my criticism of his..too easy, tbh..

Oh shit, watch out his alt account has signed in to gather up with the other libtard semen shields..

That is because you are flailing. You are upset because I criticized you and are trying desperately to come up with something to try and hurt me. Why acknowledge it when you doing it makes you looks so desperate?

Did I hurt you?

rogues

11-01-2014, 05:32 PM

xellos88330

11-01-2014, 05:43 PM

Well then you should ask them why it would be wrong for the 995 to push their religious views on the 5 non-religious kids in a public school .

It obviously would mean more coming from them than me.

....or you could Google it.

The answer is simple. Prayer was removed from school in the 1960's. Look at the number of teenage pregnancies since then. Look at the number of rapes committed by teens. Look at the number of dropouts. Look at the number of kids shooting up schools. Look at society now. Since the numbers were steady pre prayer, it is only logical to conclude that the removal of prayer from school has a direct correlation with these circumstances.

Or you could give a conclusion here instead of begging me to watch it.

Which I'm not going to. And neither is anyone else.

LOL!!! Begging? You can't be serious. If you do see my instructing you to watch a video as "begging" you sir seem to have a slight case of megalomania. The video has information within that will present to you the scientific case for the existence of God. If I were to explain it, it might very well be beyond your capability to even understand. The video puts the evidence into words much more eloquently than I could. Since your own personal pride or laziness prevents you from expanding your knowledge of recent scientific developments, I reject any notion of you being a "high IQ" atheist who truly understands their views.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 05:44 PM

^pothead who arms his internet arguments with Google and Wikipedia going with the :cry "did I hurt you; you mad!" :cry Internet white flag, tbh..Big Dog, not around much anymore but still putting these libtards into the blender, tbh..

It's saturday and I am high as fuck, nazi. Does that make you mad too?

You seem to be a very angry person. Have you explored why it is that you are so angry all the time?

and that is another thing: your stealth posting and not quoting me after the bolded bnsf callout as you try and duck and dodge is weak as fuck, holmes.

You're dumb and angry at people that have nothing to do with your circumstance. Try some introspection, mental midget.

Blake

11-01-2014, 06:36 PM

The answer is simple. Prayer was removed from school in the 1960's. Look at the number of teenage pregnancies since then. Look at the number of rapes committed by teens. Look at the number of dropouts. Look at the number of kids shooting up schools. Look at society now. Since the numbers were steady pre prayer, it is only logical to conclude that the removal of prayer from school has a direct correlation with these circumstances.

Ask your family of educators what "moving the goalposts" means.

.....or you can google it.

The video has information within that will present to you the scientific case for the existence of God. If I were to explain it, it might very well be beyond your capability to even understand.

Right, that's why you're not explaining it.

Lol.

TeyshaBlue

11-01-2014, 07:19 PM

The answer is simple. Prayer was removed from school in the 1960's. Look at the number of teenage pregnancies since then. Look at the number of rapes committed by teens. Look at the number of dropouts. Look at the number of kids shooting up schools. Look at society now. Since the numbers were steady pre prayer, it is only logical to conclude that the removal of prayer from school has a direct correlation with these circumstances.

Really? I'd like to see the data points behind that conclusion. My bad. You bad you don't have any.
lol vacuum conclusions.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 08:35 PM

You knew the word didn't mean 'of categories' but you really did and were just trolling.

You are a deceitful piece of shit. There really is not two ways about it. When its put in your face you dissemble more like your alter ego, xmas.

It's not deceitful; it just at a trollish edge to it when you didn't do what you were supposed to. Your was wrong. I told you to look it up, expecting to you see the sub definition earlier. Finding that didn't make you right, since you were using 'categorical' in a context to which the sub definition doesn't apply. If your point was, "I can use 'categorical' because it can mean "of categories"," that would be one thing. However, your point was "'categorical imperative' means what I think it does because 'categorical' means "of categories". That's wrong and was easily refuted by looking the term up. I could have said, "Sure, 'categorical' CAN mean "of categories" in a limited number of cases, but it almost always means "absolute"." But what would that have done for the conversation? Your take was still wrong, for multiple reasons. Telling you about the sub definition (which you would have found out easily by looking it up when I said to) would have only made you think your understanding of the CI was correct.

:lol claiming to have 3 degrees when you're getting your ass handed to you

I have my degrees for better or worse. But I don't think you've done anything but try to spin your way out of the fact that you had no arguments and relied on your misunderstanding of other people to build your attack. Not particularly convinced you even know what you meant anymore.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 08:37 PM

This thread is a train wreck, but the long and short of it appears to be that chinook has done some ridiculous mental gymnastics in order to justify his default belief in god, then claims that anybody that hasn't done that same "work" is lazy. Meh.

Pretty much the exact critique atheists give for theists.

But I haven't done any gymnastics, since the last half of the thread has been Fuzzy going off like a top about stupid things and demanding I address them.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 08:53 PM

You do see how I treat you like a normal person and completely different than them I hope. It should be obvious that I treated Chinook the same way until he started going back and taking the double positions. I am fairly certain seeing how they're on each other's friends list that that xmas is chinook or they know each other irl. I am very hostile towards people that try deceit.

Bitch post, man. You tried to pop into a thread a while ago asking me the same questions I had answered from other posters and going off about the universe. I gave my response and you completely ignored it and repeated your argument. After a couple of rounds of that, I left you alone and didn't hear from you until this thread, where you rehashed those points. I told you the answers were in that previous thread, and you spent a few pages insisting that I give you them here. Eventually I did, but you apparently didn't see them and went about attaching arguments to me and telling me to defend them. I tried to explain that those arguments had nothing to do with what I was saying, but you kept demanding that I address them.

Same thing with the defintion of category. Chinook at the end here claims he knew what the definition was the entire time and at the same time knew that I knew but for two days he was calling me an idiot and how I should look up categorical in the dictionary.

Yes. I looked it up when you first used 'categorical imperative' wrongly. I wanted to make sure I wasn't mistaken before I called you out. That was a courtesy to you by not wanting to waste your time on a misunderstanding on my part. I don't tell people they're wrong unless I firmly believe they are. So I saw the sub definition and knew it didn't apply in this case, but I still checked multiple sources to make sure. I told you to look it up, which would have led to you all that sooner. Then you would have tried to tout the sub definition and we could have taken care of that right there. But you refused to, which was hilarious because I knew what you'd find.

Hell, you seem to have looked it up anyway, but only so far as typing it into Google and seeing the main definition. So you started arguing with me on the basis of etymology. Again, that was a wrong-headed attack, because it didn't validate your original point at all. You argued on a lot of bases, and they were all incorrect. It was hilarious to see that knowing that the sub definition was there, even though it didn't apply to this case.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 08:58 PM

It's not deceitful. You're take was wrong. I told you to look it up, expecting to you see the sub definition earlier. Finding that didn't make you right, since you were using 'categorical' in a context to which the sub definition doesn't apply. If your point was, "I can use 'categorical' because it can mean "of categories"," that would be one thing. However, your point was "'categorical imperative' means what I think it does because 'categorical' means "of categories". That's wrong and was easily refuted by looking the term up. I could have said, "Sure, 'categorical' CAN mean "of categories" in a limited number of cases, but it almost always means "absolute"." But what would that have done for the conversation? Your take was still wrong, for multiple reasons. Telling you about the sub definition (which you would have found out easily by looking it up when I said to) would have only made you think your understanding of the CI was correct.

I have my degrees for better or worse. But I don't think you've done anything but try to spin your way out of the fact that you had no arguments and relied on your misunderstanding of other people to build your attack. Not particularly convinced you even know what you meant anymore.

I gave you the definition of the second entry and told you a dictionary shouldn't be required to understand wtf a suffix means. I would then point out that the two definitions were not mutually exclusive considering it had been past down since Ari and the Greeks.

You repeatedly stated that category wasn't the adjective form of category and then produced categorized as the real definition and kept on telling me to look at a dictionary. That went on for two days until a few people chimed in that because I had not produced an alternate definition that I was wrong.

I put up the definition and now you are saying that you really meant my original argument that it was from the greek's and that it was the adjective.

So you go from

not adjective ----------------> I knew it was the adjective,
not the same as the greek form ----------------------> It's been the same word since ancient greek.
it doesn't say that it is the adjective of category in the dictionary look it up --------------------------> I know it said that in the dictionary.

It will also have to be for worse. As I stated before if you indeed do have a philosophy degree then your demonstrable knowledge of philosophy shows you didn't deserve it.

You have only a google search level knowledge of aquinas, kant, aristotle, descartes, and sartre; and it's obvious.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 09:09 PM

It's not deceitful; it just at a trollish edge to it when you didn't do what you were supposed to.

What do not mutually exclusive mean, dissembling prick?

While not all trolling is deceitful, it certainly does not preclude it. This is the same semantic gymnastics you were doing in the "it doesn't mean 'of categories' it means 'absolute' of whatever it was you googled up."

Your doing the same fucking thing again, sophist dissembling piece of shit.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 09:12 PM

I gave you the definition of the second entry and told you a dictionary shouldn't be required to understand wtf a suffix means. I would then point out that the two definitions were not mutually exclusive considering it had been past down since Ari and the Greeks.

It meant the same thing back then as well. But that wasn't the point. 'Categorical Imperative' doesn't mean "an imperative to put things into categories". It never meant that.

You repeatedly stated that category wasn't the adjective form of category and then produced categorized as the real definition and kept on telling me to look at a dictionary. That went on for two days until a few people chimed in that because I had not produced an alternate definition that I was wrong.

It's not really the adjectival form of 'category'. It's a possible form, but it's rarely used in that sense now, which is why that sub definition for 'categorical' is the sub definition and not even in some entries. Anyway, 'categorized'/'categorizing' made more sense for what you were talking about anyway, since you were talking about an imperative to put things into categories and not an imperative that was divided into categories (which is how that sub definition is used if you didn't look it up).

I put up the definition and now you are saying that you really meant my original argument that it was from the greek's and that it was the adjective.

Um, that's not what I said... I said that your initial point was wrong and the sub definition was nothing more than a weak loophole. You were arguing about a specific use of 'categorical'; therefore, you can't claim victory because the term can mean something else in another context.

not adjective ----------------> I knew it was the adjective,

It was always an adjective meaning "absolute, unchanging".

not the same as the greek form ----------------------> It's been the same word since ancient greek.

Never said it wasn't the same. I said that I didn't know/think Kant was borrowing from Aristotle. But yes, the term is that old, just like the 'testicle'/'testimony' split is older than their English uses.

it doesn't say that it is the adjective of category in the dictionary look it up --------------------------> I know it said that in the dictionary.

Pretty much the gray area of the whole thing. It means "of categories" in a limited range, but not in the range you were using. At best you were technically right but mainly wrong. You did misuse the term, though you could have used it correctly in a different context.

t will also have to be for worse. As I stated before if you indeed do have a philosophy degree then your demonstrable knowledge of philosophy shows you didn't deserve it.

:lol gonna come back with this when you still didn't know what the CI was. But wait, everything I learned was invalidated because I don't know what Thomas Aquinas thinks about this thread.

You have only a google search level knowledge of aquinas, kant, aristotle, descartes, and sartre; and it's obvious.

Yeah, because you not getting the point of Kant's moral philosophy really demonstrates how well you've grasped his work.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 09:18 PM

What do not mutually exclusive mean, dissembling prick?

Why the hell do you keep saying "do" when you should be saying "does"? It's getting annoying. I already said that it means two things don't overlap. Why do you keep bringing that up?

While not all trolling is deceitful, it certainly does not preclude it. This is the same semantic gymnastics you were doing in the "it doesn't mean 'of categories' it means 'absolute' of whatever it was you googled up."

Yeah, because that sub definition really validated your interpretation of Kant's work. That wasn't gymnastics. You were wrong and would have found that out easily had you just looked it up. Telling you to look something up is hardly deceitful, since you actually needed to do that.

Your doing the same fucking thing again, sophist dissembling piece of shit.

Not really. I'm already accepting that I was a little disingenuous. I could have told you what you wanted to hear, but that would not have made a difference to the point of the thread. You actually looking up the CI instead of thinking you knew/know what it means would have.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 09:22 PM

It meant the same thing back then as well. But that wasn't the point. 'Categorical Imperative' doesn't mean "an imperative to put things into categories". It never meant that.

It's not really the adjectival form of 'category'. It's a possible form, but it's rarely used in that sense now, which is why that sub definition for 'categorical' is the sub definition and not even in some entries. Anyway, 'categorized'/'categorizing' made more sense for what you were talking about anyway, since you were talking about an imperative to put things into categories and not an imperative that was divided into categories (which is how that sub definition is used if you didn't look it up).

Um, that's not what I said... I said that your initial point was wrong and the sub definition was nothing more than a weak loophole. You were arguing about a specific use of 'categorical'; therefore, you can't claim victory because the term can mean something else in another context.

It was always an adjective meaning "absolute, unchanging".

Never said it wasn't the same. I said that I didn't know/think Kant was borrowing from Aristotle. But yes, the term is that old, just like the 'testicle'/'testimony' split is older than their English uses.

Pretty much the gray area of the whole thing. It means "of categories" in a limited range, but not in the range you were using. At best you were technically right but mainly wrong. You did misuse the term, though you could have used it correctly in a different context.

:lol gonna come back with this when you still didn't know what the CI was. But wait, everything I learned was invalidated because I don't know what Thomas Aquinas thinks about this thread.

Yeah, because you not getting the point of Kant's moral philosophy really demonstrates how well you've grasped his work.

:lol grey area
:lol cannot remember aquinas was about infinity even after reminded
:lol philosophy degree
:lol verified on ST because you claimed it here before a few times.
:lol still don't know how to argue mutual exclusivity

Clipper Nation

11-01-2014, 09:25 PM

Goddamn, rogues just annihilating libtards left and right :wow

Chinook

11-01-2014, 09:26 PM

:lol grey area

:lol using British spellings to try to sound smart

:lol cannot remember aquinas was about infinity even after reminded

Never learned; never cared.

:lol philosophy degree

At this point, you've played both sides of this, so I have no idea what you're even laughing at here.

:lol verified on ST because you claimed it here before a few times.

Oh, so you're back to being skeptical. It's always been a "take it or leave it" sort of thing. I was just pointing out that I wasn't whipping that out for this thread.

:lol still don't know how to argue mutual exclusivity

Yeah, you've yet to say anything on this. I guess you mean that your term was right because the CI can mean something more than what Kant said?

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 09:38 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 09:40 PM

Yeah, because that sub definition really validated your interpretation of Kant's work.

What was my original interpretation?

As for the categorical imperative, you wikied the definition and posted it. The wrote entry about moral obligation. My response which you ignored was that you are describing the conclusion as used by Kant found from google where as I was talking about the process by which the conclusion was drawn. I have been trying to talk about categories that don't have basis in the objective world as meaningless for inferring characteristics to anything else. It comes to the very crux of the a priori debate; you cannot even acknowledge it yet I am clueless?

I have cited Nietzshes arguments here but let Fred speak for himself; its like he is speaking through time to you:

What is the antithesis of a theist? What he says about things need to "have truth within themselves" and not of what we make of them goes directly to what I have been talking about objective semantics. All you do is make up words without meaning: your boxes, boxboy.

You don't even argue this you just say that I don't know what I am talking about or that I cannot read or other flailing. You are a coward.

Indeed it did.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 09:51 PM

:lol philosophy degree

Chinook

11-01-2014, 09:51 PM

What was my original interpretation?

No. That was always wrong. Kant didn't use 'categorical' in that sense. He meant it contrast to 'hypothetical', hence why he also spoke about 'hypothetical imperatives'. The word his used was 'kategorischer', which means "flat(est)."

You also misunderstood Kantian dualism. It was a division between the real and perceived, not between extremes. You used the argument as an excuse to continue thinking that atheism and theism were on a continuum.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 09:55 PM

No. That was always wrong. Kant didn't use 'categorical' in that sense. He meant it contrast to 'hypothetical', hence why he also spoke about 'hypothetical imperatives'. The word his used was 'kategorischer', which means "flat(est)."

You also misunderstood Kantian dualism. It was a division between the real and perceived, not between extremes. You used the argument as an excuse to continue thinking that atheism and theism were on a continuum.

What do not mutually exclusive mean?

I didn't say it was on a continuum. What I said was that you have it as this binary bullshit and not even not on a continuum. You cannot even dumb it down anymore.

You want to discuss topology some more?

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 09:58 PM

No. That was always wrong. Kant didn't use 'categorical' in that sense. He meant it contrast to 'hypothetical', hence why he also spoke about 'hypothetical imperatives'. The word his used was 'kategorischer', which means "flat(est)."

You also misunderstood Kantian dualism. It was a division between the real and perceived, not between extremes. You used the argument as an excuse to continue thinking that atheism and theism were on a continuum.

Kant used virtues like humility; Aristotle used virtues like love and good. You are out of your depth Dr. Philosophy.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 10:00 PM

What do not mutually exclusive mean?

You gonna let me in on the joke, here? Kant didn't mean the term that way, nor did he base his philosophy on that. You have no room to claim CI means what you think. In fact:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/kategorisch&prev=search

German wiki on what 'kategorischer' means. No "of categories" there.

I didn't say it was on a continuum. What I said was that you have it as this binary bullshit and not even not on a continuum. You cannot even dumb it down anymore.

It is binary, because that's what the words mean. It doesn't make sense to put it on a continuum, just like it doesn't make sense to put 'aerobic' and 'anaerobic' on one. You've never once demonstrated why those two ideas are not complimentary.

You want to discuss topology some more?

Why would I want to do that? That was a stupid diversion which added nothing to the conversation.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 10:01 PM

Kant used virtues like humility; Aristotle used virtues like love and good. You are out of your depth Dr. Philosophy.

What does that have to do with anything? They both used 'virtues', so now they have to use all the same words? That's just stupid reasoning.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 10:03 PM

You gonna let me in on the joke, here? Kant didn't mean the term that way, nor did he base his philosophy on that. You have no room to claim CI means what you think. In fact:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/kategorisch&prev=search

German wiki on what 'kategorischer' means. No "of categories" there.

It is binary, because that's what the words mean. It doesn't make sense to put it on a continuum, just like it doesn't make sense to put 'aerobic' and 'anaerobic' on one. You've never once demonstrated why those two ideas are not complimentary.

Why would I want to do that? That was a stupid diversion which added nothing to the conversation.

We can define oxygen in terms of atomic mass and the like. Conflating an atom with your construct of a decision is fun I guess.

We are back where we started and I am not going to argue with an intellectually dishonest ass like yourself in good faith.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 10:04 PM

Here's another translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.thefreedictionary.com/kategorisch&prev=search

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 10:05 PM

What does that have to do with anything? They both used 'virtues', so now they have to use all the same words? That's just stupid reasoning.

You're pretty dumb. I overestimated your intelligence. You not understanding something does not make it stupid.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 10:05 PM

Here's another translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.thefreedictionary.com/kategorisch&prev=search

Go go with google doctorate of philosophy!

Chinook

11-01-2014, 10:06 PM

We can define oxygen in terms of atomic mass and the like. Conflating an atom with your construct of a decision is fun I guess.

We are back where we started and I am not going to argue with an intellectually dishonest ass like yourself in good faith.

Just admit you're wrong. Kant clearly didn't mean 'categorical' the way you did. There's no evidence for it. I've searched about ten German dictionary sites to find an example of it meaning "of categories", but I don't see one. If anything, it was the English translators that allowed this confusion, although only a few people like you misunderstood it.

Now all you can say do is lob an ad homenim because you lack evidence. Fun.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 10:07 PM

You're pretty dumb. I overestimated your intelligence. You not understanding something does not make it stupid.

No. Using poor reasoning does not make you smart. You need to bring something better than that if you want to argue Kant thought the way you assert he did.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 10:10 PM

A categorical imperative is an overriding moral obligation that has to be generalizable to every circumstance. It's actually such an unimportant concept that Kant (the dude who came up with it) said that only one can exist, and that was essentially just the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with categories.

It is actually amusing rereading this thread. Your sophistry as you lose track of the point is hilarious.

You just explained why the categorical imperative much like your antithesis paradigm was shitty.

What a dissembling ass.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 10:12 PM

Just admit you're wrong. Kant clearly didn't mean 'categorical' the way you did. There's no evidence for it. I've searched about ten German dictionary sites to find an example of it meaning "of categories", but I don't see one. If anything, it was the English translators that allowed this confusion, although only a few people like you misunderstood it.

Now all you can say do is lob an ad homenim because you lack evidence. Fun.

So wait just to be clear. You are now saying that it doesn't mean of categories in german? You are going waddle on over there?

:lol sophist piece of shit.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 10:15 PM

So wait just to be clear. You are now saying that it doesn't mean of categories in german? You are going waddle on over there?

:lol sophist piece of shit.

I'm posting sources saying that it doesn't. Unlike in our dictionary, there is no just sub definition. In fact, it seems the original Greek meaning of 'category' was essentially a direct statement, and Aristotle then used it to mean divisions on his own.

The point is that Kant apparently would have used a different word had he thought what you think he did.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 10:17 PM

It is actually amusing rereading this thread. Your sophistry as you lose track of the point is hilarious.

Yeah, because trying to bring up topology was totally you sticking to the point.

You just explained why the categorical imperative much like your antithesis paradigm was shitty.

Always said the CI was stupid. You've still yet to demonstrate why atheist and theists are not complimentary.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 10:17 PM

I'm posting sources saying that it doesn't. Unlike in our dictionary, there is no just sub definition. In fact, it seems the original Greek meaning of 'category' was essentially a direct statement, and Aristotle then used it to mean divisions on his own.

The point is that Kant apparently would have used a different word had he thought what you think he did.

Your posting the same thing as your degrees. Your german google skills will determine what it means for us definitively!

Fuck off.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 10:21 PM

Yeah, because trying to bring up topology was totally you sticking to the point.

Always said the CI was stupid. You've still yet to demonstrate why atheist and theists are not complimentary.

:lol even after the conversation we had you still don't get the relevance of topology?

Spectrum and binary are both topological notions dullard. And don't start talking about other meanings, boxboy. What do mutually exclusive mean.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 10:22 PM

Your posting the same thing as your degrees. Your german google skills will determine what it means for us definitively!

Fuck off.

Lol. That's you scurrying away.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-01-2014, 10:23 PM

Lol. That's you scurrying away.

No that is me stating that you have no shown what you claimed.

You are obviously attention whore and boring. Have a bad night.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 10:25 PM

:lol even after the conversation we had you still don't get the relevance of topology?

It was never relevant. It was just a rabbit hole.

Spectrum and binary are both topological notions dullard. And don't start talking about other meanings, boxboy. What do mutually exclusive mean.

Yeah, you keep saying, "What do mutually exclusive mean." without a hint of why you keep saying it.

Chinook

11-01-2014, 10:26 PM

No that is me stating that you have no shown what you claimed.

You are obviously attention whore and boring. Have a bad night.

You sure got me with that "bad night" thing.

You've yet to show that atheist and theist are not complimentary. You've yet to do anything besides trying to hide behind people who are smarter than you (while misinterpreting their work) instead of defending your points yourself.

Th'Pusher

11-01-2014, 10:54 PM

But I haven't done any gymnastics

:lol don't kid yourself. Not so much this thread, but the gem where you lay out your belief system. Gold medal worthy gymnastics...

xellos88330

11-01-2014, 11:40 PM

Ask your family of educators what "moving the goalposts" means.

You asked me what I thought was wrong. I told you what I thought was wrong. How was that "moving the goalposts"? You also asked if I even knew what was wrong with pushing religion in schools. I cited the 1960's when the law abolished prayer in school. I assumed you would make the connection yourself that I was familiar with the case of the Regents prayer, but I guess you aren't as smart as I thought you were.

Right, that's why you're not explaining it.

Yep. I know that you will believe that I am lying anyway. It doesn't bother me one little bit. I put out evidence. You are ignoring it. Seems pretty straightforward. You probably wouldn't understand the video either. After all a small segment only "sounded like garbage being fed to sheep".

xellos88330

11-01-2014, 11:46 PM

Really? I'd like to see the data points behind that conclusion. My bad. You bad you don't have any.
lol vacuum conclusions.

1. For 15 years before 1963 pregnancies in girls ages 15 through 19 years had been no more than 15 per thousand After 1963 pregnancies increased 187% in the next 15 years.

2. For younger girls, ages 10 to 14 years, pregnancies since 1963 are up 553%.

3. Before 1963 sexually transmitted diseases among students were 400 per 100,000. Since 1963, they were up 226% in the next 12 years.

4. Before 1963 divorce rates had been declining for 15 years. After 1963 divorces increased 300% each year for the next 15 years.

5. Since 1963 unmarried people living together is up 353%.

6. Since 1963 single parent families are up 140%.

7. Since 1963 single parent families with children are up 160%.

There are your precious data points. Now add something constructive, or GTFO.

TeyshaBlue

11-02-2014, 12:02 AM

You've yet to show any causal relationship. Connect the dots or stfu.

TeyshaBlue

11-02-2014, 12:05 AM

Correlation doesnt cut it as much as you might want. Wonder what else was going on in the 60's. :lol

spurraider21

11-02-2014, 12:20 AM

i dont think i've ever seen Chinook get into a pissing contest like this before :lol

Blake

11-02-2014, 01:23 AM

You asked me what I thought was wrong. I told you what I thought was wrong. How was that "moving the goalposts"? You also asked if I even knew what was wrong with pushing religion in schools. I cited the 1960's when the law abolished prayer in school. I assumed you would make the connection yourself that I was familiar with the case of the Regents prayer, but I guess you aren't as smart as I thought you were.

So we agree you're wrong here?:

1. I have a school of 1000 kids. Of those kids only 5 are atheist. So 995 of the kids should do without their beliefs because of the beliefs of 5? In what universe does that make logical sense? Why don't the atheists instead make their own schools and learn within the environment that they see as acceptable. They are certainly free to do that.

when did you realize that it makes logical sense in our legal universe?

Did you finally use det google like I recommended or did you ask your parents?

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 01:32 AM

i dont think i've ever seen Chinook get into a pissing contest like this before :lol

I have gotten him to go from "It's not an adjective of the word category doesn't mean 'of categories,' and you need to read a dictionary," with him strutting around with you, nazi and gun-tote in agreement to

"I knew it meant that it had the definition you said it had; I was just trolling," to

Now him saying, "it isn't an adjective form of the word categories in german and you cannot prove me wrong."

There is one other person that posts here that does that shit.

I'm not trolling you're trolling, that is not me trolling because you knew I was trolling and trolled me first Shut up? Why don't you shut up. You're stupid for saying that I'm stupid. what does troll even mean? Blah blah blah.

spurraider21

11-02-2014, 01:32 AM

don't flatter yourself :lol... you're on the other end of the pissing contest, and on the losing end imo

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 01:38 AM

don't flatter yourself :lol... you're on the other end of the pissing contest, and on the losing end imo

on what part?

building an artificial construct to describe people of one of two things like atheist and theist is not a good way to describe belief systems?

you disagree that kant was influenced by aristotle?

you think Euler did not use infinity as a discrete value or that is the basis of the most precise modern science and engineering?

or is it just some troll score emotional thing? you are more a fan of how he entertains you?

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 04:25 AM

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant arrives at his list of categories by first enumerating the forms of possible judgment (A70/B95-A93/B109). On this view, objective empirical judgments (i.e., empirical judgments which purport to refer to objects rather than merely subjective seemings or connections of sense impressions, and which purport to be universally valid for all judging subjects) are endowed with their objectivity and generality in virtue of the a priori concepts embodied in the relevant forms of judgment. If we can identify all of the possible forms of objective empirical judgment, we can then hope to use them as the basis to discover all of the most general concepts or categories that are employed in making such judgments, and thus that are employed in any cognition of objects (Körner 1955, 48–49).

Thus in distinguishing his categories, Kant begins from Aristotelian logic in outlining four respects in which one can classify any judgment: according to its quantity, quality, relation, or modality.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/categories/#CatSys

So Chinook what cowardice are you going to go for now? You knew it meant it in German too? or perhaps you can claim that Stanford and I are stupid and need to look up an encyclopeida?

:lol you got your philosophy degree last.

xellos88330

11-02-2014, 10:16 AM

So we agree you're wrong here?:

when did you realize that it makes logical sense in our legal universe?

Did you finally use det google like I recommended or did you ask your parents?

Keep reaching Blake. Just keep on reaching.

Blake

11-02-2014, 10:33 AM

Keep reaching Blake. Just keep on reaching.

I'm not reaching; I'm asking you to clarify because you've now got two conflicting posts.

Blake

11-02-2014, 10:36 AM

Is it right or wrong for the 995 to push their religion on the 5 in a public school?

xellos88330

11-02-2014, 11:17 AM

I'm not reaching; I'm asking you to clarify because you've now got two conflicting posts.

No need. I have already answered it. You just don't like the answer and are wanting me to say more to find a different avenue to attack from. I won't let you have it. Until then, keep stretching yoga master.

Besides, you have are a "high IQ atheist". You should have easily seen the response in my answer.

z0sa

11-02-2014, 11:27 AM

don't flatter yourself :lol... you're on the other end of the pissing contest, and on the losing end imo

You pretty much call chinook the winner in every thread

xellos88330

11-02-2014, 11:47 AM

I also think it is hilarious that Blake can't argue something scientific so he jumps into a political arena to attempt to salvage his claims.

Blake

11-02-2014, 11:53 AM

No need. I have already answered it. You just don't like the answer and are wanting me to say more to find a different avenue to attack from. I won't let you have it. Until then, keep stretching yoga master.

Besides, you have are a "high IQ atheist". You should have easily seen the response in my answer.

i think your answer as to why prayer was taken out of schools is correct.

It just doesn't jive with your "in what universe is it ok......995 vs 5......" comment.

Blake

11-02-2014, 12:30 PM

I also think it is hilarious that Blake can't argue something scientific so he jumps into a political arena to attempt to salvage his claims.

what claims are you referring to?

Who are you talking to?

rogues

11-02-2014, 12:45 PM

You pretty much call chinook the winner in every thread
I'm not a big fan of Chinook but he clearly owns Lumpkins ITT, tbh..it's real easy to own the pothead..just corner him into long paragraph takes..the take starts off by distorting the context of the argument or discussion, a jab of an ad hominem usually in the version of insulting someone's intelligence or lack thereof follows, then a looping of whatever person be it scientist or philosopher and using his credentials to bolster his argument..funny thing is 99% of the time, he'll try sooooooooooo hard to sound smart that he actually either misreads or misunderstands the established criteria he's quoting:lmao..probably a failed product of a college student who never got formal education and instead relies on wiki and Google to educate himself, tbh..

z0sa

11-02-2014, 12:52 PM

Im not making a judgment on who "won" or lost.. I think both chinook and fuzzy have their moments.. im just trying to understand spurraiders prerogative to defend him in multiple threads in recent history, I admit I have a horse in this race cause he did the same thing whenever chinook and i argued in the global warming thread, but its apparently not an isolated incident. Im assuming its because theyre both relatively new posters who spend a lot of time here, nothing wrong with that I suppose

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 01:48 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 01:50 PM

I'm not a big fan of Chinook but he clearly owns Lumpkins ITT, tbh..it's real easy to own the pothead..just corner him into long paragraph takes..the take starts off by distorting the context of the argument or discussion, a jab of an ad hominem usually in the version of insulting someone's intelligence or lack thereof follows, then a looping of whatever person be it scientist or philosopher and using his credentials to bolster his argument..funny thing is 99% of the time, he'll try sooooooooooo hard to sound smart that he actually either misreads or misunderstands the established criteria he's quoting:lmao..probably a failed product of a college student who never got formal education and instead relies on wiki and Google to educate himself, tbh..

The peanut gallery is great. None of you guys ever have anything constructive to say. I get that I am cynic myself but you guys guys are a bunch of nihilist dimwits. Talk about guns or how minorities are responsible for crime then fuck yeah but don't you dare try and talk smart. A true tribute to the stupid.

There are three of you lackwits that chimed in on the categories debate before I finally had to post the what was to me very obvious in the actual definition of the word. You people's reading skills suck.

When I was in kindergarten our teacher had these screw cabinets that they put all the various suffix's and prefix's into and that is how I learned how to learn words. That was the first time I remember learning about the specific subject at hand.

I'm just writing what comes to mind for the most part. I can talk about asymptotes and convolution all day too. I picked that up in college.

At the end, how can you really say that considering how you spend your time at the political forum? You are one to often cite articles that you don't understand or where the headline mislead you as to content as you spam your google/email/fb/rss.

You have the creativity of a toilet seat.

spurraider21

11-02-2014, 01:57 PM

You pretty much call chinook the winner in every thread
Not really. I disagree with his main claim in all this... he's a theist and argues that theism is the null while atheism is the claim. Fuzzy has been off base since the start of this though, starting with calling chinook Christian a few times :lol

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 02:10 PM

Not really. I disagree with his main claim in all this... he's a theist and argues that theism is the null while atheism is the claim. Fuzzy has been off base since the start of this though, starting with calling chinook Christian a few times :lol

And I have since relented and said that I was misled because while he claims not to be a christian, he defends any theist arguments reflexively so it is what it is.

If he says he isn't a christian then fine it doesn't really matter. I am not being dishonest. He very obviously is.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 02:43 PM

Not really. I disagree with his main claim in all this... he's a theist and argues that theism is the null while atheism is the claim. Fuzzy has been off base since the start of this though, starting with calling chinook Christian a few times :lol

And also he is not making that claim. You are putting it into the positive-negative whereas he is saying that the antithesis dichotomy is categorically true in and of itself. His alternate example is anaerobic and aerobic. If what you were saying is the case, then it would mean that biologists are arguing 'not oxygen' as the nul hypothesis.

I can see why you leave your shit to the peanut gallery. You seem to have a poor understanding of the argument. I mean maybe he argues your assertion as well; he does seem to take any convenient position regardless if it is true or not.

Read the Stanford entry above. It talks about how Kant divided judgments into categories. Chinook is doing the same thing: dividing belief into two categories and fitting everyone into that box. It's why the topological discussion came up: how to model phenomenon.

spurraider21

11-02-2014, 02:45 PM

I don't care. It's football sunday

TheSanityAnnex

11-02-2014, 02:59 PM

And also he is not making that claim. You are putting it into the positive-negative whereas he is saying that the antithesis dichotomy is categorically true in and of itself. His alternate example is anaerobic and aerobic. If what you were saying is the case, then it would mean that biologists are arguing 'not oxygen' as the nul hypothesis.

I can see why you leave your shit to the peanut gallery. You seem to have a poor understanding of the argument. I mean maybe he argues your assertion as well; he does seem to take any convenient position regardless if it is true or not.

Read the Stanford entry above. It talks about how Kant divided judgments into categories. Chinook is doing the same thing: dividing belief into two categories and fitting everyone into that box. It's why the topological discussion came up: how to model phenomenon.
Congratulations, you finally used categorically correct

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 03:44 PM

Congratulations, you finally used categorically correct

Anyway so zosa can see my original argument that started all this. That is my original position. Also note the concession that I made 4 days ago that spursraider/whoever he really is just plain ignores.

As for the categorical imperative, you wikied the definition and posted it. The wrote entry about moral obligation. My response which you ignored was that you are describing the conclusion as used by Kant found from google where as I was talking about the process by which the conclusion was drawn. I have been trying to talk about categories that don't have basis in the objective world as meaningless for inferring characteristics to anything else. It comes to the very crux of the a priori debate; you cannot even acknowledge it yet I am clueless?

I have cited Nietzshes arguments here but let Fred speak for himself; its like he is speaking through time to you:

What is the antithesis of a theist? What he says about things need to "have truth within themselves" and not of what we make of them goes directly to what I have been talking about objective semantics. All you do is make up words without meaning: your boxes, boxboy.

You don't even argue this you just say that I don't know what I am talking about or that I cannot read or other flailing. You are a coward.

If you don't want to reveal your religion that is fine but as long as you continue to cite your two proofs on god and the the threat made by christian philosophers then it is pretty obvious what is what.

And neither has yet to be acknowledged.

rogues

11-02-2014, 04:13 PM

You have the creativity of a toilet seat.
:lol It really isn't "creativity" when I'm dropping truth bombs about you, faggot..you seem sooooooooo mad that I call you out for what a loser you are on the internet and IRL..

:lol Preparing for internet arguments

:lol flunked out pothead loser

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 04:14 PM

Compare that with the Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia:

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant arrives at his list of categories by first enumerating the forms of possible judgment (A70/B95-A93/B109). On this view, objective empirical judgments (i.e., empirical judgments which purport to refer to objects rather than merely subjective seemings or connections of sense impressions, and which purport to be universally valid for all judging subjects) are endowed with their objectivity and generality in virtue of the a priori concepts embodied in the relevant forms of judgment. If we can identify all of the possible forms of objective empirical judgment, we can then hope to use them as the basis to discover all of the most general concepts or categories that are employed in making such judgments, and thus that are employed in any cognition of objects (Körner 1955, 48–49).

Thus in distinguishing his categories, Kant begins from Aristotelian logic in outlining four respects in which one can classify any judgment: according to its quantity, quality, relation, or modality.

Now shouldn't you talk about how I 'prepare' or some such tripe?

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 04:17 PM

:lol It really isn't "creativity" when I'm dropping truth bombs about you, faggot..you seem sooooooooo mad that I call you out for what a loser you are on the internet and IRL..

:lol Preparing for internet arguments

:lol flunked out pothead loser

Well you certainly are telling stories about me. I have an engineering degree and am employed.

You really are angry aren't you, nihilist dimwit?

rogues

11-02-2014, 04:17 PM

^ :lol libtard pothead faggot still trying to spin his way out if burying himself, tbh

rogues

11-02-2014, 04:19 PM

Well you certainly are telling stories about me. I have an engineering degree and am employed.

You really are angry aren't you, nihilist dimwit?
:lol Sure, I'd like for you to prove that to me..Until then keep feeding off gubamint handouts and mommeh daddeh's will money and properties..

Someone's maaaaaaaaaad as fuck..

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 04:22 PM

:lol Sure, I'd like for you to prove that to me..Until then keep feeding off gubamint handouts and mommeh daddeh's will money and properties..

So let's be clear. chinook claims to have 3 degrees and brings it up as a basis for his argument. You don't give a shit.

I don't talk about my background and you call me out so I tell you and now you call me a liar?

Youre fucked up man.

rogues

11-02-2014, 04:34 PM

So let's be clear. chinook claims to have 3 degrees and brings it up as a basis for his argument. You don't give a shit.

I don't talk about my background and you call me out so I tell you and now you call me a liar?

Youre fucked up man.
While Chinook sometimes flaunts his arguments, it's nowhere near the faggotry displayed when you logon and spout nonsensical bullshit..you've talked plenty about your background before..

I am definitely arrogant. I think I have reason to be. I understand multivariable calculus, PDEs, topology, stochastics, and harmonic analysis. Most people have difficulty beyond simple algebra and I have no issues in the highest of mathematics.

Simple logical proofs like application of laws or obvious causality are obvious.

I think the issue that people have is that I treat them with little respect. We have been posting here for a long time. By we I mean the ones that I am going back and forth with. Half of them are about two people that post on multiple accounts. Most of the reason why I give little respect though is because I see a methodology based on bias rather and logic and ideology as opposed to empiricism. And when people are intentionally misleading then I am hostile.

When I see it, I point it out and when people condescend me then I return it right back in kind.

All of that being said, I will admit when I am wrong. For example, elbamba was right and I was wrong as regards to self defense and presumption in the state of FL. There are all kinds of times I have been incorrect. That being said, I am not going to be persuaded by emotional appeal, bluster, or simpleminded bullshit. If that makes me an asshole then so be it.

..tbh, you're the biggest try-hard faggot I've ever seen..

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 04:38 PM

While Chinook sometimes flaunts his arguments, it's nowhere near the faggotry displayed when you logon and spout nonsensical bullshit..you've talked plenty about your background before..

..tbh, you're the biggest try-hard faggot I've ever seen..

Nah I think you are trying much harder here. You're just trying desperately to make me mad. I get why you don't like me: I am smarter than you and taunt you about it when you act stupid. Well, you're acting stupid right now.

Do you live in a trailer?

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 04:41 PM

And :lol you quote a post where I claim the same expertise as in the argument that I am in now.

I mean don't try and argue whether I really say about those subjects is accurate. Just do this general whine because you're too stupid to argue the point.

rogues

11-02-2014, 04:52 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

11-02-2014, 04:57 PM

:lol This is no argument, you effeminate try-hard pothead loser..I'm just taking a diarrhea like shit in your mouth..I'm basically finishing off what Chinook did, I'm just not being as nice about it, tbh..you deserve all of this..if it makes you mad, which it is, be a man about it..it's not my fault people such as myself are smarter and manlier than you..

:lol more meltdown please

So since you won't answer whether or not you live in a trailer, we all know the answer to the question. You neo-nazi types have to be about some of the dumbest people around.

I on general principle think that anyone who votes GOP and makes less than $100k are none too bright but you and your ilk are the crown turd of the demographic.

xmas1997

11-02-2014, 06:01 PM

You pretty much call chinook the winner in every thread

In raiders defense, although he needs none, chinook uses logic and reason, unlike bumpkins and DMC.

In all fairness, DMC at least tries, but bumpkins never approaches it.

:lmao

Th'Pusher

11-02-2014, 06:31 PM

In raiders defense, although he needs none, chinook uses logic and reason, unlike bumpkins and DMC.

In all fairness, DMC at least tries, but bumpkins never approaches it.

:lmao
Do you agree/buy into chinook's belief construct?

xmas1997

11-02-2014, 06:41 PM

Do you agree/buy into chinook's belief construct?

Some of it I do, it is logical and reasonable to an extent.

We disagree on "content", but his comes from the perspective of a theist, not a deist if I am not mistaken, so I can respect his opinion and understand his argument even though I disagree.

We can agree to be able to disagree without it turning into an ignorant pissing contest since we merely have differences of opinion is all.

Th'Pusher

11-02-2014, 07:05 PM

Some of it I do, it is logical and reasonable to an extent.

We disagree on "content", but his comes from the perspective of a theist, not a deist if I am not mistaken, so I can respect his opinion and understand his argument even though I disagree.

We can agree to be able to disagree without it turning into an ignorant pissing contest since we merely have differences of opinion is all.
Explain which parts you agree with and what "content" you disagree with.

xmas1997

11-02-2014, 07:19 PM

Explain which parts you agree with and what "content" you disagree with.

That would take way too long and require too much back research to do IMHO.

Plus it has already been posted once and makes much more sense if taken in the progression it was originally posted in.

Hope you understand those reasons for me not rehashing it all over again.

Th'Pusher

11-02-2014, 07:31 PM

That would take way too long and require too much back research to do IMHO.

Plus it has already been posted once and makes much more sense if taken in the progression it was originally posted in.

Hope you understand those reasons for me not rehashing it all over again.

No problem. Can you just link me to the thread?

xmas1997

11-02-2014, 07:39 PM

No problem. Can you just link me to the thread?

Oh man, there are at least four to six besides this one.

I apologize to you though for not being able to.

I can sincerely tell you that most every recent thread of the last four months you find here that deals with theology, religion, or especially the Bible contains bits of our debates and many chinook had with DMC as well.

I hope this helps, but that is a hell of a lot of work to go through them all over again, sorry.

I plead laziness. :lol

FuzzyLumpkins

11-03-2014, 12:06 AM

No problem. Can you just link me to the thread?

ANd that is the exact same response you get from chinook when you ask him outline his real construct. He will present the false choice of pascal's wager and defend the deduction of the natural law argument.

When the counterarguments are made, he states that is not what he believes and then when asked what he does indeed believe, he makes the same exact response xmas just gave.

They're trolling abut at least you can see them both for the cowering, dissembling pieces of shit that they are.

RandomGuy

11-03-2014, 02:04 PM

You just provided a proof of God in your own words. Unless you will consider your statement as being incorrect.

God is supposed to exist in everything. Since atoms can indeed exist as both part of something at one point, and part of something else at another does that not conclude that he can indeed exist in everything since a single atom from him is all it takes to exist within another object?

What statement? What words?

I have not said anything even approaching what might be considered "proof of God" that I am aware of.

Unless you are shooting for adding a strawman logical fallacy to the list of bad reasoning.

You are being dishonest in any case, whether it is intentional or not remains to be seen.

Please make your case more clearly then. What did I say that constitutes "proof"?

RandomGuy

11-03-2014, 02:11 PM

Define "exists beyond reality".

A thought is similar in nature to a coffee cup.

A coffee cup is a collection of matter in a certain form at a certain physical state.

A thought is a collection of matter in a certain form at a certain physical state.

If I smash the coffee cup with a hammer, it does not suddenly "exist outside reality". In the same way a thought, once I am done thinking it, does not magically transport itself to some place that you can't even prove exists.

I reject your definition of thought as "something that exists beyond reality", because you can't demonstrate that there is anything "beyond reality".

Sorry, you cannot define god into existence. It does not work that way, other than in circular reasoning.

...

Actually, I have addressed this, repeatedly. A thought, once is passes from memory, ceases to exist, just as a book ceases to exist once it is burned or simply rots.

That is the answer, just to be clear. I can, and have, answered your question.

The book can indeed burn and be destroyed, but it does not mean that the book still does not exist. It merely exists as something else entirely.

Your statement is implying that things can pop in and out of existence. Are you not proving to yourself that things can exist beyond reality?

Define "exists beyond reality".

Your biggest problem in making your case is that you have no clue what you are actually saying, it would seem.

I think you use this vague bullshit type of answer as a mental crutch to keep yourself from examining your delusions too closely.

You should ask yourself what it says about your arguments, when you cannot, or will not define your terms.

Then you could try to be intellectually honest, and define the term you used to justify believing in the existence of some supernatural thing, which you also cannot, or will not define.

RandomGuy

11-03-2014, 02:16 PM

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[2] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[3]

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions. Academic Douglas Walton used the following example of a fallacious circular argument:

Wellington is in New Zealand.
Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

God exists because God caused the universe to exist.
Therefore the universe exists because God caused it.

Uriel

11-04-2014, 03:34 AM

Goddamn, rogues (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=35986) just annihilating libtards left and right :wow
The irony of this post is that Chinook, the guy rogues is backing, is himself a "libtard."

Malik Hairston

11-04-2014, 03:59 AM

spurraider21

11-04-2014, 04:00 AM

i like how rogues was trying to pick a bone with chinook pretty recently :lol

Malik Hairston

11-04-2014, 04:05 AM

31 pages of penis measuring regarding atheism..smh, it's 2014..

At least the man rogues brought the ether, though, I can't remember the last time a poster destroyed another with such ease, tbh..

RandomGuy

11-04-2014, 08:42 AM

31 pages of penis measuring regarding atheism..smh, it's 2014..

At least the man rogues brought the ether, though, I can't remember the last time a poster destroyed another with such ease, tbh..

Meh, easy enough to see that in the "faked moon landing" or any of the 9-11 threads. Those drive home the reality that Donning-Kruger were on to something, and that some people who post online are genuinely insane in some fashion.

xmas1997

11-04-2014, 09:02 AM

spurraider21

11-04-2014, 11:35 AM

TRUTH BOMBS.

:lmao
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzxiyu8Btb1qj3i85.gif

DMC

11-04-2014, 12:08 PM

The bottom line is quite easy to see, outside the queer ass 6th grade text war:

It's ok to believe a god exists if it doesn't require you to change anything about your behavior or your life, since it's just a notion, however once religion enters the picture, the god belief gets anally probed and buried sans autopsy by the borderline atheist (what deists really are) crowd.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-04-2014, 04:11 PM

31 pages of penis measuring regarding atheism..smh, it's 2014..

At least the man rogues brought the ether, though, I can't remember the last time a poster destroyed another with such ease, tbh..

I was trying to discuss Hellenic philosophy and the nature of the unbounded. Krew types keep on trying to interject but it is interesting to see how he 'destroyed' anyone but himself.

I included him in a category of nihilist dimwits that when he read he was so angry he called me out but was so ashamed of why he was angry that he wouldn't quote the post. Cowardice is what you value for your 'ownership' apparently.

When his living/income situation was revealed to be lesser than mine he ran away.

I mean all in all all he has is dipshits strutting like you and TSA to hang his hat on. Who would have thought that me calling you out as a generation X doucher would have led you to such bedfellows.

Harlem and the nazis sitting in a tree. . . .

It's like the special olympics losers circle is trying mob action.

TheSanityAnnex

11-04-2014, 05:29 PM

I was trying to discuss Hellenic philosophy and the nature of the unbounded. Krew types keep on trying to interject but it is interesting to see how he 'destroyed' anyone but himself.

I included him in a category of nihilist dimwits that when he read he was so angry he called me out but was so ashamed of why he was angry that he wouldn't quote the post. Cowardice is what you value for your 'ownership' apparently.

When his living/income situation was revealed to be lesser than mine he ran away.

I mean all in all all he has is dipshits strutting like you and TSA to hang his hat on. Who would have thought that me calling you out as a generation X doucher would have led you to such bedfellows.

Harlem and the nazis sitting in a tree. . . .

It's like the special olympics losers circle is trying mob action.

I haven't taken a shit on you in weeks yet here you are mentioning me yet again. You've said time and time again you'll ignore me but here you are talking about me unprovoked, shame on you.

It's amusing watching you try and spin this in to some internet victory notch on your belt while being laughed at by everyone in this thread. Like I said, you don't do this very well considering you've said you prepare for these internet arguments. Prepare more, earn more notches.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-04-2014, 05:59 PM

I haven't taken a shit on you in weeks yet here you are mentioning me yet again. You've said time and time again you'll ignore me but here you are talking about me unprovoked, shame on you.

It's amusing watching you try and spin this in to some internet victory notch on your belt while being laughed at by everyone in this thread. Like I said, you don't do this very well considering you've said you prepare for these internet arguments. Prepare more, earn more notches.

3 Days Ago

It is clear you should have prepared for this internet argument more.

my immediate response which is what created all the asshurt from the strutters:

The peanut gallery is great. None of you guys ever have anything constructive to say. I get that I am cynic myself but you guys guys are a bunch of nihilist dimwits. Talk about guns or how minorities are responsible for crime then fuck yeah but don't you dare try and talk smart. A true tribute to the stupid.

There are three of you lackwits that chimed in on the categories debate before I finally had to post the what was to me very obvious in the actual definition of the word. You people's reading skills suck.

When I was in kindergarten our teacher had these screw cabinets that they put all the various suffix's and prefix's into and that is how I learned how to learn words. That was the first time I remember learning about the specific subject at hand.

I'm just writing what comes to mind for the most part. I can talk about asymptotes and convolution all day too. I picked that up in college.

At the end, how can you really say that considering how you spend your time at the political forum? You are one to often cite articles that you don't understand or where the headline mislead you as to content as you spam your google/email/fb/rss.

You are one of those fools that thinks that repeating the same thing over and over again will suddenly make it true. Apparently you are too stupid to keep track of what accounts you are logged into.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-04-2014, 06:36 PM

SO at the end of the day, Chinook has abandoned his argument that categorical imperative is not related to hellenic forms a la Plato and Ari; and, by admitting that the categorical imperative was unprovable self assuming nonsense with no objective basis outside of reality, he admits the error in his own paradigm of belief: the false theist dichotomy.

He has also abandoned his arguments against modern field theory and in doing so admits that there are empirical basis for using infinity as a discrete number ie inf - 1, inf - 2, etc. Euler, Gauss, Schroedinger and Fermi win again. Because the universe does indeed exhibit unbounded characteristics and deduction in open ended systems remain impossible thus deductions like the natural law argument he supported are unprovable.

Strut some more maybe the bait and switch will work this time.

TheSanityAnnex

11-04-2014, 06:44 PM

3 Days Ago That is not shitting on you that was merely some advice.
"Success depends upon previous preparation, and without such preparation there is sure to be failure" -Confucius

my immediate response which is what created all the asshurt from the strutters: After that drivel it was you who appeared asshurt

You are one of those fools that thinks that repeating the same thing over and over again will suddenly make it true.Irony at it's finest

Apparently you are too stupid to keep track of what accounts you are logged into.lol at thinking that because someone shits on you it MUST be an alternate account from your fan club. I have no problem calling you out for the idiot you are and have no need hiding behind an alternate. For shits and giggles who did you think I was?

FuzzyLumpkins

11-04-2014, 07:00 PM

That is not shitting on you that was merely some advice.
"Success depends upon previous preparation, and without such preparation there is sure to be failure" -Confucius

After that drivel it was you who appeared asshurt

Irony at it's finest

lol at thinking that because someone shits on you it MUST be an alternate account from your fan club. I have no problem calling you out for the idiot you are and have no need hiding behind an alternate. For shits and giggles who did you think I was?

Ahh yes the 'its not that but instead this' argument where your dumb ass doesn't check for mutual exclusivity. It's a relatively simple concept and seeing how many times you have had your nose rubbed in it, it's obviously beyond your scope. The LCD does not define the truth. Preparation indeed.

It has less to do with bashing me than it does poor reading and critical thinking skills as well as the nazi schtick. I also note how you never actually deny that you have been using troll accounts while you nihilist dimwits continue dodging the substance of the argument.

TheSanityAnnex

11-04-2014, 07:22 PM

Ahh yes the 'its not that but instead this' argument where your dumb ass doesn't check for mutual exclusivity. It's a relatively simple concept and seeing how many times you have had your nose rubbed in it, it's obviously beyond your scope. The LCD does not define the truth. Preparation indeed.I know we both smoke weed but fuck man your incoherent rambling is on a different level sometimes, I may need to cut back.

It has less to do with bashing me than it does poor reading and critical thinking skills as well as the nazi schtick. I also note how you never actually deny that you have been using troll accounts while you nihilist dimwits continue dodging the substance of the argument.I don't have any troll accounts and only post under this screen name. My only other active account is TSA, I don't even know the password for it, and that is hardly a troll account as it is obviously me. I don't have a troll account, I don't have a nazi troll or even participate in any of the stupid nazi shit, find one racist post from me. I have no problem posting my thoughts of you from this handle, like I always have. So again, what the fuck are you even talking about? You've got a strange troll paranoia going on, did it ever occur to you that a lot of people just simply think you are a try-hard faggot?

FuzzyLumpkins

11-04-2014, 07:34 PM

I know we both smoke weed but fuck man your incoherent rambling is on a different level sometimes, I may need to cut back.

I don't have any troll accounts and only post under this screen name. My only other active account is TSA, I don't even know the password for it, and that is hardly a troll account as it is obviously me. I don't have a troll account, I don't have a nazi troll or even participate in any of the stupid nazi shit, find one racist post from me. I have no problem posting my thoughts of you from this handle, like I always have. So again, what the fuck are you even talking about? You've got a strange troll paranoia going on, did it ever occur to you that a lot of people just simply think you are a try-hard faggot?

You not understanding is not the basis of the truth. You don't understand what I mean when I bring up mutual exclusivity. Your dumb and it is what it is.

So you don't have any troll accounts except for the troll accounts that you have. . . .

You mistake me not entertaining your stupidity past a certain point and an absolute decision not to respond. You have reached that point again. Actually argue the substance of the argument and I might respond but this is boring.

TheSanityAnnex

11-04-2014, 07:52 PM

You not understanding is not the basis of the truth. You don't understand what I mean when I bring up mutual exclusivity.I understand mutual exclusivity just fine. If you want to parade around as an intellectual at least form and present coherent sentences. I have to re-read your drivel a few times to try and decipher the point you are trying to get across.

Your dumb and it is what it is.You're dumb and it is what it is.

So you don't have any troll accounts except for the troll accounts that you have. . . .Nope, don't have any trolls. Provide me with the handle/handles that were shitting on you that you thought were me.

You mistake me not entertaining your stupidity past a certain point and an absolute decision not to respond. You have reached that point again. Actually argue the substance of the argument and I might respond but this is boring.Give me an hour or so, I need to prepare for the upcoming internet argument.

rogues

11-04-2014, 08:00 PM

:lol People are just taking turns unloading a new round to this cuck's face..he's still at it days after getting shat on..now this here, this shit right here nigga, is a meltdown.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-04-2014, 08:19 PM

oooQG9wllI0

About the only 'insight' that we get is that you equate male dominance with a homosexual act.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-04-2014, 08:20 PM