First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Thoughts on Atheism?
2044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 10/16/14 , edited 10/16/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is, in my experience, the attitude and "conclution". Agnostics tend to lend equal credence to both options, where as atheists are more sceptical and have the attitude of "if there's no evidence to support it, then I have no reason to believe it exists. As such, I will regard it as a fairytale".
Which basicly means that agnostics are just what I like to call "uncommited atheists".

Atheism does, as I have explained, not say "God does not exist, period". There ARE atheists who DO say that, but that's not an inherent property of atheism.
Just like how being anti-theist is not an inherent property of atheism either, as there are atheists who are opponents of religion (anti-theists), and atheists who don't bother with it at all.


I'm using Wiki so what I say may be wrong.

Those "uncommited atheists" isn't that the same as "Agnostic atheism"?



The general idea of agnosticism is that agnostics simply don't know the answer. They try not to answer because they don't have enough knowledge of the subject, and since there is no way to actually confirm whether god exist or if the Big bang actually happened (remember it's still a theory) the agnostics are simply unable take a side. meaning that it's not really atheism but it's not theism either.
Or am I wrong about this? It's kinda late, my mind is only half awake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/16/14 , edited 10/16/14

Hayagriva
1. No, I'm not indicating that. I indicated that we can't know, because of the aforementioned reasons. That was what you seemed to have a problem with. I think the problem was that you cannot separate "order" from "divine being", while I am just fine with it. We can verify order in many ways, philosophical and scientific. Some are better than others, and some that work just as well are MUCH older than others.


Sorry for misunderstanding then. Though in my defense, you're not exactly making yourself easy to understand.
Especially when using terms like "design".





Hayagriva
2. Tell me something, do you believe science is unlimited? That it will (or god forbid, already can) verify everything? You know, they recently discovered evidence that the consciousness remains at least a little while after clinical death. But that's as far as it will go, do you know why?

Consciousness isn't something they can measure. They don't even know why it's there. They don't even know what it is. We SHOULD all be walking electrical and biochemical batteries, but we're not.

Why can't they measure it? Because science cannot, and never will create tools to test and measure what it doesn't believe to be there. That's its fundamental flaw, and is actually the only reason people still have any sort of faith vs. science debate. While science will be relatively certain of anything it finds out, it is plodding, usually slow, and frequently disjointed. It has limits.

Now a real scientifically-minded person is aware of those limitations and respectful of them. That's where a type of "agnosticism" comes in. But I've never seen it, not even once with the Google and Wikipedia generations. People like you make it take longer than it should.


No, I do not believe that science can verify everything. Will it in the future? I don't know. Probably not, but then again, most people living 1000 years ago probably couldn't imagine the technology or knowledge we have today, so... That's not really something I can give an answer with anything resembling certainty to.

Are you equating "conciousness" with "soul"? As in, immortal spirits that live on after we die?

I still have no idea what exactly you're expecting of "people like me". Are you expecting us to believe in things for which there is no indication of being real? Like immortal souls for instance?




Hayagriva
5. I'm not the hypocritical one here, you are. "No, I'm too busy working in my mundane existence to try and understand anybody else's observations, or even fully understand my own. I will simply have FAITH that if it exists, science will tell me (or already has), or it must be bullshit."


I know, right. How dare I actually prioritize that which will give me the skillsets that I need in order to have a fulfilling areer and be able to express myself artisticly over going in-depth about something that I spoke about some random dude on the internet with and that will most likely have no significant affect on my existence?

Can you give me a tangible reason for why I should prioritize this over that which might dictate the rest of my life?




Hayagriva
6. My justification for your claims was to go do the work yourself. But since you treat science like a religion instead of a methodology of work like it is, you declined in the most arrogant and pretentious manner that you could, priding yourself on fake intelligence. Which isn't the first or the last time I've seen somebody do that, and so my response is volatile, terse, and uninformative just as wannabe scientists like you deserve. I was trying to let you save some face but that was "copping out."


Here's the thing, though. I DON'T regard science as infallible or treat it religiously. That would contradict the entire point of science. Nor did I even say that you were wrong.
I WAS however, sceptical to what you had to say. And with good reason. Because you didn't even attempt to give me any sort of actual reasoning for your belief. And then you bitch at me and act all condescending because I don't understand your view, despite you being intentionally uninforming. What gives?

You seem to think that just because I am not convinced or because I see no reason to believe that there is "design" involved in the universe, that it means that I am arrogant and pretentious, and that it in turn gives you an excuse to be volatile and insulting in return, looking down upon me as a "wannabe scientist" while clearly regarding yourself as marginally intellectually superior, for no seemingly more valid reason than a religious person would. Because you believe in something that cannot be vindicated. How is that for arrogance?

You're making yourself up as quite an arrogant, self-rightous bully. Might I suggest you make an effort to save your own face next time?




Hayagriva
Frankly you treat your own method of approaching reality like shit. Why would I waste my time giving you mine? Consider yourself lucky I even pointed you in a direction. Go figure out for yourself why mathematicians and physicists still sometimes study 4000 year old Chinese texts.


I do? How so?
And why should you give me yours? Well, if you had no intention of trying to make me understand your point of view, then why did you even bother having this conversation in the first place?

And yet you keep acting all superior. Like you have some divine knowledge that sets you above the "lowly peasantry" like me.
You're not exactly making a very good job at not being a hypocrite, considering that you were accusing me of that very same thing...



Hayagriva
Or don't. And acknowledge that you won't, and be respectful of the limitations of such. I think you want to be shown a nice little row of explanations about the universe that you probably already subscribe to, and you're not going to get it because reality itself isn't set up that way. Good luck with that approach.


I might. But it's not happening now. Because of aforementioned reasons. I might have tried to squeeze it in harder, but you haven't given me any reason to do so, on account of you being intentionally uninforming and condescending about it. So congratulations on that.
I might have been accepting towards your worldview... If you had actually explained it.
But instead you were too busy NOT explaining it, and then acting like a complete shithead -- bullying me because I didn't understand what you had no interest in explaining to me. And then blaming ME for not being willing or interested in understanding.

So how about this? Actually explain your position, or shut the fuck up. Because you have no business bitching at people for not understanding your views if you have no interest or intention of explaining them.
56 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 10/16/14 , edited 10/16/14

xeneria wrote:
I'm using Wiki so what I say may be wrong.

Those "uncommited atheists" isn't that the same as "Agnostic atheism"?
The general idea of agnosticism is that agnostics simply don't know the answer. They try not to answer because they don't have enough knowledge of the subject, and since there is no way to actually confirm whether god exist or if the Big bang actually happened (remember it's still a theory) the agnostics are simply unable take a side. meaning that it's not really atheism but it's not theism either.
Or am I wrong about this? It's kinda late, my mind is only half awake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
No, you're right. The majority of modern atheists like Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist), Bart Ehrman (one of the best living biblical scholars), Sam Harris, etc.. all follow what you've presented, as do most atheists.

The atheists proposition is: there is no good reason to believe that there is a god.
The agnostic proposition is epistemological (theory of knowing) and claims: but who the hell knows anything anyways.

So, for a concrete example...

I'm agnostic for the tooth-fairy and the easter bunny. I have not proven that they don't exist. I have not searched the globe and our universe looking for them. But do I believe there's good reason to believe in the tooth-fairy or the easter bunny? No. So I'm also a a-fairest and an a-easter-bunniest the same way I'm an atheist.
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 10/16/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Are you equating "conciousness" with "soul"? As in, immortal spirits that live on after we die?


I wasn't equating consciousness with a soul. In the experiments, something like 40% of people had memories during the exact time span that they were dead. The experiences themselves varied.



I still have no idea what exactly you're expecting of "people like me". Are you expecting us to believe in things for which there is no indication of being real? Like immortal souls for instance?


I expect people like you to not simply fling your sense of confirmation bias in every direction to directly antagonize people simply because you are a cynical asshole. It is ironically the antithesis of being scientifically-minded. How can you claim to accept science's limitations and still behave in this manner?



I know, right. How dare I actually prioritize that which will give me the skillsets that I need in order to have a fulfilling areer and be able to express myself artisticly over going in-depth about something that I spoke about some random dude on the internet with and that will most likely have no significant affect on my existence?

Can you give me a tangible reason for why I should prioritize this over that which might dictate the rest of my life?


Yeah, actually, I can. You see I've seen your posts before, and the tone you usually adopt tells me that you're actually a fairly miserable person. Essentially this whole conversation has given me the impression that unless you see it under a microscope, it's all hopeless. I actually don't really care about that, until you shove it in my face. Which you did.


Here's the thing, though. I DON'T regard science as infallible or treat it religiously. That would contradict the entire point of science. Nor did I even say that you were wrong.
I WAS however, sceptical to what you had to say. And with good reason. Because you didn't even attempt to give me any sort of actual reasoning for your belief. And then you bitch at me and act all condescending because I don't understand your view, despite you being intentionally uninforming. What gives?


I bitch at you because this thread isn't about you, or your beliefs. I answered a poll, and although I didn't check, I assume you did as well. You however, decided to take issue with some people's posts, because all you care about is what you currently think and proving as such. Frankly that just makes you an asshole, so I treated you like one.


You seem to think that just because I am not convinced or because I see no reason to believe that there is "design" involved in the universe, that it means that I am arrogant and pretentious, and that it in turn gives you an excuse to be volatile and insulting in return, looking down upon me as a "wannabe scientist" while clearly regarding yourself as marginally intellectually superior, for no seemingly more valid reason than a religious person would. Because you believe in something that cannot be vindicated. How is that for arrogance?

You're making yourself up as quite an arrogant, self-rightous bully. Might I suggest you make an effort to save your own face next time?


Considering the fact that I was never talking to you, and you start debates with people and then complain about the answers you get, I'm pretty sure that makes YOU a self-righteous bully. I didn't explain myself to you because it's not my thread, and even had you asked in private, you're an arrogant little douche, so I pointed you where you could go find out. It just wasn't good enough for you, which isn't my problem.


I do? How so?
And why should you give me yours? Well, if you had no intention of trying to make me understand your point of view, then why did you even bother having this conversation in the first place?


You have utterly forgotten (if you ever knew) that YOU started this debate. And because I crushed your self-image as the impartial-scientist, because you most certainly aren't, you deserved exactly what you got.


And yet you keep acting all superior. Like you have some divine knowledge that sets you above the "lowly peasantry" like me.
You're not exactly making a very good job at not being a hypocrite, considering that you were accusing me of that very same thing...


I'm afraid I don't really care what you think of me. In another time and place, we might have had a really long, fruitful discussion that would benefit both of us (or certainly at least one of us). But this wasn't the time or the place, and I don't have long conversations with people who only want to hear what they already know.


I might. But it's not happening now. Because of aforementioned reasons. I might have tried to squeeze it in harder, but you haven't given me any reason to do so, on account of you being intentionally uninforming and condescending about it. So congratulations on that.
I might have been accepting towards your worldview... If you had actually explained it.
But instead you were too busy NOT explaining it, and then acting all dickish and bullying me because I didn't understand what you had no interest in explaining to me. And then blaming ME for not being willing or interested in understanding.


See pretty much all the above.


So how about this? Actually explain your position, or shut the fuck up. Because you have no business bitching at people for not understanding your views if you have no interest or intention of explaining them.


Oh yes... Do you know how funny it is that ALL of this is the result of your sense of self-entitlement? I never forced your hand, I never made you read my original post. It's all an argument that YOU started, that YOU set the tone for with an unwilling participant, that YOU got slapped in the mouth for, and I'M the asshole. You're a real piece of work, kid.

You know what I've discovered? That people typically like the way that they think, regardless of how miserable it makes them. And that without an enormous amount of open-mindedness and trust, a transmission of any real value cannot take place. Under those circumstances, all you can do is point people in a direction. The fact that you get so angry about it shows that I'm right. You don't really think you're the first person who's asked, even in the last ten years, do you?

It has nothing to do with some sense of superiority. I know it seems that way to you, but think about the logistics of what just happened. I probably could have been nicer, but I bluntly answered a poll. You wanted to debate, and I didn't want to, because it's pointless for reasons I've learned over 15 years. You could have just walked away, you with your view, me with mine, but instead you decided to be an obnoxious little douche about it. And so here we are.

Or aren't. Because frankly, I know everything I need to know about you and your methodology, and I couldn't care less what you know or think of mine.

2826 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 10/16/14
What is your religion and ethnic background?
I'm mixed and I'm an atheist.
Are you tolerant of other religions/non-religions?
Sometimes, It depends. I hate it when people force beliefs on each other. And if someone did it to me then I would have to be rude with my opinion

Do you condemn atheists?
No.
Do atheists have lower standards of morals?
Yes
Would you knowingly associate with atheists?
Yes
Should a public official/representative (E.g. president, senator, judge, etc.) announce their faith as a prerequisite for their position?
NO, because no one has a right to chose someones fate.
Is atheism a threat to society?
No.
Are any of your family members atheists?
I don't know
Would you allow your child to be in a relationship/marry an atheist?
Yes
Why do you think people are atheists?
Because, I don't believe there is a man in the sky.

Additional thoughts/comments regarding atheists?
No, I believe that there is no man in the sky making a better place for people. It honestly pisses me off when someone says "IF you don't believe in him, you're going to hell." "IF you do this/that you're going to hell." In my opinion I don't believe in that and I automatically say I'm an atheist if someone says something like that to me. I am an atheist because, I won't let book tell me how to live my life.
56 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 10/16/14 , edited 10/16/14
I know this isn't my argument, but I feel compelling to intervene.

Hayagriva wrote:
I wasn't equating consciousness with a soul. In the experiments, something like 40% of people had memories during the exact time span that they were dead. The experiences themselves varied.
Please cite this study. I doubt it ever took place. In fact, I'm certain you pulled it out of your ass, because it flatly contradicts out understanding of neuroscience and cognitive functioning. So, if it did exist, they have already won their Nobel prize.

Hayagriva wrote:I expect people like you to not simply fling your sense of confirmation bias in every direction to directly antagonize people simply because you are a cynical asshole. It is ironically the antithesis of being scientifically-minded. How can you claim to accept science's limitations and still behave in this manner?
Science is hypothesis testing. If you can't test a hypothesis, the question is meaningless. Can you formally prove the color of jealousy is purple? Well, I say that it is. Jealousy is purple. However, jealousy isn't purple simply because I say so and you can't prove me wrong -- it doesn't even have a color to begin with. Similarly, souls don't exist because you say so and science can't prove you wrong. To say this attitude is " the antithesis of being scientifically-minded" screams of grave ignorance of the scientific method.

Hayagriva wrote:
Oh yes... Do you know how funny it is that ALL of this is the result of your sense of self-entitlement? I never forced your hand, I never made you read my original post. It's all an argument that YOU started, that YOU set the tone for with an unwilling participant, that YOU got slapped in the mouth for, and I'M the asshole. You're a real piece of work, kid.

You know what I've discovered? That people typically like the way that they think, regardless of how miserable it makes them. And that without an enormous amount of open-mindedness and trust, a transmission of any real value cannot take place. Under those circumstances, all you can do is point people in a direction. The fact that you get so angry about it shows that I'm right. You don't really think you're the first person who's asked, even in the last ten years, do you?

It has nothing to do with some sense of superiority. I know it seems that way to you, but think about the logistics of what just happened. I probably could have been nicer, but I bluntly answered a poll. You wanted to debate, and I didn't want to, because it's pointless for reasons I've learned over 15 years. You could have just walked away, you with your view, me with mine, but instead you decided to be an obnoxious little douche about it. And so here we are.

Or aren't. Because frankly, I know everything I need to know about you and your methodology, and I couldn't care less what you know or think of mine.
There's a world of difference between being open-minded and accepting all view points. If verifiable truth exists, then some view points are wrong. Regardless of the specious reasoning and ostensible logic, the mental gymnastics preformed are necessary worthless if the end result contradicts fact.

Also, with regards to a previous post of yours. The universe is not integrated. There is no "profound system of gears" operating -- whatever that means. There is no purpose, and there's no good reason to believe that there is a proximate cause or prime mover. You seem to believe "divine power" (whatever that is) is synonymous with physical laws, in which case I suppose you're right. If you'd like to believe randomness, physics, and a lot of luck represents "divine power" then by all means. But there's no purpose. There's no goal. And we, alone on earth, need to realize that the stars owe is nothing, and the universe doesn't care whether we live or die.
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 10/16/14

Ember_McLain wrote:



Please cite this study. I doubt it ever took place. In fact, I'm certain you pulled it out of your ass, because it flatly contradicts out
understanding of neuroscience and cognitive functioning. So, if it did exist, they have already won their Nobel prize.


http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/Study-On-Near-Death-Experiences-Sheds-Light-On-Consciousness-After-Death

Here you go. Keep in mind I didn't say they proved life after death.


Science is hypothesis testing. If you can't test a hypothesis, the question is meaningless. Can you formally prove to be the color of jealousy is purple? Well, I say that it is. However, jealousy isn't purple simply because I say so and you can't prove me wrong. Similiary, souls don't exist because you say so and science can't prove you wrong. To say this attitude is " the antithesis of being scientifically-minded" screams of grave ignorance of the scientific method.


You have a common problem I see in the self-styled scientific community: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In other words, if you can't disprove something, you're not allowed to say you know for sure. Technically speaking, we should be at an impasse, but I never see self-styled scientists take this position. The position they favor is "It hasn't been proven, so... no." This philosophy is actually pretty rampant, and annoys me wherever I see it.


There's a world of difference between being open-minded and accepting all view points. If verifiable truth exists, then some view points are wrong. Regardless of the specious reasoning and ostensible logic, the mental gymnastics preformed are necessary worthless if the end result contradicts fact.


You are correct on this, and it is something I have adhered to for many years. It's part of the reason I have never budged on my position in this thread. There is no need to, and it has already been attacked and evaluated by people far more intelligent than anyone here, including myself.


Also, with regards to a previous post of yours. The universe is not integrated. There is no "profound system of gears" operating -- whatever that means. There is no purpose, and there's no good reason to believe that there is a proximate cause or prime mover. You seem to believe "divine power" (whatever that is) is synonymous with physical laws, in which case I suppose you're right. If you'd like to believe randomness, physics, and a lot of luck represents "divine power" then by all means. But there's no purpose. There's no goal. And we, alone on earth, need to realize that the stars owe is nothing, and the universe doesn't care whether we live or die.


This is your own opinion. And it is just an opinion, not fact. But unlike some people in this thread, I have no problem that you have and want to keep that.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/16/14 , edited 10/16/14

Hayagriva
I wasn't equating consciousness with a soul. In the experiments, something like 40% of people had memories during the exact time span that they were dead. The experiences themselves varied.


Okay, so how is this relevant?




Hayagriva
I expect people like you to not simply fling your sense of confirmation bias in every direction to directly antagonize people simply because you are a cynical asshole. It is ironically the antithesis of being scientifically-minded. How can you claim to accept science's limitations and still behave in this manner?


In what manner?




Hayagriva
Yeah, actually, I can. You see I've seen your posts before, and the tone you usually adopt tells me that you're actually a fairly miserable person. Essentially this whole conversation has given me the impression that unless you see it under a microscope, it's all hopeless. I actually don't really care about that, until you shove it in my face. Which you did.


Even more reason to focus on the things that can make my life better in a tangible way and give me a better sense of self-fulfillment, wouldn't you say?
When you say "hopeless" I assume you mean that I won't believe in it. And when you say "microscope", I assume you mean scientific evidence in general.
Is that the case... probably. Maybe not. Maybe there are situations and circumstances where that is not the case. But as of now, I can't think of any.

The closest thing I can think of would be my stance on the topic of alien life.
Do I believe in it? Well, considering the vastness of the universe, I do find it unlikely that there would be no other life out there. So I'm optimistic to the idea. Still, I have no reason beyond that to believe that there is. So there might, and there might not be. Hopeful, but not certain in any sense.




Hayagriva
I bitch at you because this thread isn't about you, or your beliefs. I answered a poll, and although I didn't check, I assume you did as well. You however, decided to take issue with some people's posts, because all you care about is what you currently think and proving as such. Frankly that just makes you an asshole, so I treated you like one.


Indeed. But you DID enter a conversation with me...
And the only thing I really took issue with in terms of your beliefs was the certainty to which you claimed that the universe could not possibly be a thing that happened by chance.





Hayagriva
Considering the fact that I was never talking to you, and you start debates with people and then complain about the answers you get, I'm pretty sure that makes YOU a self-righteous bully. I didn't explain myself to you because it's not my thread, and even had you asked in private, you're an arrogant little douche, so I pointed you where you could go find out. It just wasn't good enough for you, which isn't my problem.


I did not intend to start a debate with you. I merely asked you to explain yourself on why you felt so 100% certain about your seemingly spiritual stance regarding the nature of the universe. If you were not interested in having any sort of conversation, you could've just not responded.
And I'm complaining about the fact that you didn't give me any answers at all. All you did was tell me to go read stuff I don't have time to read, and then insult me, acting all high and mighty and intellectually superior. That's what I'm complaining about.

And as far as I recall, I never talked down to you in the way you do. I never claimed to be your intellectual superior, nor did I call you names.
So no, I'm pretty sure that if someone's a self-righteous bully here, it's you.
You also keep calling me arrogant, even though YOU'RE the one who has been stating things with 100% certainty since the very beggining, where as I have always acknowledged that I could be wrong, but has yet to be introduced to evidence or even any arguments that compel me to adapt your set of beliefs.

So who is really the arrogant one here?


¨

Hayagriva

I do? How so?
And why should you give me yours? Well, if you had no intention of trying to make me understand your point of view, then why did you even bother having this conversation in the first place?


You have utterly forgotten (if you ever knew) that YOU started this debate. And because I crushed your self-image as the impartial-scientist, because you most certainly aren't, you deserved exactly what you got.


I asked you a question regarding the certainty to which you exclaimed something that I've yet to hear a single person within the scientific community say. I'd say that that's not so incredibly out line.
You keep acting as if I've commited some sort of horrendous crime that deserves punishment. Is that really the case (and if so, what exactly is it?) or is it just a product of your immense levels self-percieved intellectual superiority?

You have not "crushed" anything. Most of all because you've failed to explain anything. All I'm left with is empty rabble and insults without any explanation to anything. Not regarding your beliefs nor in regards to why I'm such a horrible human being. Not even why you're supposedly so much better than me. Especially considering your continuing bullying and stunning display of hypocrisy.




Hayagriva
I'm afraid I don't really care what you think of me. In another time and place, we might have had a really long, fruitful discussion that would benefit both of us (or certainly at least one of us). But this wasn't the time or the place, and I don't have long conversations with people who only want to hear what they already know.


Why do you figure that that's all I want to hear?





Hayagriva
Oh yes... Do you know how funny it is that ALL of this is the result of your sense of self-entitlement? I never forced your hand, I never made you read my original post. It's all an argument that YOU started, that YOU set the tone for with an unwilling participant, that YOU got slapped in the mouth for, and I'M the asshole. You're a real piece of work, kid.


If you were so unwilling, then how about you just go ahead and do this little thing called "NOT respond"? Shouldn't be too difficult.
And what self-entitlement? Would you care to actually elaborate on any single insult you throw at me?
And yes. You're the asshole. You're the one that's bullying others. You're the one resorting to namecalling. You're the one accusing others of arrogance while displaying immense amounts of it yourself, and you're the one who refuses to share any information and the looks down upon others for not understanding what you refused to share.
Yes, sir. You are INDEED an asshole.





Hayagriva
You know what I've discovered? That people typically like the way that they think, regardless of how miserable it makes them. And that without an enormous amount of open-mindedness and trust, a transmission of any real value cannot take place. Under those circumstances, all you can do is point people in a direction. The fact that you get so angry about it shows that I'm right.


No. Because that's not what I'm angry about. What I'm angry about is your attitude. Your smug, self-righteous, arrogant, hypocritical, holier-than-thou attitude. THAT'S what ticks me off.
Had you simply told me that you weren't interested in discussing it in-depth and just told me what I should read, then that would've been fine. But you didn't. You had to act like a self-righteous, condescending shithead. And do it BECAUSE you refused to share anything.

So yeah. I know you get a total boner off of assuming how right you are and how intellectually superior you are, but you were way off target on that one, buddy.





Hayagriva
It has nothing to do with some sense of superiority. I know it seems that way to you, but think about the logistics of what just happened. I probably could have been nicer, but I bluntly answered a poll. You wanted to debate, and I didn't want to, because it's pointless for reasons I've learned over 15 years. You could have just walked away, you with your view, me with mine, but instead you decided to be an obnoxious little douche about it. And so here we are.


No, I wanted an answer. A justification for your 100% certain exclamation. And once again, if you didn't want to discuss it, you COULD'VE refused to answer, or even just say "not interested in discussing it" and end on that.

And I see you're not letting up on your hypocrisy any time soon. The lack of self-reflection that you display is truly stunning.
You remind me of a guy that used to be on this forum before. Chinese, Hulk-obsessed dude with a MASSIVE ego and sense of intellectual superiority. Nobody liked him. He too was a massive hypocrite with an overbloated ego, with no sense of self-reflection and a massively self-righteous attitude. He was almost like a character out of a greek tragedy with the amount of hubris contained within him.

Wish you would've seen him. He would've served as a cautionary tale for you to not become what you're dangerously close to being...





Hayagriva
Or aren't. Because frankly, I know everything I need to know about you and your methodology, and I couldn't care less what you know or think of mine.


Glad you took this pointless amount of time to talk about something you absolutely didn't want to talk about and which you could've just disregarded from the very beginning.
Time well spent, I'm sure...
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 10/16/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Okay, so how is this relevant?


It was an example I used. You asked for clarification, and I gave it. Did you forget?


In what manner?


Every real scientist I've ever met wanted to go examine the evidence themselves. You don't, you want it handed to you, in a fairly aggressive way. I don't respond to that, and neither should anybody else.


Even more reason to focus on the things that can make my life better in a tangible way and give me a better sense of self-fulfillment, wouldn't you say?


I directly tried to contribute to that. Remember what happened?


Indeed. But you DID enter a conversation with me...
And the only thing I really took issue with in terms of your beliefs was the certainty to which you claimed that the universe could not possibly be a thing that happened by chance.


I'm surprised you took issue with it at all. Reality in a mathematical sense is nothing more than an endless string of variables influencing each other. If you go back far enough, nothing is an accident. Randomness is just an appearance, just like particle physics has proven that every object is only PERCEIVED to be solid.


I did not intend to start a debate with you. I merely asked you to explain yourself on why you felt so 100% certain about your seemingly spiritual stance regarding the nature of the universe. If you were not interested in having any sort of conversation, you could've just not responded.


This argument fails. I do not ignore people, and I would be every inch the douchebag you pretend that I am if I did. Don't resort to flimsy logistical tricks, it dims what little respect I had of you to begin with.


And I'm complaining about the fact that you didn't give me any answers at all. All you did was tell me to go read stuff I don't have time to read, and then insult me, acting all high and mighty and intellectually superior. That's what I'm complaining about.


I did give you an answer - go look for yourself. Ironically, in the time that we've been doing this, you could have finished one of the smaller books I would have recommended. If you don't have time, stop making giant wall posts obsessively just to "win".


You also keep calling me arrogant, even though YOU'RE the one who has been stating things with 100% certainty since the very beggining, where as I have always acknowledged that I could be wrong, but has yet to be introduced to evidence or even any arguments that compel me to adapt your set of beliefs.


I don't have any beliefs. I have observations. Unfortunately for you, this thread was not meant to convey those observations, nor did I ever have any intention of doing so for you. That is what this argument about, which you can't let go, and is why you aren't winning, because that's the wall. It doesn't get any simpler or more complex than that.


I asked you a question regarding the certainty to which you exclaimed something that I've yet to hear a single person within the scientific community say. I'd say that that's not so incredibly out line.


Yeah, it is. Because this thread isn't about my "beliefs", nor was it intended to explain them. Now let me ask you something - do you think this thread is the proper format, or that it could even appropriately be long enough to change YOUR views? I find your supposed flexibility impossible to believe, given all the facts of your behavior that I have to work with. Not only could would it be impossible to have that kind of a personal change here, I believe it almost equally unlikely that you came to this thread specifically for that reason. I find it far more likely that you came here because you've already made up your own mind on such things, and like to battle people over it. A true sign of immaturity, one you unfortunately can't escape now.

I'll tell you what I AM responsible for. I didn't simply say that my own two decades with my system of observation is a massive amount of conversation - not all of which would stick - in ANY format, much less here. That is the only reason I didn't "answer" you.

Then I just would have sounded arrogant and douchy anyway, but at least you would have been gone sooner.


You have not "crushed" anything. Most of all because you've failed to explain anything. All I'm left with is empty rabble and insults without any explanation to anything. Not regarding your beliefs nor in regards to why I'm such a horrible human being. Not even why you're supposedly so much better than me. Especially considering your continuing bullying and stunning display of hypocrisy.


You know, I seem to remember when I first signed on CR, you and I had a lengthy argument that ended much the same way. Point of fact is I never start arguments. You do though. I never said I was better than you, and I'm not responsible for your own weak perceptions of me. I don't go looking for trouble - and you most certainly do. Then when you find it, you complain weakly about being bullied. I find you very trolly in that sense. Maybe it's something you're proud of.


If you were so unwilling, then how about you just go ahead and do this little thing called "NOT respond"? Shouldn't be too difficult.


I might ask the same of you. I am such a horrible asshole and a bully. Nothing stopping you from walking out the door. I keep responding because you do, the same as the very beginning.


And what self-entitlement? Would you care to actually elaborate on any single insult you throw at me?


The fact that you want things handed to you. If you perceive that there is no value in what I observe, why badger me about it? Your giant ego just can't let it go, that's why. Probably why you sound so miserable whenever I see you post.



No. Because that's not what I'm angry about. What I'm angry about is your attitude. Your smug, self-righteous, arrogant, hypocritical, holier-than-thou attitude. THAT'S what ticks me off.


You're angry because I cornered you. I pinned down exactly how you're behaving, and the exact and inescapable logistics of how this argument took place. You've ignored all those bulletpoints repeatedly thus far, by the way. You pride yourself on your intelligence, and failing that, beating your opponents into the ground with giant wall posts until they get tired and give up. I've seen you do it before. It didn't work on me last time, certainly not going to this time. That's why you're pissed off, because leaving this argument is the same as admitting defeat in your eyes. In reality it was over a long time ago.


Had you simply told me that you weren't interested in discussing it in-depth and just told me what I should read, then that would've been fine. But you didn't. You had to act like a self-righteous, condescending shithead. And do it BECAUSE you refused to share anything.


Although my bedside manner has decayed over the years, I did exactly as you wished I had. Repeatedly. Not my fault you can't let it go.


So yeah. I know you get a total boner off of assuming how right you are and how intellectually superior you are, but you were way off target on that one, buddy.


Actually I find this whole thing to be an insufferable nuisance. I thought you had better things to do? You started this, I ended it, you can't seem to suck it up. It's a waste of my time AND yours.


No, I wanted an answer. A justification for your 100% certain exclamation. And once again, if you didn't want to discuss it, you COULD'VE refused to answer, or even just say "not interested in discussing it" and end on that.

And I see you're not letting up on your hypocrisy any time soon. The lack of self-reflection that you display is truly stunning.
You remind me of a guy that used to be on this forum before. Chinese, Hulk-obsessed dude with a MASSIVE ego and sense of intellectual superiority. Nobody liked him. He too was a massive hypocrite with an overbloated ego, with no sense of self-reflection and a massively self-righteous attitude. He was almost like a character out of a greek tragedy with the amount of hubris contained within him.

Wish you would've seen him. He would've served as a cautionary tale for you to not become what you're dangerously close to being...


Actually, if you look at most of my Crunchyroll posts, most of them have lots of emotes because I'm generally a cheerful person. If you also look at the rare thread where somebody needs help, I'm there too. I'm active in charity and I teach on the side. It's just that every once in awhile, some pushy douche shows up and gets in my face, and frankly I'm just better at it. I give what I receive.


Glad you took this pointless amount of time to talk about something you absolutely didn't want to talk about and which you could've just disregarded from the very beginning.
Time well spent, I'm sure...


So in other words I should have just ignored you. Make up your mind - do you want me to be an asshole or not? There have been times in this argument where you have contradicted yourself - on considerably more important points - but I didn't feel like slapping you with them. Because at the end of the day, this is all you, and maybe that will be enough of an experience for you.

39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 10/16/14 , edited 10/16/14

xeneria wrote:

Correct me if i'm wrong.

But isn't agnosticism not when you are "on the fence". But more like when you believe that there is no way to know if a god/deity exist? unlike atheism who clearly say "God does not exist" and theism who say "There is a god/there are several gods". Agnostics say that there is simply no way to actually find out?


My understanding is that agnosticism and atheistism aren't mutually exclusive--hence why the term "agnostic atheist" exists.

In general, atheism is not believing in God, and it's supposed to be a broad definition. "Not believing" can range from total negation (i.e. absolute assertion God does not exist) to simply living your life as if God does not exist. Conversely, agnosticism to my understanding means keeping both possibilities open--in some way, abstaining from any kind of answer. The intersection, or agnostic atheist, comes when you have someone who keeps the idea that God might exist on the table but lives their life as if God does not exist.

Either case, I don't think semantics matter too much; nevertheless, just because one identifies as atheist doesn't necessarily mean they negate the existence of divinity absolutely. In my case, I don't seriously entertain the idea of divinity, so I'm probably atheist in that respect, but I just say non-religious to avoid all the semantics.


Hayagriva wrote:

The best part about people like him is they don't know they're arguing against their own position the entire time. While I could give him theoretical proof that events are NOT random (which any mathematician could also do), he could never give me proof that all events ARE random (which is disprovable). The difference between us is I look for modes of reality, while he would rather feel superior through lazy anarchy.

I kind of figured when I answered the original post that it would raise the hackles of people like him. I blame myself really.


Two things:

- Define what you mean by "random." Do you mean the universe is fundamentally deterministic or that you think that intelligent life is too complex for it to be random? Neither of which are true, albeit for different reasons (specifically, the former is wrong via Born Rule and the latter is wrong since natural selection isn't random (see question 7 in source below) and would lead to intelligence as it helps us survive. As a qualifier, I must define intelligence as "awareness and capacity to store and recall memories to make [possibly false] predictions about the future."

Source about evolution http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

- What mathematics are you taking about, exactly? Because to my knowledge, there's no mathematics that says definitively suggests that no process is random; therefore, I'd very much like to see what you specifically you're talking about.
165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/16/14 , edited 10/16/14
[Randomly Pops In]

To expand a bit, "agnosticism" refers to the truth value aspect of a claim. To be agnostic means to be "without knowledge" and can be contrasted against the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis. Taking this into consideration, this means that an individual can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an gnostic theist (with the caveat that "gnostic" refer to "gnosis" rather than the Gnostic religion). Or, to use a simpler religious example, Christian religious convictions can range from Kierkegaard's unknowable God (agnostic theism) to the fundamentalist's "I know God's will and He exists" (gnostic theism).

[Edit]

I forgot to include the most important part of the explanation, apologies.

    - An agnostic atheist is an individual who does not claim a belief in any deity and does not claim to know whether a deity exists or not.
    - A gnostic atheist is an individual who does not claim a belief in any deity and claims to know that no deities exist.
    - An agnostic theist is an individual who does not claim to know of the existence of any deity (or deities, as it may be) but still believes in such a being existing.
    - A gnostic theist is an individual who knows that a deity (or deities) exists and believes in such a being.


I may be a bit wrong on the exact phrasings though.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/17/14 , edited 10/17/14

Hayagriva

Even more reason to focus on the things that can make my life better in a tangible way and give me a better sense of self-fulfillment, wouldn't you say?


I directly tried to contribute to that. Remember what happened?


Yes. You told me what you THOUGHT would give the most tangible improvement in my life (without giving justification for that conclution), and then started insulting me when I told you that I couldn't prioritize it atm.




Hayagriva

I did not intend to start a debate with you. I merely asked you to explain yourself on why you felt so 100% certain about your seemingly spiritual stance regarding the nature of the universe. If you were not interested in having any sort of conversation, you could've just not responded.

This argument fails. I do not ignore people, and I would be every inch the douchebag you pretend that I am if I did. Don't resort to flimsy logistical tricks, it dims what little respect I had of you to begin with.


A bigger douchebag than you were when you said these things?

Yeah, no.



Hayagriva

I asked you a question regarding the certainty to which you exclaimed something that I've yet to hear a single person within the scientific community say. I'd say that that's not so incredibly out line.


Yeah, it is. Because this thread isn't about my "beliefs", nor was it intended to explain them. Now let me ask you something - do you think this thread is the proper format, or that it could even appropriately be long enough to change YOUR views? I find your supposed flexibility impossible to believe, given all the facts of your behavior that I have to work with. Not only could would it be impossible to have that kind of a personal change here, I believe it almost equally unlikely that you came to this thread specifically for that reason. I find it far more likely that you came here because you've already made up your own mind on such things, and like to battle people over it. A true sign of immaturity, one you unfortunately can't escape now.



You mean my behavior of not accepting things just becaus you've said so and for trying to explain to you that I don't have time to read up on it because I have too many other things I need to do before I can do that? Sure. Such arrogant and closed-minded behavior.

You're right in that I didn't come here with the intention of having my mind changed about whether the universe is random or not. Like you've said, the thread isn't about that. So why are you now acting as if I thought it was.
I only saw your one comment, and got curious about why you thought that. And so I was hoping for just a simple answer, rather than a huge ass debate.
Had you just given a brief summary, that could've been enough, and we could've moved on.
But instead you were too busy being insistent on just continue saying "it can't be random" along with asking questions in return and being vague from the very beginning.




Hayagriva
I'll tell you what I AM responsible for. I didn't simply say that my own two decades with my system of observation is a massive amount of conversation - not all of which would stick - in ANY format, much less here. That is the only reason I didn't "answer" you.

Then I just would have sounded arrogant and douchy anyway, but at least you would have been gone sooner.


And look where it's gotten us. Long-ass discussion later and despite your efforts to the contrary, you still sound arrogant and douchy.
Good call on not giving that simple answer.




Hayagriva
You know, I seem to remember when I first signed on CR, you and I had a lengthy argument that ended much the same way. Point of fact is I never start arguments. You do though.


No, I NEVER wanted an argument. I was just curious to understand your view and reasoning.






Hayagriva
You're angry because I cornered you. I pinned down exactly how you're behaving, and the exact and inescapable logistics of how this argument took place. You've ignored all those bulletpoints repeatedly thus far, by the way. You pride yourself on your intelligence, and failing that, beating your opponents into the ground with giant wall posts until they get tired and give up. I've seen you do it before. It didn't work on me last time, certainly not going to this time. That's why you're pissed off, because leaving this argument is the same as admitting defeat in your eyes. In reality it was over a long time ago.

Actually, if you look at most of my Crunchyroll posts, most of them have lots of emotes because I'm generally a cheerful person. If you also look at the rare thread where somebody needs help, I'm there too. I'm active in charity and I teach on the side. It's just that every once in awhile, some pushy douche shows up and gets in my face, and frankly I'm just better at it. I give what I receive.




You know what? Fine. I'm getting sick of this.
Sick of you wisting my words and trying to make it seem like I've been saying that I haven't been saying, and making assertions about me and my way of thinking that are untrue.



Sick of your continued efforts to instill a sense of own intellectual superiority for yourself and intellectual inferiority of others.



Sick of your hypocrisy.





And just sick of this discussion in general.

Do you remember when you said this?

You see I've seen your posts before, and the tone you usually adopt tells me that you're actually a fairly miserable person.


Probably why you sound so miserable whenever I see you post.


Well you know what? You're right.
You know, between my life which was set back over half a decade because of various undiagnosed medical conditions, my shitty self-esteem, my heart-issues that leaves me in nigh constant fear for my life, my asthma which several times a week causes me to almost suffocate in my sleep, my crippled social skills and loneliness due to my Asperger's and my inability to do anything productive due to my ADD...
Yes. I AM miserable. THANK YOU for reminding me.

I also like the fact that you NOTICED that I am miserable. And yet despite that, went out of your way to bring me down and make me even more miserable.
And for what? Because I posted two, maybe three snarky comments?
Are there things I should've done better here? Yes. I will readily admit that. There are things that I posted where I was unduely snarky and rude, and I will try to keep them in mind for the future.
But you know what? That's no excuse for how you've been behaving during this discussion. You should have been a better man and risen above my snark.

You said that you're actually a very cheerful person who likes to help people. And yet, you've displayed by far the nastiest behavior in this discussion.
The older, self-proclaimed cheerful and helpful, intellectual superior one behaved worse than the younger, miserable, intellectually inferior one.
Utterly pathetic and disgraceful.

If there is one thing that's become clear to me during this discussion is that you're very good at being manipulative.
Manipulative, inconsiderate and vile.

And I've had enough of it. So I'll do what you've been telling me to do and end this. Because quite frankly, I don't care anymore. Not about this discussion or even really about you.

Now, excuse me, I have an assignment that I need to finish by monday.

Good day to you, sir.
Posted 10/17/14

BakaNikujaga wrote:

[Randomly Pops In]

To expand a bit, "agnosticism" refers to the truth value aspect of a claim. To be agnostic means to be "without knowledge" and can be contrasted against the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis. Taking this into consideration, this means that an individual can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an gnostic theist (with the caveat that "gnostic" refer to "gnosis" rather than the Gnostic religion). Or, to use a simpler religious example, Christian religious convictions can range from Kierkegaard's unknowable God (agnostic theism) to the fundamentalist's "I know God's will and He exists" (gnostic theism).

[Edit]

I forgot to include the most important part of the explanation, apologies.

    - An agnostic atheist is an individual who does not claim a belief in any deity and does not claim to know whether a deity exists or not.
    - A gnostic atheist is an individual who does not claim a belief in any deity and claims to know that no deities exist.
    - An agnostic theist is an individual who does not claim to know of the existence of any deity (or deities, as it may be) but still believes in such a being existing.
    - A gnostic theist is an individual who knows that a deity (or deities) exists and believes in such a being.


I may be a bit wrong on the exact phrasings though.


These subcategories are cute, but I daresay even if they are accepted by many they are presumptive. I'm an agnostic who has lost her faith; just because I have my foot inside the church door doesn't mean I stiill believe anything. Going to mass and participating, and during and after feeling nothing . Quite frankly I find it downright offensive and overly presumptive to call me either an Agnostic athiest or an Agnostic theist, as I am neither about as much as I am both, so as a result neither much sums me up, and I'd settle for the 'fence' designation syncaidramon suggested before I let you categorize me so pretensiously.


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Hayagriva

Even more reason to focus on the things that can make my life better in a tangible way and give me a better sense of self-fulfillment, wouldn't you say?


I directly tried to contribute to that. Remember what happened?


Yes. You told me what you THOUGHT would give the most tangible improvement in my life (without giving justification for that conclution), and then started insulting me when I told you that I couldn't prioritize it atm.




Hayagriva

I did not intend to start a debate with you. I merely asked you to explain yourself on why you felt so 100% certain about your seemingly spiritual stance regarding the nature of the universe. If you were not interested in having any sort of conversation, you could've just not responded.

This argument fails. I do not ignore people, and I would be every inch the douchebag you pretend that I am if I did. Don't resort to flimsy logistical tricks, it dims what little respect I had of you to begin with.


A bigger douchebag than you were when you said these things?

Yeah, no.



Hayagriva

I asked you a question regarding the certainty to which you exclaimed something that I've yet to hear a single person within the scientific community say. I'd say that that's not so incredibly out line.


Yeah, it is. Because this thread isn't about my "beliefs", nor was it intended to explain them. Now let me ask you something - do you think this thread is the proper format, or that it could even appropriately be long enough to change YOUR views? I find your supposed flexibility impossible to believe, given all the facts of your behavior that I have to work with. Not only could would it be impossible to have that kind of a personal change here, I believe it almost equally unlikely that you came to this thread specifically for that reason. I find it far more likely that you came here because you've already made up your own mind on such things, and like to battle people over it. A true sign of immaturity, one you unfortunately can't escape now.



You mean my behavior of not accepting things just becaus you've said so and for trying to explain to you that I don't have time to read up on it because I have too many other things I need to do before I can do that? Sure. Such arrogant and closed-minded behavior.

You're right in that I didn't come here with the intention of having my mind changed about whether the universe is random or not. Like you've said, the thread isn't about that. So why are you now acting as if I thought it was.
I only saw your one comment, and got curious about why you thought that. And so I was hoping for just a simple answer, rather than a huge ass debate.
Had you just given a brief summary, that could've been enough, and we could've moved on.
But instead you were too busy being insistent on just continue saying "it can't be random" along with asking questions in return and being vague from the very beginning.




Hayagriva
I'll tell you what I AM responsible for. I didn't simply say that my own two decades with my system of observation is a massive amount of conversation - not all of which would stick - in ANY format, much less here. That is the only reason I didn't "answer" you.

Then I just would have sounded arrogant and douchy anyway, but at least you would have been gone sooner.


And look where it's gotten us. Long-ass discussion later and despite your efforts to the contrary, you still sound arrogant and douchy.
Good call on not giving that simple answer.




Hayagriva
You know, I seem to remember when I first signed on CR, you and I had a lengthy argument that ended much the same way. Point of fact is I never start arguments. You do though.


No, I NEVER wanted an argument. I was just curious to understand your view and reasoning.






Hayagriva
You're angry because I cornered you. I pinned down exactly how you're behaving, and the exact and inescapable logistics of how this argument took place. You've ignored all those bulletpoints repeatedly thus far, by the way. You pride yourself on your intelligence, and failing that, beating your opponents into the ground with giant wall posts until they get tired and give up. I've seen you do it before. It didn't work on me last time, certainly not going to this time. That's why you're pissed off, because leaving this argument is the same as admitting defeat in your eyes. In reality it was over a long time ago.

Actually, if you look at most of my Crunchyroll posts, most of them have lots of emotes because I'm generally a cheerful person. If you also look at the rare thread where somebody needs help, I'm there too. I'm active in charity and I teach on the side. It's just that every once in awhile, some pushy douche shows up and gets in my face, and frankly I'm just better at it. I give what I receive.




You know what? Fine. I'm getting sick of this.
Sick of you wisting my words and trying to make it seem like I've been saying that I haven't been saying, and making assertions about me and my way of thinking that are untrue.



Sick of your continued efforts to instill a sense of own intellectual superiority for yourself and intellectual inferiority of others.



Sick of your hypocrisy.





And just sick of this discussion in general.

Do you remember when you said this?

You see I've seen your posts before, and the tone you usually adopt tells me that you're actually a fairly miserable person.


Probably why you sound so miserable whenever I see you post.


Well you know what? You're right.
You know, between my life which was set back over half a decade because of various undiagnosed medical conditions, my shitty self-esteem, my heart-issues that leaves me in nigh constant fear for my life, my asthma which several times a week causes me to almost suffocate in my sleep, my crippled social skills and loneliness due to my Asperger's and my inability to do anything productive due to my ADD...
Yes. I AM miserable. THANK YOU for reminding me.

I also like the fact that you NOTICED that I am miserable. And yet despite that, went out of your way to bring me down and make me even more miserable.
And for what? Because I posted two, maybe three snarky comments?
Are there things I should've done better here? Yes. I will readily admit that. There are things that I posted where I was unduely snarky and rude, and I will try to keep them in mind for the future.
But you know what? That's no excuse for how you've been behaving during this discussion. You should have been a better man and risen above my snark.

You said that you're actually a very cheerful person who likes to help people. And yet, you've displayed by far the nastiest behavior in this discussion.
The older, self-proclaimed cheerful and helpful, intellectual superior one behaved worse than the younger, miserable, intellectually inferior one.
Utterly pathetic and disgraceful.

If there is one thing that's become clear to me during this discussion is that you're very good at being manipulative.
Manipulative, inconsiderate and vile.

And I've had enough of it. So I'll do what you've been telling me to do and end this. Because quite frankly, I don't care anymore. Not about this discussion or even really about you.

Now, excuse me, I have an assignment that I need to finish by monday.

Good day to you, sir.


This is quite a childish drama between you two and hardly what would be considered professional discourse. Get a room or take it into pms, you're making an ass out of yourselves.
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 10/17/14 , edited 10/17/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:



Yes. You told me what you THOUGHT would give the most tangible improvement in my life (without giving justification for that conclution), and then started insulting me when I told you that I couldn't prioritize it atm.


The justification is long and storied, something you did not anticipate, so I gave you the next best answer. You acted like a demanding little kid when you didn't get it.


You mean my behavior of not accepting things just becaus you've said so and for trying to explain to you that I don't have time to read up on it because I have too many other things I need to do before I can do that? Sure. Such arrogant and closed-minded behavior.


God, do you even hear yourself? The non-arrogant non-douchebag answer would be "Thanks, I'll read up on that when I have time." Hypocrite.


You're right in that I didn't come here with the intention of having my mind changed about whether the universe is random or not. Like you've said, the thread isn't about that. So why are you now acting as if I thought it was.


Because that's what you've been raking me over the coals for since the beginning. Thank you for admitting that even your initial line of questioning was simply an excuse for you to try and look intelligent. You weren't trying to learn anything, so that's the only justification left as to why you stepped forward.


I only saw your one comment, and got curious about why you thought that. And so I was hoping for just a simple answer, rather than a huge ass debate. Had you just given a brief summary, that could've been enough, and we could've moved on.
But instead you were too busy being insistent on just continue saying "it can't be random" along with asking questions in return and being vague from the very beginning.


Except there wasn't a simple answer to give. You could have accepted that instead of stamping around angrily like a little kid.


No, I NEVER wanted an argument. I was just curious to understand your view and reasoning.


Except you already clarified that you weren't. You admitted you weren't intending to change your views upon anything when you came to this thread. The only conclusion left is to fling around some confirmation bias, like I've said from the beginning.


You know what? Fine. I'm getting sick of this.
Sick of you wisting my words and trying to make it seem like I've been saying that I haven't been saying, and making assertions about me and my way of thinking that are untrue.


You've been doing exactly this to me since we started. Did you enjoy it?


And just sick of this discussion in general.


I have been since it started. Because I knew what you wanted, and what you didn't want, and exactly how it was going to end.



I also like the fact that you NOTICED that I am miserable. And yet despite that, went out of your way to bring me down and make me even more miserable.


What's this, you want me to feel bad for you? Unfortunately for you I've known people who have dealt with worse - and some have passed on, who don't act like half the little shit that you have. Being disadvantaged is not a free pass to crap on people. Had I known these facts beforehand I would have acted in exactly the same manner, because that's what you inspire.


And for what? Because I posted two, maybe three snarky comments?
Are there things I should've done better here? Yes. I will readily admit that. There are things that I posted where I was unduely snarky and rude, and I will try to keep them in mind for the future.
But you know what? That's no excuse for how you've been behaving during this discussion. You should have been a better man and risen above my snark.


Yeah, I could have. And earlier in my life, I would have. But you see I've discovered something over the years. People who do the sorts of things you just admitted to don't appreciate it. They don't learn something. They just take advantage of people who take "the high road." I have an unfortunately low tolerance for snark, it puts me on edge instantly. I think you and I just happened to be a perfect storm in this regard.


You said that you're actually a very cheerful person who likes to help people. And yet, you've displayed by far the nastiest behavior in this discussion. Etc etc.


So I should be a doormat and put up with yours and anybody else's shit? Being a good person doesn't mean you put up with that. If anything, it means you get rid of such people faster. That's what balance means. One hand is open, and one hand is a fist. It's actually somewhat unfortunate that your communicative methodology and mine are just oil and water.

And that about sums it up. Good luck with your assignment, and your medical conditions. Be careful you don't take it out on other people in the future. It's not as though I hate your guts or anything. I do hope you remember this event should we cross paths again in the future, I know I certainly will.
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 10/17/14

Kaolinite wrote:


This is quite a childish drama between you two and hardly what would be considered professional discourse. Get a room or take it into pms, you're making an ass out of yourselves.


Don't worry. It's over now. Unless he starts another round of it. Apologies to ANYONE who had to read that, quite frankly.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.