Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The worst thing about religion

Page 22 of 33 [ 517 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 33  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 6:50 pm

benjimanbreeg wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
Orwell wrote:
rofl! Wait you are being sarcastic?

I can never quite tell with AG.

And that is how I prefer it.


narcasist? wrong spelling probably, but you know the word I mean.

Narcissist, but I don't see where that comes in in describing AG,. Oppositional defiant disorder, maybe.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 6:50 pm

corroonb wrote:
I conclude that you do not understand what intuition is if you cannot explain it to me. Do you see the irony of using terms without defining them and criticising me for doing the same thing. You are hypocrite.

Umm.... what??? I *chose* not to explain it to you. I even provided tentative explanations of intuition for you, but the simple matter is that I was using the term in accordance with pre-existing norms, whereas you are using them against pre-existing norms, which is why I was criticizing you. There was no hypocrisy.

Quote:
I also conclude that you are emotionally disturbed if stupidity irritates you. Why does stupidity irritate you?

Ok, come to whatever conclusion you want to. Because stupidity *does* irritate me. Frankly, given that an annoyance towards stupidity is a very common concept, I don't think it demands further justification.

Quote:
I also conclude that your main purpose in debate is not learning but self-aggrandizement. Only this would explain your irritation and emotional investment. This is sad.

And yours is???? You spent so much time asserting that religious people were INSANE! That is not the act of a person who is willing to learn either, oh pot. Also, the assertion that only that could explain my irritation and emotional investment is an assertion at best. My purpose in debates however, is the clarification of thought though, and I think most people have noticed that from a number of prior debates I have engaged in.
Quote:
I am annoyed at no one.

Which is why you keep on attacking religious people as insane, and taking offense to "ad hominems" which aren't, and of course degrade your opponents with psychological arguments as you are attempting to do already? Hmm.... if you aren't annoyed, then I figure you must just be a sadist or something.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 6:52 pm

Orwell wrote:
It is also debated whether neanderthals were pre-humans- some researchers consider them to be a sub-species of modern humans and refer to them as homo sapiens neanderthalensis and to modern humans as homo sapiens sapiens, meaning we and the neanderthals would technically fall in the same species. It's even been argued that there wsa interbreeding between neanderthals and humans, and this is where the genes for red hair came from.

Well, right, I know that neanderthals aren't necessarily predecessors for human beings, but they certainly are a branch from the same tree?

Quote:
I already established earlier in this thread that all humans are insane, so this seems a reasonable claim to make.

HA HA HA!! True, but the issue is that when we start using definitions like this, the term becomes rather absurd.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 6:52 pm

corroonb wrote:
If time is linear, then you are correct about the big bang. However if time is non-linear in some sense, then there may have been other "times" before the Big Bang. These other times could have begun and ended with a Big Bang. The universe is expanding but will it always do so? If it contracts in on itself, will this create a new Big Bang and start the cycle again?

All of that is irrelevant. You still have yet to explain how the chain of causation could be infinite. It does not seem to make logical sense.

Quote:
I have no knowledge of cosmological physics and little to no knowledge of anything else.

Then the two of us are in the same boat.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


benjimanbreeg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,515

19 Aug 2008, 6:52 pm

Orwell wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
Orwell wrote:
rofl! Wait you are being sarcastic?

I can never quite tell with AG.

And that is how I prefer it.


narcasist? wrong spelling probably, but you know the word I mean.

Narcissist, but I don't see where that comes in in describing AG,. Oppositional defiant disorder, maybe.


erm, probably both.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 6:52 pm

Orwell wrote:
Narcissist, but I don't see where that comes in in describing AG,. Oppositional defiant disorder, maybe.

I can see that latter too.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 6:54 pm

claire333 wrote:
Awesomelyglorious...you really crack me up. I sometimes have trouble determining when you are and are not serious.

See, I add value! AG, serving the social cause. I often drift so quickly between the 2 states, that it becomes difficult to determine, unless you know me incredibly well. I will often start serious, and then find my sense of humor bursting through, or vice versa.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 6:56 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Well, right, I know that neanderthals aren't necessarily predecessors for human beings, but they certainly are a branch from the same tree?

Something along those lines.

Quote:
Quote:
I already established earlier in this thread that all humans are insane, so this seems a reasonable claim to make.

HA HA HA!! True, but the issue is that when we start using definitions like this, the term becomes rather absurd.

Of course it's absurd. We're dealing with a society, culture, and language built by a species of madmen, what else would you expect?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 6:58 pm

corroonb wrote:
I also conclude that you are emotionally disturbed if stupidity irritates you. Why does stupidity irritate you?

Then count me as emotionally disturbed as well, which isn't a claim I would jump to dispute anyways. I find stupidity annoying. You say you dislike irrationality, faith, and a plethora of other things that do not fit your epistemological view of the world. Why should I not dislike stupidity?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 7:00 pm

Orwell wrote:
Of course it's absurd. We're dealing with a society, culture, and language built by a species of madmen, what else would you expect?

At least you are maddeningly consistent.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
At least you are maddeningly consistent.

Whereas you are consistently inconsistent. Which in itself is an amusing paradox.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


benjimanbreeg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,515

19 Aug 2008, 7:02 pm

Orwell wrote:
corroonb wrote:
I also conclude that you are emotionally disturbed if stupidity irritates you. Why does stupidity irritate you?

Then count me as emotionally disturbed as well, which isn't a claim I would jump to dispute anyways. I find stupidity annoying. You say you dislike irrationality, faith, and a plethora of other things that do not fit your epistemological view of the world. Why should I not dislike stupidity?


I'm not stupid. If you were refering to me.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 7:03 pm

benjimanbreeg wrote:
I'm not stupid. If you were refering to me.

I was referring to stupidity in general, which is an attribute that a disturbingly large number of people possess. I wasn't referring to anyone in particular.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 7:04 pm

Stating that I consider religious people insane is not an attack. I have clearly explained why I think this and elaborated with a comparison from psychology. Faith is to me a socially acceptable delusion held by many people. These people are considered sane because in all other respects, their thoughts and behaviours are rational.

Stating that I am a stupid bastard is pointless and irrelevant to the argument at hand. My intelligence and parentage are irrelevant. My ego is irrelevant. Only my thoughts have any relevence.

The nature of time is relevant. I don't consider an infinite regression of events to be illogical. Are not sub-atomic particles perpetually in motion? Do electrons stop orbiting the nucleus?

Surely the concept of infinity proves its existence?

Is infinite causation possible?



Last edited by corroonb on 19 Aug 2008, 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

19 Aug 2008, 7:06 pm

well, I am stupid here, I find it hard to follow this thread, and I am making a meaningless post at the same time.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 7:07 pm

Orwell wrote:
corroonb wrote:
If time is linear, then you are correct about the big bang. However if time is non-linear in some sense, then there may have been other "times" before the Big Bang. These other times could have begun and ended with a Big Bang. The universe is expanding but will it always do so? If it contracts in on itself, will this create a new Big Bang and start the cycle again?

All of that is irrelevant. You still have yet to explain how the chain of causation could be infinite. It does not seem to make logical sense.

Quote:
I have no knowledge of cosmological physics and little to no knowledge of anything else.

Then the two of us are in the same boat.

So, we end up without an answer to the cosmological proof, other than the theistic one, despite the fact that all theists are insane??

BWA HA HA HA HA!! ! I *knew* the argument was arrogance and self-serving definitions more so than a legitimate failing of theists.

I think Quentin Smith is a metaphysician known for arguing that the big bang started itself though.