19 Aug 2008, 5:05 pm
19 Aug 2008, 5:07 pm
19 Aug 2008, 5:08 pm
Orwell wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:
Quote:
Haha, who's more talented the worlds greatest chess player or Tiger Woods? 
There have been some pretty amazing chess players. Bobby Fischer and Jose Raul Capablanca, along with Paul Morhpy, are difficult to match in talent. And in modern times, Magnus Carlsen is insanely talented. He's younger than I am and already close to being the strongest in the world.
Maybe, but golf is probably the biggest mental test you can face, in terms of any sport or activity. You are not just fighting against the weather, the golf course, and opponents, your fighting against yourself. Every even takes a lot of dedication.
Comparing golf to chess in terms of the mental aspect seems far-fetched. I know that I could never play golf, but I doubt that whatever psychological issues must be overcome to play well match those in chess. After all, chess is a purely mental game.
Quote:
yeah, so your a klutz in physical terms, and i'm a bit of one when it comes to theory.
And I don't attempt to compete with you in any sports. Why then do you try to take me on in a theoretical debate?
Quote:
Tiger Woods isn't just the greatest golfer ever, he's the greatest sportsman ever.
Quite a strong statement. Last I heard, many are currently wishing to give that title to Michael Phelps.[/quote]
well, you'll have to play it seriously to find out, but take my word for it. If you don't believe me, read about it.
haha, i'm not trying to compete with you, so i'm not aloud my say? Just because i'm not up to your standards doesn't mean I can't try. I always try my best in everything I do. And I have sanity on my side
haha, man of the moment. He is awesome, but he has to keep it going.
19 Aug 2008, 5:08 pm
19 Aug 2008, 5:11 pm
19 Aug 2008, 5:13 pm
19 Aug 2008, 5:13 pm
skafather84 wrote:
yeah but you can test malaysia and get consistent results that proves it exists.
of course you could degrade yourself by turning this into an issue of semantics but i'd hope you take more pride in yourself than that.
god is very demonstrative in the bible and yet very undemonstrative when in the realm of reality and not fictitious literature. that should be an initial question mark.
of course you could degrade yourself by turning this into an issue of semantics but i'd hope you take more pride in yourself than that.
god is very demonstrative in the bible and yet very undemonstrative when in the realm of reality and not fictitious literature. that should be an initial question mark.
True, you can engage in an analysis of multiple sources of reasonable validity and come to that conclusion.
Hey, if the other position is simply shifting semantics, I might as well point that out.
I like probabilistic arguments against god.
19 Aug 2008, 5:16 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Again very poor arguments from popularity and authority. Morality is a social construct. Morality is better explained by the social co-operation of humans. God is an unnecessary and incoherent concept held by those who are deluded.
No, not really. They aren't bad arguments at all, and some people involved in epistemology have explicitly stated that popularity and authority would make them reconsider their correctness on an issue. The issue is that you are reducing epistemology down to logical argumentation, despite the obvious differences, and yet you aren't even being explicit on your position.
Morality is a social construct is an assertion, and does not match up with our experiences with morality as an objective trait to the universe. Especially given that morality can lead to social dissolution. Really though, what you are assuming is that to be rational, a person must accept all of the facts you've accepted as true at a given point, and yet, that seems irrational.
The cosmological argument presents God as a necessary concept for instance, and it can theoretically be accepted by a rational being as correct. You have not proven God to be incoherent either, you just pulled that one out of your butt somewhat recently, and your statement of "delusion" has already been shown not to be the dictionary definition by a number of other posters.
In essence, you are simply a closed, circular system, working totally from tautologies that are different than the understandings that the rest of the world has, and then who inflicts these tautologies upon other people.
All I can do is laugh at your nonsense.
Cosmological argument?
Morality as an objective quality of the universe?
Morality is relative. There are varying systems of morality. To suggestion otherwise is nonsensical.
19 Aug 2008, 5:16 pm
19 Aug 2008, 5:17 pm
19 Aug 2008, 5:17 pm
19 Aug 2008, 5:19 pm
corroonb wrote:
All I can do is laugh at your nonsense.
Trust me, I'd do the same to you.Quote:
Cosmological argument?
What is the problem with the cosmological argument. Have you disproven it?
Quote:
Morality as an objective quality of the universe?
The conception of morality is one as an objective quality of the universe, most people have an intuitive understanding of morality as such a concept, and people who explicitly reject the existence of morality are rarer.
Quote:
Morality is relative. There are varying systems of morality. To suggestion otherwise is nonsensical.
To suggest otherwise, is arguably nonsensical, but only to a person familiar with metaethics. Are you claiming that a rational person must be familiar with metaethics? Are you saying that every metaethicist must come to the same conclusions you do on metaethics and accept your skeptical reductionism?
19 Aug 2008, 5:21 pm
Orwell wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Again very poor arguments from popularity and authority. Morality is a social construct. Morality is better explained by the social co-operation of humans. God is an unnecessary and incoherent concept held by those who are deluded.
In essence, you are simply a closed, circular system, working totally from tautologies that are different than the understandings that the rest of the world has, and then who inflicts these tautologies upon other people.
AG, I have heard atheists make similar accusations before, but they have been directed at the religious rather than at other atheists. It is amusing to see the tables turned in such a fashion.
Closed, circular system? Why? Making a statement does not make it true. Calling me a closed system because I disagree with your irrational nonsense is an ad hominem attack and utterly irrelevant.
19 Aug 2008, 5:23 pm
19 Aug 2008, 5:24 pm
19 Aug 2008, 5:24 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
All I can do is laugh at your nonsense.
Trust me, I'd do the same to you.Quote:
Cosmological argument?
What is the problem with the cosmological argument. Have you disproven it?
Quote:
Morality as an objective quality of the universe?
The conception of morality is one as an objective quality of the universe, most people have an intuitive understanding of morality as such a concept, and people who explicitly reject the existence of morality are rarer.
Quote:
Morality is relative. There are varying systems of morality. To suggestion otherwise is nonsensical.
To suggest otherwise, is arguably nonsensical, but only to a person familiar with metaethics. Are you claiming that a rational person must be familiar with metaethics? Are you saying that every metaethicist must come to the same conclusions you do on metaethics and accept your skeptical reductionism?
What is an intuitive understanding? Objective morality? Only humans are moral and we have invented that. Are animals moral?
The cosmological argument is not an argument and cannot be disproved. I cannot disprove the existence of god but this is not sufficient reason to believe in god.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| What is the most romantic thing someone could possibly do? |
Yesterday, 4:28 pm |
| What is one thing that would change your life right now? |
Yesterday, 11:36 pm |
