First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Your Opinion Does not Count Because…
Posted 3/4/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


And that's where your agnostic belief on God being uncertain is unrealistic and thereby philosophically incorrect, when "uncertainty" doesn't need evidence due to what it is: doubt. And still, "Your Opinion Does not Count".


Uncertainty and doubt are very insignificant parts of agnosticism, you should be uncertain of and doubt anything that hasn't been completely proven, but "doubt" and "uncertainty" don't apply to things that have no proof whatsoever, you just flat-out reject those ideas. Agnosticism is simply demanding evidence for beliefs, which is just being rational. (for the millionth time)

The agnostic stance on God is that the existence or nonexistence cannot be proven so neither should be accepted. That's not unrealistic, that's very basic rationality.
Then would you also not accept clinical practice and the theory of evolution, since it's proven by studying nature via biology? Which BTW the theists claimed that nature itself is God's creation, whereas the atheists claimed otherwise.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/4/10

DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


And that's where your agnostic belief on God being uncertain is unrealistic and thereby philosophically incorrect, when "uncertainty" doesn't need evidence due to what it is: doubt. And still, "Your Opinion Does not Count".


Uncertainty and doubt are very insignificant parts of agnosticism, you should be uncertain of and doubt anything that hasn't been completely proven, but "doubt" and "uncertainty" don't apply to things that have no proof whatsoever, you just flat-out reject those ideas. Agnosticism is simply demanding evidence for beliefs, which is just being rational. (for the millionth time)

The agnostic stance on God is that the existence or nonexistence cannot be proven so neither should be accepted. That's not unrealistic, that's very basic rationality.
Then would you also not accept clinical practice and the theory of evolution, since it's proven by studying nature via biology? Which BTW the theists claimed that nature itself is God's creation, whereas the atheists claimed otherwise.


Not accept clinical practice? What do you mean?

The theory of evolution would probably be accepted by most agnostics because there's adequate proof for it.
Posted 3/4/10 , edited 3/4/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


And that's where your agnostic belief on God being uncertain is unrealistic and thereby philosophically incorrect, when "uncertainty" doesn't need evidence due to what it is: doubt. And still, "Your Opinion Does not Count".


Uncertainty and doubt are very insignificant parts of agnosticism, you should be uncertain of and doubt anything that hasn't been completely proven, but "doubt" and "uncertainty" don't apply to things that have no proof whatsoever, you just flat-out reject those ideas. Agnosticism is simply demanding evidence for beliefs, which is just being rational. (for the millionth time)

The agnostic stance on God is that the existence or nonexistence cannot be proven so neither should be accepted. That's not unrealistic, that's very basic rationality.
Then would you also not accept clinical practice and the theory of evolution, since it's proven by studying nature via biology? Which BTW the theists claimed that nature itself is God's creation, whereas the atheists claimed otherwise.


Not accept clinical practice? What do you mean?

The theory of evolution would probably be accepted by most agnostics because there's adequate proof for it.
That.

Therefore how can you as an agnostic accept anything came from nature's study, when the origin of nature isn't completely proven?

Also, you might want to learn from others how to conduct philosophical debate, before you made a fool out of yourself again with your entitlement. Not philosophy.
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 3/5/10

DomFortress wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Then isn't it correct to say that you're being wrong as long as you're remaining in the gray about a God that does nothing?


I'm withholding my judgment which means that I never judged anything except that the existence of god is uncertain. I can't be wrong but I can't be right. I acted like that because I believe that my knowledge is insufficient which is why I remain on the gray. That is all my motive. In the Congress, I believe that the term is "abstain". But perhaps it may be correct to assume that I never cared whether god exists or not.
No, for you cared enough to make a judgmental notion of classifying God as "uncertainty". Thereby your motive isn't one of "abstain" but rather "contempt of court".

And the fact is that if you indeed was abstain, you'll not be here voicing your opinion in the first place. When it has nothing to do with you.


So have I been disrespectful to the court? I doubt it. If so, I apologize. I am just saying that if this was a Congress, I would have "abstained" because my stance is neither yes or no. I was neither on the stance that god does exist or whether god does not exist. Perhaps I made my points clear in that one. Scrutinizing the definition of abstain, I may be incorrect. However, that is not the point that I am trying to make so please refrain from doing that. I make mistakes. Sometimes out of misconception. If ever I used the word "abstain" incorrectly, then you are free to correct me. I am learning.

But in a way, I apologize for voicing an opinion in a topic that has nothing to do with me.
The Canadians are generalized by the world as the politest people around, because one of our sociologist discovered the mechanism of "politeness". And right now you're either a "sorry excuse" of a Canadian, or you're actually being passive aggressive to a fault.

Furthermore, if this was a Congress and you were a Congressman, you won't be here at all due to the fact that you just didn't care. And that would've made you as "abstained".



I don't think you are polite at the very least and I think that you are aggressive judging by your nature. Period. But that aside, let's just leave the wordplay out. I'll just abandon the "abstain" stuff and "do not care" stuff because that just causes more confusion and problem. But my stance about god remains the same. So if you want to argue about my stance, then go ahead.
Posted 3/5/10 , edited 3/5/10

BrylleNoGotoku wrote:



I don't think you are polite at the very least and I think that you are aggressive judging by your nature. Period. But that aside, let's just leave the wordplay out. I'll just abandon the "abstain" stuff and "do not care" stuff because that just causes more confusion and problem. But my stance about god remains the same. So if you want to argue about my stance, then go ahead.
That's because I am my own individual above all else, when my nationality doesn't define who I am.

Furthermore, the topic of this thread is "Your Opinion Does not Count Because…". Therefore all I've done insofar was to demonstrate how your opinion doesn't count because of your irrational stance.

Because in the end the natural law of humanity is what binds us, therefore ultimately our freedom is exemplified by our natural ability to be rational beings.

So if you think that you're entitled of your freedom of expression just because you have it according to the Universal Human Rights Act, you are wrong. Because you never fought for your right to express yourself through reasoning.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3/5/10 , edited 3/5/10


"Logical out look....!"

Look for evidence for the God hypothesis, Evidence not found! So the hypothesis of a god is dismissed as nothing more than a false claim, till the time new evidence presents its self, than it is reviewed again. But till that time the hypothesis of God has been shown false, and so logically like all Hypothesis that are found fails, their dismissed as failed hypothesis. The stance logically taken would not be Agnostic from a scientific and logical point of view now is it. Agnosticism is not a rational or scientific point view for anything including a God or Gods, Magic, Dragons, Pixies, or any other failed hypothesis.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/5/10 , edited 3/5/10

DomFortress wrote:

That.

Therefore how can you as an agnostic accept anything came from nature's study, when the origin of nature isn't completely proven?

Also, you might want to learn from others how to conduct philosophical debate, before you made a fool out of yourself again with your entitlement. Not philosophy.


Uhhhhhhhh you have no idea how annoying it is having a discussion with you...



That.


What?????

How can I accept anything that came from nature's study, when the origin of nature isn't completely proven? You don't need to prove the origins of something to study it. This is just complete nonsense.

Dom, you're incoherent and it's very obvious you just make weak attempts at saying something meaningful because you want to be cool (or something of the sort). But it always has the opposite effect.


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

"Logical out look....!"

Look for evidence for the God hypothesis, Evidence not found! So the hypothesis of a god is dismissed as nothing more than a false claim, till the time new evidence presents its self, than it is reviewed again. But till that time the hypothesis of God has been shown false, and so logically like all Hypothesis that are found fails, their dismissed as failed hypothesis. The stance logically taken would not be Agnostic from a scientific and logical point of view now is it. Agnosticism is not a rational or scientific point view for anything including a God or Gods, Magic, Dragons, Pixies, or any other failed hypothesis.



How come you never responded to what I said.

Theism is irrational because there's no proof for it. Atheism is irrational because there's no proof for it. Right?
Posted 3/5/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

That.

Therefore how can you as an agnostic accept anything came from nature's study, when the origin of nature isn't completely proven?

Also, you might want to learn from others how to conduct philosophical debate, before you made a fool out of yourself again with your entitlement. Not philosophy.


Uhhhhhhhh you have no idea how annoying it is having a discussion with you...



That.


What?????

How can I accept anything that came from nature's study, when the origin of nature isn't completely proven? You don't need to prove the origins of something to study it. This is just complete nonsense.

Dom, you're incoherent and it's very obvious you just make weak attempts at saying something meaningful because you want to be cool (or something of the sort). But it always has the opposite effect.
And you're not philosophical, when you're just very irritable as an agnostic.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/5/10 , edited 3/5/10

DomFortress wrote:

And you're not philosophical, when you're just very irritable as an agnostic.


No, we already went through this, you and I both know what you always do in these forums. You need to stop if you want people to take you seriously. It has the opposite effect, it makes you seem ridiculous and ignorant.
Posted 3/6/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

And you're not philosophical, when you're just very irritable as an agnostic.


No, we already went through this, you and I both know what you always do in these forums. You need to stop if you want people to take you seriously. It has the opposite effect, it makes you seem ridiculous and ignorant.
Is that a fact or just your entitlement?

If you haven't notice already, I'm totally going agnostic philosophical on your hide.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/6/10 , edited 3/6/10

DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

And you're not philosophical, when you're just very irritable as an agnostic.


No, we already went through this, you and I both know what you always do in these forums. You need to stop if you want people to take you seriously. It has the opposite effect, it makes you seem ridiculous and ignorant.
Is that a fact or just your entitlement?

If you haven't notice already, I'm totally going agnostic philosophical on your hide.


And that's it for me.

Honestly Dom, I've already told you, it's way too obvious and it doesn't work. So why do you keep doing it, even when it's exposed you have no idea what you're saying? It's just embarrassing, what are you trying to achieve?

You should know by now it's not making you look smart, so why?
Posted 3/6/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

And you're not philosophical, when you're just very irritable as an agnostic.


No, we already went through this, you and I both know what you always do in these forums. You need to stop if you want people to take you seriously. It has the opposite effect, it makes you seem ridiculous and ignorant.
Is that a fact or just your entitlement?

If you haven't notice already, I'm totally going agnostic philosophical on your hide.


And that's it for me.

Honestly Dom, I've already told you, it's way too obvious and it doesn't work. So why do you keep doing it, even when it's exposed you have no idea what you're saying? It's just embarrassing, what are you trying to achieve?

You should know by now it's not making you look smart, so why?
Because as long as you keep getting the principles of philosophy and rationality wrong, your opinion doesn't count.

You're easily irritable because you belong to the Generation Z; who's only discipline at knowledge building is based on them multitasking stereotypes and superstitions in pop-culture. Not real rational and true intellectual disciplines which will enlighten your self-awareness.

And the more you reject my opinion in your usual matter of entitlement, the more you'll be proving my point through your lack of discipline.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/6/10 , edited 3/6/10

DomFortress wrote:
Because as long as you keep getting the principles of philosophy and rationality wrong, your opinion doesn't count.

You're easily irritable because you belong to the Generation Z; who's only discipline at knowledge building is based on them multitasking stereotypes and superstitions in pop-culture. Not real rational and true intellectual disciplines which will enlighten your self-awareness.

And the more you reject my opinion in your usual matter of entitlement, the more you'll be proving my point through your lack of discipline.


You don't know what philosophy or rationality is, you're opinion on theism, atheism and agnosticism here already has shown that.

But we should forget about that now and deal with this issue you have. I just want to know why you do what you do. And in case you try to play dumb and act like you have no idea what I'm talking about I can spell it out for the millionth time, you try to seem smart by pretending you know what you're talking about, using words you don't understand and making very strange attempts at having a point.

And because you love to play devil's advocate and your English isn't so strong, your posts get so incredibly incoherent and strange. Why? I just want to know what you're trying to achieve, and if you want examples outside this topic I can list a lot. Not knowing what the word consent means and making statements like:

Because while you claimed that your consent(i.e care, concern) is about "government, country and the world", you're just as ready to ignore the rest of the world by you solely focusing on the US.


You clearly didn't understand the topic or the meaning of the word and yet you try to make an irrelevant point so arrogantly, just because you want to play devil's advocate. I can get more examples, because it's way too obvious how fake you are, please explain why. In the beginning I just figured you were just having fun wasting people's time and trolling on forums, but it seems like the reason is even worse.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3/6/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

That.

Therefore how can you as an agnostic accept anything came from nature's study, when the origin of nature isn't completely proven?

Also, you might want to learn from others how to conduct philosophical debate, before you made a fool out of yourself again with your entitlement. Not philosophy.


Uhhhhhhhh you have no idea how annoying it is having a discussion with you...



That.


What?????

How can I accept anything that came from nature's study, when the origin of nature isn't completely proven? You don't need to prove the origins of something to study it. This is just complete nonsense.

Dom, you're incoherent and it's very obvious you just make weak attempts at saying something meaningful because you want to be cool (or something of the sort). But it always has the opposite effect.


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

"Logical out look....!"

Look for evidence for the God hypothesis, Evidence not found! So the hypothesis of a god is dismissed as nothing more than a false claim, till the time new evidence presents its self, than it is reviewed again. But till that time the hypothesis of God has been shown false, and so logically like all Hypothesis that are found fails, their dismissed as failed hypothesis. The stance logically taken would not be Agnostic from a scientific and logical point of view now is it. Agnosticism is not a rational or scientific point view for anything including a God or Gods, Magic, Dragons, Pixies, or any other failed hypothesis.



How come you never responded to what I said.

Theism is irrational because there's no proof for it. Atheism is irrational because there's no proof for it. Right?


Again.. Their is not proof Godzilla is not real.. Does that mean that I have to agnostic for Godzilla? No the proof is on the person who is making the claim. Lack of belief is not a claim..
It is up to the person who claims something is real to show evidence for it.. AKA.. Godzilla is real.. SO it is up to him to show evidence for that claim. A counter is not needed for it, till the day real evidence is found.. meaning I do not need proof Godzilla is fake.. because their is no proof like that in the first place.
'


One more time!!!! You can not find evidence to disproof imaginary creations from peoples heads. (so Logical the proof is on those making the claim, not the people who do not believe it.)
Logic at its most simple.
Posted 3/6/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Because as long as you keep getting the principles of philosophy and rationality wrong, your opinion doesn't count.

You're easily irritable because you belong to the Generation Z; who's only discipline at knowledge building is based on them multitasking stereotypes and superstitions in pop-culture. Not real rational and true intellectual disciplines which will enlighten your self-awareness.

And the more you reject my opinion in your usual matter of entitlement, the more you'll be proving my point through your lack of discipline.


You don't know what philosophy or rationality is, you're opinion on theism, atheism and agnosticism here already has shown that.

But we should forget about that now and deal with this issue you have. I just want to know why you do what you do. And in case you try to play dumb and act like you have no idea what I'm talking about I can spell it out for the millionth time, you try to seem smart by pretending you know what you're talking about, using words you don't understand and making very strange attempts at having a point.

And because you love to play devil's advocate and your English isn't so strong, your posts get so incredibly incoherent and strange. Why? I just want to know what you're trying to achieve, and if you want examples outside this topic I can list a lot. Not knowing what the word consent means and making statements like:

Because while you claimed that your consent(i.e care, concern) is about "government, country and the world", you're just as ready to ignore the rest of the world by you solely focusing on the US.


You clearly didn't understand the topic or the meaning of the word and yet you try to make an irrelevant point so arrogantly, just because you want to play devil's advocate. I can get more examples, because it's way too obvious how fake you are, please explain why. In the beginning I just figured you were just having fun wasting people's time and trolling on forums, but it seems like the reason is even worse.
That.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.