23.04.2014 - 23:09
And no, fuckwit. YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!! PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC IS MUCH CLOSER TO TRUTH than SCIENCE!!!! WHY DO YOU LIE ???????? I have concluded you are an albanian whore who works the lorry stops in Italy based on my analysis of your words and sayings. Propositional Logic requires only one axiom YOU LIAR and is much closer to TRUTH you ALBANIAN WHORE. i A thing exists (identity) i ~ i A thing is identical to itself (reflexivity) i ~ a . a ~ i A thing which is identical to another thing is equivalent to that thing (symmetry) Not i ~ Not a Negation of i is equivalent to negation of a (negation and symmetry) i ~ a, a ~ b . i ~ b If a thing is equivalent to a second thing, and the second thing is equivalent to the third thing, the first thing is equivalent to the third thing (transitivity) i ~ a, a ~ b. Not i . Not b. Negation and transitivity. Several pages later i FALSE Not i: A thing cannot be a nullification of itself. One whole book later: 1 x 1 = 1 1 + 1 = 2 Propositional Logic is MUCH CLOSER to truth so CLEARLY YOU LIE A whole book later: Premise 1: Albanians are invading Italy Premise 2: Most whores are albanian Premise 3: whores are stupid Premise 4: Khal is stupid Premise 5: Khal's account claims to be italy-based Conclusion 1: Khal is a whore because it is stupid. Conclusion 2: As Khal is a stupid whore, it is likely that it is an albanian. What if we were to find that Khal is Greek, not Italian? Premise 6: Khal is a liar. Conclusion 3: Khal is a lying, stupid whore who may or may not be Greek, Italian, or Albanian.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
23.04.2014 - 23:12
Antisemitism is racism you stupid whore racist. You were beaten and tear gassed because your pimp threw you out on the street for being an ugly whore who didn't earn any money, of this I am 99% sure. I was only 94% sure before that you were an ugly whore, but the beating and tear gassing takes me to 99% For what is there to love in an ugly, stupid, antisemitic racist whore?
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
23.04.2014 - 23:43
By the way i am not ugly, do not insult me please.Beatings and tear gas are not evidence enough for you to reach that conclusion (my nose goes a tiny teeny bit on the left but thats all)
----
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
23.04.2014 - 23:56
Then why did your pimp throw you out on the street?
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
24.04.2014 - 00:02
He did not.i am a hapilly working woman making an honest living.Now take a bath and relax, we will continue tommorow, goodnight
----
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Black Shark Konto kustutatud |
24.04.2014 - 02:15 Black Shark Konto kustutatud Gibe argument pl0x
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
Black Shark Konto kustutatud |
24.04.2014 - 02:17 Black Shark Konto kustutatud
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
24.04.2014 - 03:49
Hahah. Really tophats? Look at this punk right here. Is this the guy you are defending? And you have the guts to point out MY insults? Come on dawg. You're better than that.
This is it right here. Threat to his bullshit value system identified -> emotional reaction The moment you start to dismantle his illusions, survival menchanism (which is still primitive in us humans due to the swift change to modern times - thousands of years is nothing evolutionarily) kicks in, and the jewish monkey goes crazy. Bet he killed a few palestinians in the meantime to discharge his rage. And I figured that since you're throwing around this antisemitism accusation, well, I might aswell give you a REAL reason to do it: For what is there to love in an ugly, stupid, jewish, religious, zionist, racist whore?
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
24.04.2014 - 17:42
Biocentrism is an interesting one if anyone is bored and wants to look that up.
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
24.04.2014 - 17:48
If I painted with too broad a brush, my apologies. Religion and Spirituality, Ritual and Intentionality My argument is, for primitive man, the intersection of something-like-ritual and something-like-spirituality is religion, and my contention is that ritual has definite survival value and that spirituality is a (for lack of a better term) 'side effect' of advanced pattern recognition/some combination of elaborate cognitive states. Of course this argument is 'received learning' - Dawkins provides a more nuanced presentation in The God Delusion. He would argue that what I called 'pattern recognition' would include three levels of complexity, culminating in the 'intentional stance' - and a brief bad example would be where a primitive man and modern man would observe two events and come to different conclusions: You might see a sunrise, and take the 'physical stance' that this is a phenomenon connected with the earth's rotation about its axis in conjunction with its orbit around the sun. Ur-Goblin might see 'intentionality' surrounding the phenomena and credit a supernatural cause for the event. Note: Neither could demonstrate the legitimacy of their stance to the other with pure reason alone. Finally, I argued that much of what provided optimal survival value for premodern humans is contrary to optimal behavior in a postmodern world - but as conditions for reproduction are not affected for suboptimally-behaving postmodern 'spiritual' cavemen, the old traits are likely to remain with us perpetually - there's no evolutionary pressure to change. God-Free Supernatural I have mentioned deists in other discussions, but not this one (I think). During the dawn of the 'age of enlightenment', deists were today's atheists: Atheism-back-in-the-day didn't provide a 'satisfying' source for morality or human rights, and calling oneself a 'deist' provided adequate 'god' cover for rational people against ad hominem attacks by religious fundamentalists. Also, deism is more intellectually satisfying than a traditional worldview: Something starts it off, then backs away allowing the clockwork to run its course. All that being said, broadly, atheism and theism are about one's belief state in 'deity' - and 'deity' embodies some form of 'intentionality' (see what I did there?). I am very surprised (glad) the discussion took this turn. Earlier I had mentioned that 'deity' may or may not assume the form of one or more beings. Naive/Lay Buddhists, Muslims and Christians have a particular view of their religion. Theologians and mystics inside of these traditions (especially with Buddhism) have a very different view of God than their naive counterparts. God is a force, or 'everything' in its totality, and to ascribe anthropomorphic characteristics to this 'all' is a human mistake due to our cognitive inability to comprehend the totality. I mention Buddhism, because in much of Asia, Buddhism boils down to idol-and-ancestor worship. For many even-lay-practitioners of Buddhism in the West, *all* objective existence is denied; 'manifestation of phenomena' such as a *chair* or *god* are consensual (we all agree to ...) hallucinations (... attribute properties to something that doesn't objectively exist) of minds that don't objectively exist, anyway. This *advanced* (so-called because it is highly abstract and complex) metaphysical worldview of 'radical' Buddhism is indistinguishable from the metaphysical view of the universe provided by philosopher-physicists: There is no 'objective' world, or time, or space: no god, no chair, no 'us' - merely various states of energy which deceptively appear to coalesce into being based upon temporary local conditions, appreciated by minds which may-or-may-not have objective existence, either. I appreciate any reader's patience here, and please forgive the leaps I must make to condense thousands of years of metaphysics into a few paragraphs. So, the (for lack of a better term) 'all' that is the multiverse isn't an entity, and therefore not a deity. It does not possess the attribute of intentionality. It does not manifest into being (but we might fool our non-existent selves into thinking so). Proponents of this worldview would call it 'natural', but scientists would not. - The proposition is not falsifiable, and cannot be tested. - It makes claims about the ultimate nature of being (in this case, non-being). - (unlike Pastafarians) Its proponents are sincere. - Its principles are logically consistent and non-contradictory (valid). - The proposition offers strong explanatory value (meaning) for the universe. If the proposition above were presented by a Buddhist to a theologian, the theologian would label it as a 'nontheistic religion'. A philosopher would consider it to be a metaphysical conjecture. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris would reject the proposition *out of hand* as it is a religious claim without testable/falsifiable propositions. The same proposition presented by a physicist: - Theologian: No opinion as it is a scientific conjecture. - Philosopher: A metaphysical conjecture. - Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins: An incomplete scientific conjecture - it lacks falsifiable propositions. The proponents of the proposition are Atheists - they don't believe in the objective existence of *anything* much less gods. Atheism, embodied, has no particular opinion on the subject, as no deity is invoked. RELIGION HATERS who also are atheists would evaluate the claim based on its claimant - if scientific, as a scientific claim, if religious, as with any religion. Only the philosopher would call the thing presented by one authority and the thing presented by another authority the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
24.04.2014 - 18:19
Haha I believe zombie was joking around there. He even demonstrated his sarcastic and intentionally counter-intuitive argument (my assumption) towards khal with propositional logic. Quite comical I would say. I could be wrong, but I think you're picking out parts of his posts for the benefit of whatever it is you're trying to prove to his detriment, when he clearly brought a more broad and enticing argument. Nevertheless, watch the insults. I could have closed this thread long ago.
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
24.04.2014 - 19:16
Yeah sure whatever lol.the only one who was joking was me.If i said those things tophats you would be all over me.But i dont mind anyway, i found all this sharade very funny and it just gave me proof to support my arguments Also i needed to "inform" you guys, that emotionall intelligence and character maturity > knowledge and wits, every day.If you cant even identify and control your own emotions, you wont go far, no matter how smart or educated you are.Point proven.gg
----
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
24.04.2014 - 20:00
All of you were emotional and immature from my perspective. But you know, that's just one opinion.
---- Don't trust the manipulative rabbit.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
25.04.2014 - 02:39
It's only sexist if men do it. It's only insults if Unleashed does it.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
25.04.2014 - 04:06
I am a Briggs-Myers ENTJ over ten years of semi-annual testing (20+ tests). In regards to EI, I can tell you that I my arguments were nothing but a response. Defense is not defensiveness, and (not that I am surprised) you missed the point. I have a very high degree of EI, and rarely allow my emotions to rule my behavior: Certainly not on the web. You make assumptions about who I am based on what I write, then share your execrable opinions. I submitted you to a similar exercise - though I would have imagined that the obvious invalid reasoning would have been a key to my sarcasm. And when it comes to direct, irrelevant name calling insults, find somewhere where I was the first and I will apologize to that person. Finally, if you were to call me an economic migrant who was employed in the sex industry I would be no more insulted than if you called me a Jewish person. If you were to call me stupid, I would tend to agree with you. There is nothing which prevents an economic migrant employed in the sex industry, or a Jewish person, from making valid arguments and presenting credible evidence for those arguments. As to me being stupid, I could only say: compared to whom?
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
25.04.2014 - 04:10
Please find an indication of gender in my response to Khal. If one exists, I assure you it was unintentional.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
25.04.2014 - 04:21
You deserve no mercy, and have shown none, but this is not vengeance - sensible people don't take revenge on animals, inanimate objects or other unthinking things, because it neither usefully deters future undesirable behavior nor is the thing able to understand punishment. In my experience, it doesn't even produce catharsis. You are a contemptible antisemite and anti-intellectual who is also mysteriously apparently able to determine my 'Jewishness' via textual analysis. I do enjoy pointing that out to *others* - but I don't expect this identification to change your behavior, merely to permit what you say to be taken in context. All whilst claiming to love science.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
25.04.2014 - 09:54
@ zombieyeti Nobody cares just stop crying.Also stop lying You have engaged in the most absurd hate filled racist rage post i have ever encountered in my time here and you should just admit it and apologize.You called me ugly,Albanian whore,thrown to the street by my pimp stupid,fuckwit,retard,animal and many many others all because i just called you Jewish..You said you despise and hate me, all because i have different opinions and dont agree with you. Everybody who read your posts (except tophats) are witness to how mentally unstable you are. To ease your obvious curiosity,i am 3 generations Greek, originally descended from Sicilly, Italy.I consider my self Greek but i have much love for Italy and i enjoy playing with it in the aw map.I also have no problem with Albanians, like you obviously do, concidering the fact you have shown yourself be racist towards them. I am out of this thread, but keep in mind, while i was never really insulted cause im all about fun and i had lots of it here, i really hate double standards and hypocrisy, so until you man up and apologize, im gonna use every ammunition you gave me in this thread, against you, whenever i feel like it.Ciao
----
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
25.04.2014 - 10:02
And all tophats can say is: Unleashed, stop insulting, be thankful I didn't lock the thread.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
25.04.2014 - 10:24
Well unleashed we have a saying here, it translates to something like "its better to loose your eyes, than your good reputation".Certainly applies here
----
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
25.04.2014 - 11:13
WHAT? WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR MORALITY FROM? ARE YOU A SATANIST? WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE THEN? YOU CAN'T DISPROVE GOD. BRING ME PROOF THAT HE'S NOT REAL OR BURN IN HELL - your average religious retard
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Black Shark Konto kustutatud |
25.04.2014 - 11:46 Black Shark Konto kustutatud Gibe argument pls.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
25.04.2014 - 11:47
I believe god doesn't exist, therefore he doesn't
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Black Shark Konto kustutatud |
25.04.2014 - 11:49 Black Shark Konto kustutatud
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
25.04.2014 - 11:54
This and everything the universe and life were/is an accident.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
25.04.2014 - 11:56
It doesn't matter how correct your formula to determine god existence is, if any of it is wrong, then the result is wrong, in this case my argument entirely destroys your credibility.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
|
Black Shark Konto kustutatud |
25.04.2014 - 11:57 Black Shark Konto kustutatud *facepalm* Your argument is an opinion. Opinions =/= truth
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
Black Shark Konto kustutatud |
25.04.2014 - 11:58 Black Shark Konto kustutatud
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
25.04.2014 - 12:19
My argument is only a clone of the argument you and other religious fags use. As you see, it had no grounds in logic, therefore the belief in god is ilogical and absurd.
Laadimine...
Laadimine...
|
Oled sa kindel?