Please Educate Yourselves (v2)
0
GroverCleaveland wrote...
IsawIcameIconquered wrote...
You again huh? Educate myself? I'm not gonna read all this crap because I know it's just your way of saying "how we should do things". You need to realize that everyone has a right to their own opinion regardless if it is ignorant or not. Once you've realized that maybe we can have an intelligent conversation together. ...
...
...
I don't have words to describe the colossal stupidity of this post. But I will do my darndest to try. Let's break this shit down.
You again huh?
Yes, me again, and the fact that you would reject information as completely invalid because it comes from a source you dislike speaks volumes of your maturity and intellect.
Educate myself?
Yes, preferably extensively. Speaking of educating oneself with derision or proud ignorance is the most disgusting thing I believe someone can say. You should always seek to better yourself, especially when your intelligence is at the shit-tier level that you seem to demonstrate.
I'm not gonna read all this crap because I know it's just your way of saying "how we should do things".
Really? You know what I'll say before I say it? What a wonderful ability you have there! ... If you weren't pre-cognizant though, it would appear that your anatomy has been altered so that you can only talk out of your ass.
You are right in one thing though: This is how I think we should do things here in SD. We should be logical and intelligent, two things you seem to not approve of for reasons unknown.
You need to realize that everyone has a right to their own opinion regardless if it is ignorant or not.
Of course everyone has a right to their own personal opinion, that is not in dispute, regardless of how wrong or just plain stupid those opinions are. My issue is when people try to push those opinions on others as if they were true, and thus they propagate the spread of ignorance and contribute to the intellectual death of others. This forum is for the expression and debate of ideas, and when someone presents ignorant bullshit as valid, and someone accepts it as fact because they do not know better, then they have done something repulsive in their corruption of another's thoughts. THAT is why I posted this. So that people CAN know better than to accept bullshit as logical just because someone said so.
I wish that this was unnecessary. I wish that everyone knew better than to take someone else's word just because others agree with it, or it makes them feel good. But time and time again, people have shown that they are stupid, and thus I come in to tell them this, so that hopefully they can be less stupid in the future. Many users are intelligent enough to not need this thread, but it can never hurt to be more educated.
Once you've realized that maybe we can have an intelligent conversation together.
No. I very much doubt that you could ever have an intelligent conversation with anybody, and if ever there comes a day where you DO have something intelligent to say, I will hope that this thread helped you reach that point. Regardless of what you believe, I did not post this for some ego trip, or to insult the intelligence of others. I posted this because I genuinely believe that the forum will be greatly aided if everyone read and abided by these logical guidelines.
Yeah. I mad.
I wonder if I could believe this topic at all. There are so many fallacies coming from the person who is against fallacies. Although I admit my opinion in itself is a fallacy too.
0
@koja6049
The only active fallacy in my post was "Poisoning the well" since by insulting him, I suppose it could lead others to doubt his future credibility. All of the insults I used were simply that: Insults. I never went so far as to claim "You are wrong because you are an idiot" which would have been much more fallacious, instead, I was saying (at least this is how I see it) "You are an idiot because you are wrong" which is a conclusion I made from using his post as the evidence to decide upon his level of intelligence.
Regardless, any personal faults of hypocrisies I could have demonstrated would have no bearing on the truth or non-truth of the topic, and to insinuate otherwise would be an example of an Ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.
The only active fallacy in my post was "Poisoning the well" since by insulting him, I suppose it could lead others to doubt his future credibility. All of the insults I used were simply that: Insults. I never went so far as to claim "You are wrong because you are an idiot" which would have been much more fallacious, instead, I was saying (at least this is how I see it) "You are an idiot because you are wrong" which is a conclusion I made from using his post as the evidence to decide upon his level of intelligence.
Regardless, any personal faults of hypocrisies I could have demonstrated would have no bearing on the truth or non-truth of the topic, and to insinuate otherwise would be an example of an Ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.
0
Grover if you stopped talking through your ass shit would stop coming out. You speak nonsense and you keep contradicting yourself. Regardless of whether or not this information is to help people you posted it in the wrong section and no matter how hard to you attempt to make it a sticky it not gonna happen. This has nothing to do with a "serious discussion". More like information.
Wanna know how to get this information look at my sig.
Wanna know how to get this information look at my sig.
-3
IsawIcameIconquered wrote...
Grover if you stopped talking through your ass shit would stop coming out. You speak nonsense and you keep contradicting yourself. Regardless of whether or not this information is to help people you posted it in the wrong section and no matter how hard to you attempt to make it a sticky it not gonna happen. This has nothing to do with a "serious discussion". More like information.Wanna know how to get this information look at my sig.
1.Stop posting
2.lrn2logic
3.lrn2argue
4.Start posting again
5.?????
6.PROFIT
At this point that's all I can say to you. I put it in the simplest format I could, since you don't seem to be receptive to normally formatted discussion.
0
Classy wrote...
Sure isn't serious discussion in this thread is it?The actual comments, IB as they may be in some cases, are not what the thread is about so much though, so I still think it belongs here.
If it becomes a serious detriment to its SD-ness, then I'm sure Tegumi will delete some of the posts, or move the thread.
0
I don't care enough to argue with either grover or camel, but at the same time people need to calm the fuck down. I will say one thing though Grover, You're incredibly rude and condescending, and it probably doesn't help people want to read the thread (Which, I do like the original post).
0
Illustrious2031 wrote...
I will say one thing though Grover, You're incredibly rude and condescendingIt's true as it may be, it's better than the people who make contradicting statements, sometimes even in the same post.
0
GroverCleaveland wrote...
In this thread you will find the tools to give yourselves at least a semblance of intelligence.So, do you put a link to this in every serious discussion thread? It's not a bad idea considering all the wealth of information here.
What I am concerned about is the link to http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
It seems that this website has none of its sources cited, which makes me doubt its credibility. Also... I have no idea who wrote it...
In my opinion, it pollutes the rest of the links here with "unscholarly" material. The Wikipedia articles posted here can be considered credible due to their many citations. For example, the article on Evolution has 284 sources.
The "Nizkor Project" is material written by a professor of philosophy who was kind enough to have his work posted on the internet for free... making it very credible.
0
Suddenly, bumpage.
@Illustrious Being rude and condescending is what I live for.
@Luke Piewalker It quotes the bible in a vast number of places, links to a variety of studies (although I just clicked on one of the sections at random, maybe the other sections have less backing evidence) and I felt like the site is mainly about thought, not research and scientific results. I posted it because it goes through many of the common arguments from atheists and religious folk, and when I made this thread, there were like 5 active religious debates in SD, so I wanted something for people to look at and see if they were just beating a dead horse in their arguments.
@Illustrious Being rude and condescending is what I live for.
@Luke Piewalker It quotes the bible in a vast number of places, links to a variety of studies (although I just clicked on one of the sections at random, maybe the other sections have less backing evidence) and I felt like the site is mainly about thought, not research and scientific results. I posted it because it goes through many of the common arguments from atheists and religious folk, and when I made this thread, there were like 5 active religious debates in SD, so I wanted something for people to look at and see if they were just beating a dead horse in their arguments.
0
GroverCleaveland wrote...
Suddenly, bumpage.@Illustrious Being rude and condescending is what I live for.
@Luke Piewalker It quotes the bible in a vast number of places, links to a variety of studies (although I just clicked on one of the sections at random, maybe the other sections have less backing evidence) and I felt like the site is mainly about thought, not research and scientific results. I posted it because it goes through many of the common arguments from atheists and religious folk, and when I made this thread, there were like 5 active religious debates in SD, so I wanted something for people to look at and see if they were just beating a dead horse in their arguments.
There will be ALWAYS a debate between Christians, Muslims, Atheist, Satanists, and Science to prove which theory is better and which of those religions more proof have than the other.....
Religions have ALWAYS thoughts and beliefs about their ideas of the world and how it's ran.
There is no way to back up a religions theory and ideas simply by scientific research and how they can present their evidence...
Science can research on stuff that is already there.. but people who are religious believe in ideas that does not exist within our reach.
0
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
There will be ALWAYS a debate between Christians, Muslims, Atheist, Satanists, and Science to prove which theory is better and which of those religions more proof have than the other...That's absolutely ridiculous.
1) No religion has proof. Period.
1.1) All religion is faith.
2) Science is a practice of testing and analysing results. It must follow the scientific method. (It's also not a religion, FYI)
A theory is a collection of concepts, bound by rules, to explain relationships between observations. Religious views have no observations.
3) Religious views are not theories. They're religious views.
Science is a method of study based on empirical evidence, whether it's practical or not -- Religion is entirely void of empirical evidence.
It is impossible to make observations on "God". Therefore, it is impossible to make any scientifically correct statements on "God".
If science were to make a statement on "God" then it would be void of empirical evidence, and therefore it would be pseudoscience.
You can argue with religion. You can say, "You're retarded, there is no basis for your views" and the only proper response (without being utterly void of correctness and intelligence) would be "Don't question me, it is my faith, it is what I have faith in." There is no debate there.
0
Stenta wrote...
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
There will be ALWAYS a debate between Christians, Muslims, Atheist, Satanists, and Science to prove which theory is better and which of those religions more proof have than the other...That's absolutely ridiculous.
1) No religion has proof. Period.
2) All religion is faith.
3) Science is a practice of testing and analysing results. It must follow the scientific method.
A theory is a collection of concepts, bound by rules, to explain relationships between observations. Religious views have no observations.
4) Religious views are not theories. They're religious views.
Science is a method of study based on empirical evidence, whether it's practical or not -- Religion is entirely void of empirical evidence.
It is impossible to make observations on "God". Therefore, it is impossible to make any scientifically correct statements on "God".
If science were to make a statement on "God" then it would be void of empirical evidence, and therefore it would be pseudoscience.
You can argue with religion. You can say, "You're retarded, there is no basis for your views" and the only proper response (without being utterly void of correctness and intelligence) would be "Don't question me, it is my faith, it is what I have faith in." There is no debate there.
That is not my problem.. you can tell that to the people who appear on television about their views and such... Im only mentioning people who babble on with their theories and saying theirs is right even though they have no solid evidence that this is true...
And plus I already mentioned what you just wrote (just in a shorter comment)
once again stop nitpicking out the small details making it look like I wrote something completely off because it confuses the other readers....
But I very much agree on how religion is purely made out of faiths and beliefs which has no scientific involvement... while on the other hand scientists clearly explains the elements we have on this planet and around us which has absolutely no religious involvement.
It can't get more simpler than that , can it?
0
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
just in a shorter commentYou can ignore the bulk of most of my posts, I just go through deductions. The real statement is:
...You can say, "...there is no basis for your views" and the only proper response ... would be "Don't question me, it is my faith..." There is no debate there.
Science has nothing to do with the debate between faiths, and there's no reason or way to include it. Also religious views are not theories.
If you want to understand why or how I conclude that, the rest of the post is there to explain.
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
once again stop nitpicking out the small details making it look like I wrote something completely off because it confuses the other readers....to "stop nitpicking out the small details"
--If your details are wrong, then your post does not make sense. It's like math; if you make a mistake on a single step, then everything after it, that's based on it, will also be incorrect.
to "making it look like I wrote something completely off"
--I'm not switching around the order of your quotations. I'm not quoting parts of a sentence and then finishing with portions of a different sentence. You said something and I responded to it accordingly.
Your posts should have their own value. Your statements should be judged for exactly what they are: your statements.
A reader should be able to read your post, and see it for exactly what it is. Not for what other people think.
0
Stenta wrote...
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
just in a shorter commentYou can ignore the bulk of most of my posts, I just go through deductions. The real statement is:
...You can say, "...there is no basis for your views" and the only proper response ... would be "Don't question me, it is my faith..." There is no debate there.
Science has nothing to do with the debate between faiths, and there's no reason or way to include it. Also religious views are not theories.
If you want to understand why or how I conclude that, the rest of the post is there to explain.
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
once again stop nitpicking out the small details making it look like I wrote something completely off because it confuses the other readers....to "stop nitpicking out the small details"
--If your details are wrong, then your post does not make sense. It's like math; if you make a mistake on a single step, then everything after it, that's based on it, will also be incorrect.
to "making it look like I wrote something completely off"
--I'm not switching around the order of your quotations. I'm not quoting parts of a sentence and then finishing with portions of a different sentence. You said something and I responded to it accordingly.
Your posts should have their own value. Your statements should be judged for exactly what they are: your statements.
A reader should be able to read your post, and see it for exactly what it is. Not for what other people think.
The thing is Stenta...
all I wrote are things that is neutral and I didn't pick sides which means I never had an intention to give my comment value.. just wrote things on how they are...
and I am sure we can agree on that.
0
Spoiler:
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
I never had an intention to give my comment valueLastly, and this should wrap it up:
If your comments have no value then why are you posting them?
0
Stenta wrote...
Spoiler:
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
I never had an intention to give my comment valueLastly, and this should wrap it up:
If your comments have no value then why are you posting them?
Because the previous comment I made shouldn't have any argument value in them ( sorry for not writing it before since I wasn't being specific)
This was just a neutral comment
0
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
Because the previous comment I made shouldn't have any argument value in themhttps://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?p=2494114#2493889 would like to have a word with you.
0
Stenta wrote...
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
Because the previous comment I made shouldn't have any argument value in themhttps://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?p=2494114#2493889 would like to have a word with you.
https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?p=2494114#2493799
if you are trying to say something different then say it....
Don't even try to stretch this one out...
Just say what you mean and lets wrap this one up...