Reply With Quote
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.
This is no argument, you effeminate try-hard pothead loser..I'm just taking a diarrhea like 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..
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.
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.
Do you agree/buy into chinook's belief construct?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.
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.
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?
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 of a lot of work to go through them all over again, sorry.
I plead laziness.
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 that they are.
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 cons utes "proof"?
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.
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 bull 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoningCircular 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]
God exists because God caused the universe to exist.
Therefore the universe exists because God caused it.
The irony of this post is that Chinook, the guy rogues is backing, is himself a "lib ."Goddamn, rogues just annihilating lib s left and right
i like how rogues was trying to pick a bone with chinook pretty recently
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.
TRUTH BOMBS.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
TRUTH BOMBS.
The bottom line is quite easy to see, outside the 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.
I was trying to discuss enic 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 dip s strutting like you and TSA to hang his hat on. Who would have thought that me calling you out as a generation X r 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 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
my immediate response which is what created all the asshurt from the strutters:
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.
SO at the end of the day, Chinook has abandoned his argument that categorical imperative is not related to enic 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.
That is not ting 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 s 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 s and giggles who did you think I was?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
