[Discussion] Religion

[Punk Hazard]

Cancer levels reaching 90% threshold. This will be my last response

Then don't respond, none of us needs a ****ing announcement.

It seems the strawman of the day is to explain things that don't require an explanation.

It's not a strawman argument at all. You claim I did something I didn't do, and I clarified that I didn't do it.

You'll group people who fit into the latter category into the former based off what you deem what they should able to able to be respondeing to.

Actually, no. I put KonanX in the latter category because I've seen her make in-depth arguments to the rhetoric you gave before in other threads. I put her in the category because I've seen her exhibit that she does know how to reply to the argument that you made. It wasn't guessing.

Once again, your post makes zero sense, there were people replying with what she identifies as bigotry and was yet was replying to those members.

Then clearly the lack of respect she has for you lies with you specifically. You claim you don't care, and here you are complaining that she's replying to others and not you. You're beginning to border on obsessive here. If you don't care that she blocked you and ignored you six months ago, then are you bringing it up here? Why is the fact that she chose not to reply to you six months ago relevant to her arguments in this thread? The answer is it's not, you found an opportunity to lash out at a member who didn't give you attention, and now you're super defensive about it.

She had me on ignore, yet was replying to some of my post as well as mentioning my name as well (Based off your logic she must have been irate at the time to bring up arguments from previous debates, but knowing the white knight you are, you'll find a way to justify this).

Yeah, she might have been irate too.

So it doesn't matter how you spin it, you're a hypocrite and she's a poor debater based off your logic

Choosing not to reply doesn't mean she's incapable of replying. The very fact that she didn't reply to you but replied to people making the same arguments as you just shows that she is capable of replying to you and she just chose not to because of who you are specifically.

INB4: You try to justify "oh she doesn't respect you, but Im gonna try and justify her debating other people that had similar arguments that you had ComplexCity"

I'll say it again: If she's replying to arguments that other people made that are the same or similar to the ones you made, and she didn't reply to you, then that proves she chose not to reply to you specifically, not that she couldn't reply. If she couldn't reply to you, then she wouldn't have been able to reply to them either.

Which she said were bigoted, don't say this and then change your answer when you aren't making any sense. Doesn't do anything for you being fickle

Already addressed this before, no new arguments here.

Not wasting my time, because you're making a mold hill into a mountain when no one even asked for your input (INB4 this is a public forum).

That's exactly what you did here

You must be registered for see links

Calling your post irrelevant is lashing out? I see

Not just that, but the numerous insults you've directed towards Macho and me. You're very fluent in ad hominem.

So I guess your irate when you say "I remember when """" memeber said this." Glad to know where all that white knight fervor comes from

No, you're irate when you're clearly bothered by someone choosing not to reply to you almost half a year ago. If you aren't irate and you don't care, why are you holding onto that?

White Knight
A person (usually a male) who sees the typical maiden in distress, and believes that he can help her. A male version of the "mother figure" that some girls become.

Yet you quoted me when I clearly said "she"
Doesn't matter who it was for and no one was beefing that's how your bias brain interpreted it

This is what I said when I quoted you:

The animal argument isn't to say we should do it though

Had nothing to do with the fact that you were beefing with a girl. I had no idea who the member was and I give no ****s about their ***, I care about the argument. Hence why I replied to your argument with an argument.

What you're doing is ad hominem, yet again. Instead of attacking my argument, you're trying to paint me as a white knight and hoping that's enough to disprove the argument itself. Sad as ****.

I'm not understanding your logic (as well as from the previous thread so I'm not really getting my hopes up here). I'm not the one who brought up being irate. A couple members missed the point of my post as it was relevant to what the member(s) I was replying to at the time. The person currently responding to me now, didn't even read the previous member(s) post I replied to.

I didn't need to. Like I said, it had nothing to do with your beef with KonanX, but the argument you posted. I couldn't care less about which members you're obsessing over This is all started because I argued your point. not your little tantrum that KonanX isn't paying attention to you.

That's why he's under the assumption that I am irate because he is ignorant to what was previously being discussed. By all means though, if you want to be a Rugrat and hop on the bandwagon, by all means do so

More ad hominem in lieu of argument.

Except it's not an argument, I'm just trying to show him the error of his ways, however, you can't teach a blind man how to "see" his mistakes. He just likes to argue for the sake of being contrary to others who don't believe what he does (only with certain members like myself)

Not true, I argue with any and everyone I disagree with. Only you think you're special.

 

[HashiraMadara]

Surprised that this thread got 18 pages and no flame war ever initiated.

This thread has mature intelligent beings willing to share points XD. It all depends how you start a thread: imagine if I started it with "What's the point of religion, who chose yours etc." without shedding light on my story side and opinions first.

 

[HashiraMadara]

I jinxed it?

Welcome to the jinx club better than Winx club

You both are the worst XD jinx club

 

[Marin]

Spoiler

Then don't respond, none of us needs a ****ing announcement.


It's not a strawman argument at all. You claim I did something I didn't do, and I clarified that I didn't do it.


Actually, no. I put KonanX in the latter category because I've seen her make in-depth arguments to the rhetoric you gave before in other threads. I put her in the category because I've seen her exhibit that she does know how to reply to the argument that you made. It wasn't guessing.


Then clearly the lack of respect she has for you lies with you specifically. You claim you don't care, and here you are complaining that she's replying to others and not you. You're beginning to border on obsessive here. If you don't care that she blocked you and ignored you six months ago, then are you bringing it up here? Why is the fact that she chose not to reply to you six months ago relevant to her arguments in this thread? The answer is it's not, you found an opportunity to lash out at a member who didn't give you attention, and now you're super defensive about it.


Yeah, she might have been irate too.


Choosing not to reply doesn't mean she's incapable of replying. The very fact that she didn't reply to you but replied to people making the same arguments as you just shows that she is capable of replying to you and she just chose not to because of who you are specifically.


I'll say it again: If she's replying to arguments that other people made that are the same or similar to the ones you made, and she didn't reply to you, then that proves she chose not to reply to you specifically, not that she couldn't reply. If she couldn't reply to you, then she wouldn't have been able to reply to them either.


Already addressed this before, no new arguments here.



That's exactly what you did here

You must be registered for see links

Not just that, but the numerous insults you've directed towards Macho and me. You're very fluent in ad hominem.


No, you're irate when you're clearly bothered by someone choosing not to reply to you almost half a year ago. If you aren't irate and you don't care, why are you holding onto that?


This is what I said when I quoted you:



Had nothing to do with the fact that you were beefing with a girl. I had no idea who the member was and I give no ****s about their ***, I care about the argument. Hence why I replied to your argument with an argument.

What you're doing is ad hominem, yet again. Instead of attacking my argument, you're trying to paint me as a white knight and hoping that's enough to disprove the argument itself. Sad as ****.



I didn't need to. Like I said, it had nothing to do with your beef with KonanX, but the argument you posted. I couldn't care less about which members you're obsessing over This is all started because I argued your point. not your little tantrum that KonanX isn't paying attention to you.


More ad hominem in lieu of argument.


Not true, I argue with any and everyone I disagree with. Only you think you're special.

Not a waste when I am able to multitask and do other things while I wait for my notification to increase a count. Still not seeing how that's irate

I post in a lot of threads so I have no idea, buddy. But I'm surprised you would waste two hours of your life trying to teach a blind man to see his mistakes. Kudos to you.

Definitely not irate.

Except it's not an argument, I'm just trying to show him the error of his ways, however, you can't teach a blind man how to "see" his mistakes. He just likes to argue for the sake of being contrary to others who don't believe what he does (only with certain members like myself)



In this thread or the other? Because neither are coherent when I just explained to you that I didn't bring up her name out of any negative feeling



I'm just sarcastic so it might come off that way. No one on here has the power to make me feel negative emotion, in fact it's quite the opposite



[Again, not making any sense, there is a person here trying to tell me how I feel and when I explain myself I am escalating the issue?



You have no idea

Exactly. Cuz we all cling to stuff that we don't care about

Judging from the current argument you're having with Oreo... I'm not surprised you don't understand my logic. But it just seems like you're a bit frustrated by your word usage, sentence structure, and your inability to control yourself from further escalating the argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Cancer levels reaching 90% threshold. This will be my last response




It seems the strawman of the day is to explain things that don't require an explanation. You'll group people who fit into the latter category into the former based off what you deem what they should able to able to be respondeing to. Once again, your post makes zero sense, there were people replying with what she identifies as bigotry and was yet was replying to those members. She had me on ignore, yet was replying to some of my post as well as mentioning my name as well (Based off your logic she must have been irate at the time to bring up arguments from previous debates, but knowing the white knight you are, you'll find a way to justify this). So it doesn't matter how you spin it, you're a hypocrite and she's a poor debater based off your logic

INB4: You try to justify "oh she doesn't respect you, but Im gonna try and justify her debating other people that had similar arguments that you had ComplexCity"







Which she said were bigoted, don't say this and then change your answer when you aren't making any sense. Doesn't do anything for you being fickle





Not wasting my time, because you're making a mold hill into a mountain when no one even asked for your input (INB4 this is a public forum).




Calling your post irrelevant is lashing out? I see

So I guess your irate when you say "I remember when """" memeber said this." Glad to know where all that white knight fervor comes from





White Knight
A person (usually a male) who sees the typical maiden in distress, and believes that he can help her. A male version of the "mother figure" that some girls become.


Yet you quoted me when I clearly said "she"
Doesn't matter who it was for and no one was beefing that's how your bias brain interpreted it




I'm not understanding your logic (as well as from the previous thread so I'm not really getting my hopes up here). I'm not the one who brought up being irate. A couple members missed the point of my post as it was relevant to what the member(s) I was replying to at the time. The person currently responding to me now, didn't even read the previous member(s) post I replied to. That's why he's under the assumption that I am irate because he is ignorant to what was previously being discussed. By all means though, if you want to be a Rugrat and hop on the bandwagon, by all means do so

Yes. People who are incapable of making a reply when they want to are not good debaters. This, however, isn't the same as a person who IS capable of forming a reply, and chooses not to post it because they find that it's not worth it. KonanX is the latter, not the former.



I never said anything about bigotry specifically. I said the concept of dismissing someone's argument because it gives you reason not to respect them is valid. Like I said, if you want me to address bigotry, C/P the exact posts in their entirety.


You clearly are, as you're lashing out towards her, me, and Uchiha Macho about it. You're going out of your way to be unnecessarily berating, so yeah, by all indications, you do care. Especially if it happened six whole months ago, and you're bringing it up again in a separate thread.


No one is playing white knight. I didn't even know who you were beefing with when I replied.

The part where you said that people that don't have a proper rebuttal are poor debaters, yet sitting here attempting to justify her doing so. You're playing coy and selectively choosing when you wanna follow your words




:|

So why mention that her dismissing me based on the traits she observed (bigotry) if you aren't even going to stick with your original argument? Bold is irrelevant for previous reasons




So mentioning this one time currently results in me being irate? So by your logic, whenever another members is brought up from previous debates, then they too are irate? Flawless logic Riker, flawless logic




Depends on how much more cancerous your and other members responses are




Except I don't can't see how you're so bored that you're trying to justify how I'm feeling. No need to play the white knight

What part of that specifically and precisely makes me a hypocrite?


I never said she was accurate in calling you a bigot. I said she was accurate in dismissing you. I'd have to see the post itself to decide if she was accurate or not, not just a summary.




You're irate because of how much attention you're paying to the fact that she blocked you instead of arguing with you. If you didn't care, you obviously wouldn't be bringing it up in an argument 6 months later.


Make this permanent and never.



Which is exactly why you caring so much is so sad.

However ironically, even though she had me blocked and didn't like my arguments, she was responding them.

And very much in character, you sit here try to justify your argument while sounding like a hypocrite. Typical Riker

Per the example I gave, tell me, what did I say in the sentence that exhibited bigotry?



She's had me blocked for half a year. Since when does calling her posts illogical and dropping a dislike result in me being irate? Idc if she does, I was just letting him know how she rolls. I barely come on CancerBase as it is. What benefit do I get for a member I don't care about ignoring my post?

I do not believe in God. I simply believe in the Law.

I mean...yes. If she has no respect for your opinion based on observing your arguments, then why does she have to give you the time of day? You're basically saying "She read my arguments, disagreed with them, and doesn't respect me as a person based on the traits I've exhibited in their arguments. How dare she?" Get over yourself.




SEE?? This is the exact same thing you chastise KonanX for doing to you. You get irate that she dismisses your argument, and then you do the same to others. Really get over yourself.

So what I learned from a guy who selectively responds to certain posts that he wants to is that if someone feels your argument isn't making sense to them or feel that it's irrelevant based off your own observation, that it is ok to degrade them and put them on ignore because you don't like what they said. Quite the expected response



Like I told Macho, your post is irrelevant. That was one of many examples of it being done not just with that example which wasn't even my reasoning for posting it (her argument). Don't know why you think explaining to me what I already know makes your post any more relevant :lol

On the contrary, you failed to understand the point of my post, while I did yours. You're reprimanding her because she didn't provide an argument to your counterargument, and instead dismissed it. The point of my post is that she isn't really wrong to dismiss it because the premise of your argument is very faulty. The point of my post was that the flaw in what you said to her was so obvious, she's not at fault for not wasting time to explain it to you.

Which is irrelevant as there was no need for your input.... :|


I already know why liberals make that argument so you pretty much wasted my time reading that response. At least think of something constructive next time, something you seem to almost never do

Didn't care about the point of your post. I just wanted to point out what I said in my previous post.

.....And when I saw Riker's name appear in a thread he was done with pages ago, after seeing my name, that's when I knew....



OT: Again missing the point of my post (unsurprisingly)


Seems like you often try to take a jab certain members on here, RP section not servicing you well?

The animal argument isn't to say we should do it though

You're missing the point of my post (unsurprisingly). There's no need to defend that which you're ignorant too

We bring up homosexual animals when someone tries to argue that homosexuality isn't natural. We don't use homosexual animals as an argument for homosexuality being good since we know that natural doesn't mean good (nothing wrong with homosexuality).

She ignores people who pose a threat against her logic


I asked her does it make sense to follow all the things that animals do after one of her central arguments for homosexuality was that animals do it. I was then called a bigot and put on ignore

Point this-point that and all you guys are off-topic. :sdo:

 

[HashiraMadara]

I will relay it again: I believe in a higher being for sure. It is too shag to believe that this complex system is all a matter of chance and probability.

Uncertainty Principle:
"
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities[1] asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.

Introduced first in 1927, by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, it states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.[2] The formal inequality relating the standard deviation of position σx and the standard deviation of momentum σp was derived by Earle Hesse Kennard[3] later that year and by Hermann Weyl[4] in 1928:" wiki qoute

To simplify the above, it means in a pair of particles or even 1 particle for that matter: it is impossible to determine 100% accurate "probability" of particle's "position" and "momentum" simultaneously. Meaning you either know where it is going or know where it is but can't know both properties.

This is not because we don't have advanced enough tech to track it: it's the laws of physics.

Entropy on the other Hand:
"For example, gas in a container with known volume, pressure, and temperature could have an enormous number of possible configurations of the individual gas molecules, and which configuration the gas is actually in may be regarded as random. Hence, entropy can be understood as a measure of molecular disorder within a macroscopic system. The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system's entropy never decreases. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy. Non-isolated systems may lose entropy, provided their environment's entropy increases by at least that increment. Since entropy is a state function, the change in entropy of a system is determined by its initial and final states. This applies whether the process is reversible or irreversible. However, irreversible processes increase the combined entropy of the system and its environment."

You think If the universe followed entropy and thermodynamics laws we would be where we are today? Entropy denying formation of solar system? There are many loop holes in science that they will never tell you...

Choosing to be in higher being is not symbol of dumbness but an intelligence that shows you science is not everything there is: I am sure there is a being or there are beings that created this existence.

"I think, therefore I am" this is enough for you to know that consciousness is not a mistake. Tell me: will humans ever make a "self reproducing thing with a drive to produce more" ? <=== that's life it's not a mistake as science leads you to believe...




I don't think there are religions greater than others or "truer" than others like how Christians and Muslims will want you to believe. For All I know they are scientist themselves trying to explain where this existence comes from...

 

[Xanthos]

I am curious by nature, a quality that usually overcomes most of my behaviours. In my curiosity quest I have learned a lot of things seen different cultures learnt different languages and experienced different religions.


4 years old was the first time I read a book 1999 Sep 13. I read the Bible: 1 Samuel 17 David vs. Goliath. That may seem weird but it's not at all because I was born in Church. My mother is a Christian Bishop(she was just a normal Evangelism member then). My point is in my birth it was already decided: I will worship Christ etc. I had no choice nor say in it they just bestowed it upon me.

Fast forward by 3 years (now 7 years old). Rebeled against the Church, became a science ambassador. This continued until 9th grade Where I was like "f*ck this shit! " science went from hard to understand to sci-fi with string theories, multiverses that can never be proven, multi-dimensions I lost hope in it, since it was no different from religion now etc.

I started studying religions in my free time. Buddhism and Islam to be precise, fast-forward over 5 years now I am well versed in almost all religion, I am a confused mess who defends them all yet doesn't believe in them all 100% :|


Thread question: What is your religion? Who chose it for you? What convinces you in it enough to think it is > than others

I'm a christian. I suppose it was chosen for me at first but Ive come to my own conclusions and had some experiences at the end of the day its my choice to stay with it, but what I would really like to applaud you for is what I highlighted in yellow THANK YOU.

I know a lot of people switching their faiths at a certain age. Initially it is chosen but you have an independent mind. Not like I'm just a mindless drone who can't think for myself. I chose to stick with it because of many reasons. I find it logical and extremely applicable to today's world. Also some other things that help fortify my beliefs but ppl wouldn't believe me if I told them. ;_;

 

[HashiraMadara]

I'm a christian. I suppose it was chosen for me at first but Ive come to my own conclusions and had some experiences at the end of the day its my choice to stay with it, but what I would really like to applaud you for is what I highlighted in yellow THANK YOU.

Well I noticed a lot of people here are stuck there: Where "existence is insignificant and is a matter of chance & probability" especially "You Creepy Stalker". He reminds me of myself in my science ambassador days. The f*cked part I didn't specialise until later in my life. I was general in all field which means I saw it doesn't add up in whatever field you're in: I started dreaming of being a Palaeontologist I was fascinated with bones and history searching.

This what changed my view about science completely in all these fields:

Biology:
Life started on earth in hot springs with all earth based chemicals. <== theory number 1

Life was brought on earth via comets, because 4, 3 billion years is too little to have these complicated life systems. <== theory number 2

This above makes you really wonder....

Physics:
Bing Bang, Multiverse and Time parallels, I will summarise it: Bing Bang created 1 super force that at it extinction caused cosmic inflation where the universe was expanding at speeds > than c(speed of light). That 1 super strong force separated to be "4 fundamental forces" Gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear force.

This above puzzles above a lot of scientist if this is so: Then why gravity is so damn weak compared to other forces? by jumping it means you've over powering gravity. Yet a strong nuclear force keeps protons together even though their electromagnetic force repels :|

 

[ComplexCity]

Ok last reply I promise

Then don't respond, none of us needs a ****ing announcement

Once again I quote, America.

It's not a strawman argument at all. You claim I did something I didn't do, and I clarified that I didn't do it

You're trying to explain to me why the argument works when it was not only irrelevant to anyone's responses' but also to the topic at hand.

Actually, no. I put KonanX in the latter category because I've seen her make in-depth arguments to the rhetoric you gave before in other threads. I put her in the category because I've seen her exhibit that she does know how to reply to the argument that you made. It wasn't guessing.

I'd like you to cite your sources. If she knew how to reply she would have not stuck me on ignore. You've put her in the latter category because you are bias. I've seen people perfectly capable of debating with lumping them in the former category because they chose not to respond to you.

Then clearly the lack of respect she has for you lies with you specifically

Clearly even you yourself don't even know what your saying. Your original premise was that she observed traits that I exhibited (bigotry) was the reasoning for her not responding. Now you're saying due to the fact that she doesn't respect me after what you stated before has been disproven. TransitX has not displayed any bigoted responses yet she choose to ignore him when he approaches her from logical and non-demeaning fashion with the intention of deabting. Yet you're gonna sit here and say that she doesn't respect him based off his responses.

You claim you don't care, and here you are complaining that she's replying to others and not you

You need to read a dictionary

You're beginning to border on obsessive here

I'm gonna need empirical evidence on how I'm obsessive.

If you don't care that she blocked you and ignored you six months ago, then are you bringing it up here? Why is the fact that she chose not to reply to you six months ago relevant to her arguments in this thread?

Because people specifically brought it up, but knowing you, you jumped right to my responses because that's what you do and that's how you debate (bad habits you should stop) and didn't care to read. I didn't come out the clear blue and say this. Had it not come up in this thread, you wouldn't be wasting my time now

The answer is it's not, you found an opportunity to lash out at a member who didn't give you attention, and now you're super defensive about it

Again if we're gonna be hypocritical, at least lump yourself in the category as well as the rest of the people who do so

Yeah, she might have been irate too

Incapable debater is a better description

Choosing not to reply doesn't mean she's incapable of replying. The very fact that she didn't reply to you but replied to people making the same arguments as you just shows that she is capable of replying to you and she just chose not to because of who you are specifically

Already address but I'll mirror you and parrot myself. That wasn't your original premise, you also pick and choose when to lump people in the two categories (which I don't see why this is relevant anyway since it's your opinion) based on what you deem to be acceptable debating (lol?). The fact is that when her logic is threaten by someone with logical debating skills OR when someone is willing to find a flaw in her logic, she'll either

a) Back out and say she's not wasting her time (without addressing valid points from her opponent)
b) Call you a bigot if your view is what she consider discriminatory and block you

By your logic, everyone she chooses not to reply to, is people she does not respect (even when she herself does not even say this nor hint at this, instead will say she doesn't want to repeat herself when she wasn't making sense from the jump) and in turn contradicts your original premise that she didn't respond due to observing my traits as bigoted

I'll say it again: If she's replying to arguments that other people made that are the same or similar to the ones you made, and she didn't reply to you, then that proves she chose not to reply to you specifically, not that she couldn't reply. If she couldn't reply to you, then she wouldn't have been able to reply to them either.

Bold is based off your speculation based off your observation as I said they had SIMILAR responses and not the SAME

Already addressed this before, no new arguments here

Nah, you changed your response when your original was debunked

That's exactly what you did here

You must be registered for see links

Adding relevancy to another's post is doing so? You're making a fashion statement with the hypocrisy you're wearing

Not just that, but the numerous insults you've directed towards Macho and me. You're very fluent in ad hominem

Insults?

insultplay
verb in·sult \in-ˈsəlt\
Popularity: Top 40% of words
Simple Definition of insult
: to do or say something that is offensive to (someone) : to do or say something that shows a lack of respect for (someone)

Once again, if we're going to be doing what you're trying to now, let's not be hypocritical and lump the appropriate parties such as yourself. Can't see how you are even bringing this up when you're the posterboy for insulting people :lol

No, you're irate when you're clearly bothered by someone choosing not to reply to you almost half a year ago. If you aren't irate and you don't care, why are you holding onto that?

And again you're focused on the part that's irrelevant in what will be your 4th time responding to me after I told you twice it was irrelevant. Why even are you trying to justify something I already stated to be irrelevant anyway? If it makes you happy so you can stop trying to justify your argument, I can say the same thing she's doing to TranizX, there you happy?

This is what I said when I quoted you:



Had nothing to do with the fact that you were beefing with a girl. I had no idea who the member was and I give no ****s about their ***, I care about the argument. Hence why I replied to your argument with an argument

Which completely flew over your head as the argument had nothing to do with

1. My post
2. The thread
3. Or any one's response

I can't see how it's flying over your head this much, would you like me to rent you the Hubble Telescope? Unlike you though I won't sit here and say what you were doing (even though I find it strange how you didn't see that I said she in the post you quoted which means either you don't read everything or have selective reading, both which you've display(ed) in your debate(s))

What you're doing is ad hominem, yet again. Instead of attacking my argument, you're trying to paint me as a white knight and hoping that's enough to disprove the argument itself. Sad as ****.

I've dismantled your argument, which is why you changed one of them. The argument you're trying to make about nature is irrelevant to my post and this thread. Unlike Macho was just debated about my point about nature and left, you're here trying defend her honor. What qualities of a white knight aren't you exhibiting brah?

I didn't need to. Like I said, it had nothing to do with your beef with KonanX, but the argument you posted. I couldn't care less about which members you're obsessing over This is all started because I argued your point. not your little tantrum that KonanX isn't paying attention to you.

Which I told you was irrelevant, going on the third time now. So I don't get what your point is.

More ad hominem in lieu of argument.

Ok

Not true, I argue with any and everyone I disagree with. Only you think you're special.

Instead of debating irrelvant nonsense with me, why don't you actually respond to tranz X's last reply? Oh I forgot, you're Riker

 

[Everztar]

Thread question: What is your religion? Who chose it for you? What convinces you in it enough to think it is > than others [/B][/COLOR]

WTF? "WHO CHOSE IT FOR YOU" !!!!??? only muslims force their kids to be muslims or else they kill them, even if their muslim child falls in love with a non-muslim they kill their kid... WTF. happened many times in sweden

[
OT; all religions are bullshit. there is no god what so ever.
religion is the biggest scam EVER. How come Islam thinks it's only year 1437 if christian people and all others believe it's 2016? then how can Islam be more legit? It's just a copycat lie And why to christian people offer 20-30% of their salary to the church? ****ing culprits. All of them. People are so ****ing dumb that they don't see it... why the hell is there a "subscription" to be christian? they force u to donate money to the ****ing church...

WTF. IS THERE EVEN PERKS FOR THE MEMBERS? OTHER THAN ALL THE LIES THEY'RE TOLD?
I FEEL SO DAMN SORRY FOR YOU GUYS THAT ARE BELIEVEING IN THOSE LIES. [/COLOR][/SIZE]

 

[Deadlift]

WTF? "WHO CHOSE IT FOR YOU" !!!!??? only muslims force their kids to be muslims or else they kill them, even if their muslim child falls in love with a non-muslim they kill their kid... WTF. happened many times in sweden


OT; all religions are bullshit. there is no god what so ever.
religion is the biggest scam EVER. How come Islam thinks it's only year 1437 if christian people and all others believe it's 2016? then how can Islam be more legit? It's just a copycat lie And why to christian people offer 20-30% of their salary to the church? ****ing culprits. All of them. People are so ****ing dumb that they don't see it... why the hell is there a "subscription" to be christian? they force u to donate money to the ****ing church...

WTF. IS THERE EVEN PERKS FOR THE MEMBERS? OTHER THAN ALL THE LIES THEY'RE TOLD?
I FEEL SO DAMN SORRY FOR YOU GUYS THAT ARE BELIEVEING IN THOSE LIES. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]

Whew, I thought the dogmatic ones were the religious people :lol:

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Spoiler

I will relay it again: I believe in a higher being for sure. It is too shag to believe that this complex system is all a matter of chance and probability.

Uncertainty Principle:
"
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities[1] asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.

Introduced first in 1927, by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, it states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.[2] The formal inequality relating the standard deviation of position σx and the standard deviation of momentum σp was derived by Earle Hesse Kennard[3] later that year and by Hermann Weyl[4] in 1928:" wiki qoute

To simplify the above, it means in a pair of particles or even 1 particle for that matter: it is impossible to determine 100% accurate "probability" of particle's "position" and "momentum" simultaneously. Meaning you either know where it is going or know where it is but can't know both properties.

This is not because we don't have advanced enough tech to track it: it's the laws of physics.

Entropy on the other Hand:
"For example, gas in a container with known volume, pressure, and temperature could have an enormous number of possible configurations of the individual gas molecules, and which configuration the gas is actually in may be regarded as random. Hence, entropy can be understood as a measure of molecular disorder within a macroscopic system. The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system's entropy never decreases. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy. Non-isolated systems may lose entropy, provided their environment's entropy increases by at least that increment. Since entropy is a state function, the change in entropy of a system is determined by its initial and final states. This applies whether the process is reversible or irreversible. However, irreversible processes increase the combined entropy of the system and its environment."

You think If the universe followed entropy and thermodynamics laws we would be where we are today? Entropy denying formation of solar system? There are many loop holes in science that they will never tell you...

Choosing to be in higher being is not symbol of dumbness but an intelligence that shows you science is not everything there is: I am sure there is a being or there are beings that created this existence.

"I think, therefore I am" this is enough for you to know that consciousness is not a mistake. Tell me: will humans ever make a "self reproducing thing with a drive to produce more" ? <=== that's life it's not a mistake as science leads you to believe...




I don't think there are religions greater than others or "truer" than others like how Christians and Muslims will want you to believe. For All I know they are scientist themselves trying to explain where this existence comes from...

If the universe is so complex that it requires a creator, then wouldnt the creator be complex enough to require a creator?

 

[Deadlift]

If the universe is so complex that it requires a creator, then wouldnt the creator be complex enough to require a creator?

I believe this question has already been answered in this thread

 

[P3ĮÑ]

Wrong. He split the moon in two and has made water gush from a small amount in his hand.

This is a misconception, he did not split the moon, he simply pointed towards where it split, the "mohjza' was not performed by the prophet. It was simply a description, it falls in the early sign for the day of judgement in Islam, same with prophet jesus and moses, they never performed "magical" miracles in the bible or the Torah, it's the context in how it's written/explained which allures the reader into believing such nonsense.

A pure Example would be "blowing back life into a dead human" on a readers perception, this doesn't necessarily indicate Resurrection of a dead corpse, it could also in another sense mean restoration to faith, guidance to righteousness, to move away from wrong, but **** that? It sayz he was dead and shieeet der it gotta be dem magical whistle woo.

It's called, tafseer.

But anyways, 3 years ago it was the same shit threads, honestly do people really waste their times debating religion on a website where itachi's **** ascends across multiverses?

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

I believe this question has already been answered in this thread

It wasn't.

 

[Deadlift]

It wasn't.

Bro, did you even read all the replies? Check the mini debate between Riker and TranzzistX

 

[ComplexCity]

Bro, did you even read all the replies? Check the mini debate between Riker and TranzzistX

Can you summarize it? It's gonna take me a while to read all of that

 

[nefraiko]

response to this

Spoiler

I will relay it again: I believe in a higher being for sure. It is too shag to believe that this complex system is all a matter of chance and probability.

Uncertainty Principle:
"
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities[1] asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.

Introduced first in 1927, by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, it states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.[2] The formal inequality relating the standard deviation of position σx and the standard deviation of momentum σp was derived by Earle Hesse Kennard[3] later that year and by Hermann Weyl[4] in 1928:" wiki qoute

To simplify the above, it means in a pair of particles or even 1 particle for that matter: it is impossible to determine 100% accurate "probability" of particle's "position" and "momentum" simultaneously. Meaning you either know where it is going or know where it is but can't know both properties.

This is not because we don't have advanced enough tech to track it: it's the laws of physics.

Entropy on the other Hand:
"For example, gas in a container with known volume, pressure, and temperature could have an enormous number of possible configurations of the individual gas molecules, and which configuration the gas is actually in may be regarded as random. Hence, entropy can be understood as a measure of molecular disorder within a macroscopic system. The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system's entropy never decreases. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy. Non-isolated systems may lose entropy, provided their environment's entropy increases by at least that increment. Since entropy is a state function, the change in entropy of a system is determined by its initial and final states. This applies whether the process is reversible or irreversible. However, irreversible processes increase the combined entropy of the system and its environment."

You think If the universe followed entropy and thermodynamics laws we would be where we are today? Entropy denying formation of solar system? There are many loop holes in science that they will never tell you...

Choosing to be in higher being is not symbol of dumbness but an intelligence that shows you science is not everything there is: I am sure there is a being or there are beings that created this existence.

"I think, therefore I am" this is enough for you to know that consciousness is not a mistake. Tell me: will humans ever make a "self reproducing thing with a drive to produce more" ? <=== that's life it's not a mistake as science leads you to believe...




I don't think there are religions greater than others or "truer" than others like how Christians and Muslims will want you to believe. For All I know they are scientist themselves trying to explain where this existence comes from...

the response :
- how their can't be many gods.
- how islam is not considered as of great differences with christianity or judaism and as the god worshiped is one and diverse clarifications.

Spoiler

their can't be multiple gods because the universe as it is now is perfect and yet is so fragile and needs constantly to be maintained. if their were more than one higher being their would naturally be disagreements, their would certainly be a fight and their will be a hierarchy, just like in the god of war games.

in a universe ruled by many higher beings you can't contemplate this perfectly maintained peace in the creation. where every creation does exactly what it is made to do, even the human. nothing is left out of control. not even a single atome, not even a smaller part than an atome.

also, in islam we don't think that it is better than christianity, or that "islam" is a form of arab religion better than everything. islam means simply "to submit to god" every religion across the world in witch the follower submits to god is "islam" we only disagree with the christians about the trinity, they say god can have a son, we say that he said in a recent revelation that it was a misunderstanding. and it is said in the quran that in the judgement day god will be the judge in every disagreement.

just like when he says that he is out father, that doesn't mean he is biologically our father but that he gave us life, and watchs over us.

also they don't believe mohammad is a prophet while we believe jesus is a prophet. just like the jews don't believe jesus is a prophet wile the christians believe that moses is a prophet. I don't know why they just don't want to believe that god sends prophets after their revelation, every now and then god sent Messenger to the people of the earth, to update and to correct the eventual distortions made by the followers.

especially when you find in christianity that their will be another final prophet after jesus named "ahmad" born withing the sons of "ishmael"

in the quran god is god, jesus is the prophet, and the holy spirit is the angel of the revelation gabriel. and that jesus didn't die on the cross but he ascended in the heaven, his death was only an illusion and another one died in his place. in the quran jesus will come back on earth near the end as he is still alive.

god by his nature is a fully rationnal being you can contemplate this character by the perfection of his creation, and by the laws of his universe. how can he make such an ambiguity aka the trinity ? where he is 3 things ? a human, a god and a spirit. but that is a disagreement for what the only judge will be him.

muslims don't disagree with christians because they think that the trinity doesn't make sense. no, but as people who have come to evidences that the revelation of mohammed is true (from their perspective) read in that revelation that the christians missunderstand. the christians are not people who didn't obey god in the quran, they are people who are missunderstanding, they think they are doing good. this is the only major thing that makes that christians are not muslims. or that muslims are not christians.

also, the jews have the same major prescriptions as christians and muslims, except for some reason they don't want to believe that god has sent prophets to other people than to them. that should give you a hint about the fact that we are all talking about the same thing here.

as their is one god, their is only one religion, logically, submit to god thats all, if you say it in arab then "islam"

oh, and don't bother answering uzumaki macho as a large part of this thread has been on the question he asked, you'll just waste your time he is obviously a troll.

 

[Sex]

I believe this question has already been answered in this thread

Because such question can definitely be answered.

Right.

 

[Deadlift]

Can you summarize it? It's gonna take me a while to read all of that

It has already been said that the fine tuning of the universe is a sign of the presence of a Creator, and since everything has a beginning, it necessarily means there is a First Cause. Atheists objected that it allows us to say that even God needs a creator for Him, then. Theists answered that, unlike the universe, God is by definition a transcendent being, meaning He can't be affected by the same characteristics of the creation (cause, beginning and so on). Atheists answered again that if it was like that, we wouldn't know anything about God, since he's totally out of our perception, and yet we know some of His characteristics. Theists then closed by saying that in fact we know about Him because He freely chose to reveal Himself to us, leaving intact both His transcendence and our knowledge.


Those were the highlights at least

 

[Deadlift]

Because such question can definitely be answered.

Right.

It can, do you underrate apologists huh?