Why I raise my children without ? .
Options
Comments
-
CopperKing wrote: »CopperKing wrote: »
I never said whether i believed in ? or not...im pointing out the flaws in the argument .@CopperKing
We are humans we can criticize or question anything we want.
The same way you make fun of homosexual or trannies but
When it comes to ? , we need to fall back? Lol, GTFOH
I never told anyone to fall back on their criticism whether it was for or against
Reading is fundamental
You just say "Who cares on what the next man believes."
That implies don't judge anyone on their belief, no?
Atheism is not a belief its more of a non belief
And im discussing logic....im not judging anyone...get out of'dem feelings and think objectively
Atheism is part of questioning your beliefs.
What does objective means to you?
It's basically 90% chance that ? doesn't exist because I don't claim absolute certainity
-
Aizen > > >
-
Atheist ? disgust me, if you don't believe in ? that is your choice. Now go sit in the corner and suck your thumb or something, why the ? are you writing books, articles and posting your trash all over the place. There exist no logical reason for atheist to do this other than trying their best to ? off believers.
Atheism is on the list of things that are destroying western society, which may be a good thing. But atheist are so ? annoying. just shut the ? up already , atheism does nothing it inspires nothing it creates nothing. it seeks to strip man of religion but has nothing comparable to replace it.
LOL @ "let believers believe and express themselves" but not allowing non-believers to do the same.
The difference is this belief in religion causes you to do things but atheism has no responsibilities.
Wtf are you talking about?
We have the same responsibilites as you.
Atheism isn't destroying anything.
No, you don't you blind fool. example: muslims have to give to the poor You do not have to do anything. i cannot be religious if i don't do certain things, you don't have to do anything to be an atheist. In other words belief in ? commands man to do certain things. Belief in ? changes everything, part of the reason why abortion, HEARTLESS murder, high levels of greed and other social ills are rampant in the west right now is because it have thrown away all the traditional morality that came with religion and now the western world is in the process of creating a new morality one that says I can make my own rules or right and wrong. Every generation seems to be getting worse in the past in the west evil was reserved for those who existed outside the group now evil seems to be given to every one outside the self. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly. In the same manner that it is illogical to argue that Godzilla is controlling your actions without proof, it's also illogical to argue that "? " or something "supernatural" is controlling or influencing the Universe without proof.CopperKing wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
So you're saying that because there is no proof that Godzilla is controlling your every action and desire, the claim that he is controlling you is false?CopperKing wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
So humans are to be agnostic when it comes to any one of the infinitely-many conceivable concepts that other humans can create?CopperKing wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Sure they are yo.CopperKing wrote: »I dont think the human race is advanced enough to be saying for a fact if omnipotent beings exist or not....we still rage war against one another over money and religion
The only thing supporting the claim that "supernatural" beings exist is the claim that "supernatural" beings exist.
If humans applied such circular reasoning to everything, they'd have to be agnostic about an infinite number of claims that others come up with.
If ur not certain of a certain things theres nothing wrong with saying ur not certain..theres something wise in being agnostic instead of feigning proof of non existence
If I say "Godzilla exists and he rules the world from the shadows, controlling your every action and desire; and you can't prove he doesn't.", then is it unwise to rule out such a claim?
If anything, it's wise to rule out fantastical claims lacking in any form of proof or provability.
Horrible example... my actions prove that my actions are only being controlled by me
My actions prove to me that my actions are being controlled by me
Illogical argument
No ur argument about a movie character controlling my actions can be disproved by me the existence of a supreme being creating life cannot be proved or disproved by you -
? just got real, the Aristocratic Assassin just entered the thread.
-
It's not up to the nonbeliever to disprove the ? .
It's up to claimer to prove it. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »This why I do not talk about religion most people are too immature to discuss such matters and too closed minded to ever agree to disagree.
This is why I find it useless now to discuss this stuff with most people, no matter what you say or bring in front of them, they'll never accept it -
-
You say I can't disprove the existence of "? " with the above bolded; I said you can't disprove that Godzilla controls your actions and desires with the below bolded:CopperKing wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Exactly. In the same manner that it is illogical to argue that Godzilla is controlling your actions without proof, it's also illogical to argue that "? " or something "supernatural" is controlling or influencing the Universe without proof.CopperKing wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
So you're saying that because there is no proof that Godzilla is controlling your every action and desire, the claim that he is controlling you is false?CopperKing wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
So humans are to be agnostic when it comes to any one of the infinitely-many conceivable concepts that other humans can create?CopperKing wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Sure they are yo.CopperKing wrote: »I dont think the human race is advanced enough to be saying for a fact if omnipotent beings exist or not....we still rage war against one another over money and religion
The only thing supporting the claim that "supernatural" beings exist is the claim that "supernatural" beings exist.
If humans applied such circular reasoning to everything, they'd have to be agnostic about an infinite number of claims that others come up with.
If ur not certain of a certain things theres nothing wrong with saying ur not certain..theres something wise in being agnostic instead of feigning proof of non existence
If I say "Godzilla exists and he rules the world from the shadows, controlling your every action and desire; and you can't prove he doesn't.", then is it unwise to rule out such a claim?
If anything, it's wise to rule out fantastical claims lacking in any form of proof or provability.
Horrible example... my actions prove that my actions are only being controlled by me
My actions prove to me that my actions are being controlled by me
Illogical argument
No ur argument about a movie character controlling my actions can be disproved by me the existence of a supreme being creating life cannot be proved or disproved by youGold_Certificate wrote: »..."Godzilla exists and he rules the world from the shadows, controlling your every action and desire; and you can't prove he doesn't."...
Besides, "? " is also a character in movies. -
As far as brothers are concerned, Itachi >> Sesshomaru (sp?)
-
I'm ? .
-
Lol @ coming up with the percentage of a supreme beings existenceCopperKing wrote: »CopperKing wrote: »
I never said whether i believed in ? or not...im pointing out the flaws in the argument .@CopperKing
We are humans we can criticize or question anything we want.
The same way you make fun of homosexual or trannies but
When it comes to ? , we need to fall back? Lol, GTFOH
I never told anyone to fall back on their criticism whether it was for or against
Reading is fundamental
You just say "Who cares on what the next man believes."
That implies don't judge anyone on their belief, no?
Atheism is not a belief its more of a non belief
And im discussing logic....im not judging anyone...get out of'dem feelings and think objectively
Atheism is part of questioning your beliefs.
What does objective means to you?
It's basically 90% chance that ? doesn't exist because I don't claim absolute certainity
what formula was used to compute this?
The gawdratic equation?
-
I see. Your argument is about the personification of physical laws. While I find such personification to be unnecessary, I am not disputing physical laws.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
So you're not actually talking about the existence of "? " as Carl Sagan was in the quote you posted?Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You're still moving the goalposts by changing the definitions b.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
By that reasoning, perhaps our definitions for all words are in fact wrong. Because by removing the "supernatural" aspect from the concept of "? "; it becomes objectively disprovable, observable, and measurable. At which point the burden proof falls squarely upon those claiming the concept exists.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
He said "? "; which is a supernatural concept:Gold_Certificate wrote: »
His argument fails because the claim of the "supernatural" is an unscientific one. So by the very nature of the claim, evidence can't be compiled for or against it.i think carl sagan said it the best i've ever heard
"An atheist is someone who is certain that ? does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of ? . I know of no such compelling evidence..."
Such claims don't automatically get a status quo of "true" or "valid" simply because someone comes up with them.
he didn't say anything about supernatural, if the laws of the universe are "? ", the universe is not supernatural. my whole point is, faith is doubt (i know that sounds like one of the phrases from animal farm) and what you choose to make it, at least that's how it is for me. i don't think this is an issue you come to a conclusion on and move on, for me it's a lifelong kind of thing, that is riddled with doubt and questions
i'm not even sold on the realness of ours or anythings existence to be honest. and i find the more i learn the more i realize how much i don't know.
If he was referring to the laws of the Universe, there was no need to use the word "? " in the first place.
That's no better than saying "If this oxygen atom is "the internet", than "the internet" is not technological.".
Defeats the purpose of words having meanings.
perhaps our definition that "? " is in fact supernatural is wrong
Perhaps "pigs" aren't mammals because our definition for "pig" is also wrong; it's a slippery slope b.
the definition is wrong because our understanding is wrong. and when it is the bolded, science is then "? " which works for me
In the bolded you're calling one definition wrong, and with the underlined you're redefining the word.
What's the point of you using the word "? " if you're not referring to what it's defined as or if you're referring to something else such as "science"?
i only use the word in an attempt to explain myself in a way that is understandable, seeing as there really is no word for "? " as far as what i'm speaking of. sorta like trying to translate a word into english that doesn't have a direct translation so you have to use a phrase or something. the boundaries of language prohibit you from not speaking in such a manner. existence and just being (and the rules and laws of it) is what the conceptualized idea of ? is imo
now as far as "? " in the traditional sense, i believe it's a coping mechanism for many in face of the abyss that is existence and the non-existence that is death. these concepts can be terrifying to a self-aware organism, because the unknown is scary. so the alternative religion provides has to be true for their own sake and not it's own sake.
"? " as in he/she/it being the sum total of all the laws of the universe? i agree with that. -
what are you asking me, abortion is just one of the many symptoms of sickness it's one of the things that is feeding the slow death of the west. Atheism just adds more wood to the fire. -
-
? is a character in movies
Godzilla is a character for movies -
CopperKing wrote: »
Lol @ coming up with the percentage of a supreme beings existenceCopperKing wrote: »CopperKing wrote: »
I never said whether i believed in ? or not...im pointing out the flaws in the argument .@CopperKing
We are humans we can criticize or question anything we want.
The same way you make fun of homosexual or trannies but
When it comes to ? , we need to fall back? Lol, GTFOH
I never told anyone to fall back on their criticism whether it was for or against
Reading is fundamental
You just say "Who cares on what the next man believes."
That implies don't judge anyone on their belief, no?
Atheism is not a belief its more of a non belief
And im discussing logic....im not judging anyone...get out of'dem feelings and think objectively
Atheism is part of questioning your beliefs.
What does objective means to you?
It's basically 90% chance that ? doesn't exist because I don't claim absolute certainity
what formula was used to compute this?
The gawdratic equation?
Your open-mindness is sickening.
If there is a supreme being who created that being? -
It's not up to the nonbeliever to disprove the ? .
It's up to claimer to prove it.
Since forever, humans have always believed in a higher power, its only in recent times that so many people are becoming non-believers. So it isn't up to us to do or prove anything, believers have always been around and have always outnumbered non-believers from the size of the sun to the moon. You guys are the ones that are in the minority, you guys need to bring the definitive proof of the non-existence of ? . -
Who is to decide who is mediocre? you. Sounds like some real white man logic to me. stop the ? . -
It's not up to the nonbeliever to disprove the ? .
It's up to claimer to prove it.
Since forever, humans have always believed in a higher power, its only in recent times that so many people are becoming non-believers. So it isn't up to us to do or prove anything, believers have always been around and have always outnumbered non-believers from the size of the sun to the moon. You guys are the ones that are in the minority, you guys need to bring the definitive proof of the non-existence of ? .
No, there were non-believers since the beginning of humanity, as well.
Just people were satisfied with their being ? to explain ? they didn't understand
Non believers are more rampant now because of easy access to the internet and education
They had an excuse, what is ours now in 21st century aka information age.
At least non believer make up 19% of us population. -
Yes, so both are characters in movies.CopperKing wrote: »? is a character in movies
Godzilla is a character for movies
A lot in common, they have. -
CopperKing wrote: »
Lol @ coming up with the percentage of a supreme beings existenceCopperKing wrote: »CopperKing wrote: »
I never said whether i believed in ? or not...im pointing out the flaws in the argument .@CopperKing
We are humans we can criticize or question anything we want.
The same way you make fun of homosexual or trannies but
When it comes to ? , we need to fall back? Lol, GTFOH
I never told anyone to fall back on their criticism whether it was for or against
Reading is fundamental
You just say "Who cares on what the next man believes."
That implies don't judge anyone on their belief, no?
Atheism is not a belief its more of a non belief
And im discussing logic....im not judging anyone...get out of'dem feelings and think objectively
Atheism is part of questioning your beliefs.
What does objective means to you?
It's basically 90% chance that ? doesn't exist because I don't claim absolute certainity
what formula was used to compute this?
The gawdratic equation?
Your open-mindness is sickening.
If there is a supreme being who created that being?
Ur pseudo intellectualism is hilarious
Athiest/non believers/ scientists and people in general can't even explain their own origin.. so if their was a supreme being how could we comprehend his -
It's not up to the nonbeliever to disprove the ? .
It's up to claimer to prove it.
Since forever, humans have always believed in a higher power, its only in recent times that so many people are becoming non-believers. So it isn't up to us to do or prove anything, believers have always been around and have always outnumbered non-believers from the size of the sun to the moon. You guys are the ones that are in the minority, you guys need to bring the definitive proof of the non-existence of ? .
No, there were non-believers since the beginning of humanity, as well.
Just people were satisfied with their being ? to explain ? they didn't understand
Non believers are more rampant now because of easy access to the internet and education
They had an excuse, what is ours now in 21st century aka information age.
At least non believer make up 19% of us population.
Prove the underlined. -
Most people are mediocre, man. They're not intelligent, not physically capable, not good looking enough and haven't made any discovery. -
How anyone can deny that being the real Fiat is beyond me.
This discussion has been closed.