|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 9, 2019 5:50:57 GMT
Holy shit!! HERE, dipshit: You really are just a fucking idiot.  . WOW!! A double insult that's completely an unoriginal re-wording of my insult AND one still based on my ID pic because you're too fucking stupid to know how pictures work. Good thing I don't have a pic of Garfield up there or you'd be like  - "YOU DON'T EVEN EAT YOUR OWN LASAGNA ANY MORE.. YOU MAKE OTHER PEOPLE DO IT.... and what's Jon really like?" Oh look! The chimp is back with a monkey fart brain. Your context is confused, but what can one expect from an alcoholic with Tourette's who has cognitive dissonance about his own beliefs.....
Sorry... You lost me at you being a complete fucking moron...  It seems that you're too stupid to know what "context" even means.... because it sure as shit doesn't change the fact that you did refer to his "happiness or his unhappiness"... Idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 5:59:12 GMT
You asked me a question jackass. And I answered it moron. You sure are fucking stupid. Your answer is as vague and as lost as your belief. Oh yeah, and you got all the fucking answers. Maybe you are Jesus Christ. You sure think you know everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 6:16:32 GMT
Oh look! The chimp is back with a monkey fart brain. Your context is confused, but what can one expect from an alcoholic with Tourette's who has cognitive dissonance about his own beliefs.....
Sorry... You lost me at you being a complete fucking moron... It seems that you're too stupid to know what "context" even means.... because it sure as shit doesn't change the fact that you did refer to his "happiness or his unhappiness"... Idiot. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 6:18:23 GMT
Your answer is as vague and as lost as your belief. Oh yeah, and you got all the fucking answers. Maybe you are Jesus Christ. You sure think you know everything. What is knowing everything though? Is that why you believe in God and JC, who is represented as a savior, because you want to know things?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 6:28:36 GMT
Oh yeah, and you got all the fucking answers. Maybe you are Jesus Christ. You sure think you know everything. What is knowing everything though? Is that why you believe in God and JC, who is represented as a savior, because you want to know things?
Why don't you go fuck yourself TC? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 6:32:50 GMT
What is knowing everything though? Is that why you believe in God and JC, who is represented as a savior, because you want to know things?
Why don't you go fuck yourself TC? So you don't want to answer the question, but have a tanty instead? Nice going doofus!
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 9, 2019 7:53:35 GMT
Why don't you go fuck yourself TC? So you don't want to answer the question, but have a tanty instead? Nice going doofus! He is acting 'crazy' again!
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 8:12:29 GMT
So you don't want to answer the question, but have a tanty instead? Nice going doofus! He is acting 'crazy' again! Toasted Cheese keeps asking the same stupid questions over and over again. I have answered him. I don't believe he is interested in a genuine conversation. I am tired of repeating myself. And what's the use? He either can't get it. Or refuses to. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 9, 2019 8:16:47 GMT
My 'proof' ( I hate that word, let's call it an assumption) is that in thousands of years no-one has been able to prove the opposite ie that god/s exists Nobody can prove God exist. And nobody can prove He doesn't. So that means non believers are no better or worse than believers. Not quite. Have you heard of Occam's Razor? The principle that you use as few unproven assumptions as possible when formulating a hypothesis? And when you have two concurring hypotheses, the simpler one is usually correct; simpler meaning: Using less unproven assumptions? God is an unproven assumption. Therefore, assuming nonexistance is the default position. Conclusion: According to Occam's Razor, it's not up to nonbelievers to prove that God does not exist; it's up to believers to prove that he/she/it does. Why are you so hostile to believers? As I said above: Saying that the burden of proof lies with believers, not nonbelievers, is not being hostile to believers. It's applying Occam's Razor. By the way, Occam was a Christian.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 8:32:02 GMT
Nobody can prove God exist. And nobody can prove He doesn't. So that means non believers are no better or worse than believers. Not quite. Have you heard of Occam's Razor? The principle that you use as few unproven assumptions as possible when formulating a hypothesis? And when you have two concurring hypotheses, the simpler one is usually correct; simpler meaning: Using less unproven assumptions? God is an unproven assumption. Therefore, assuming nonexistance is the default position. Conclusion: According to Occam's Razor, it's not up to nonbelievers to prove that God does not exist; it's up to believers to prove that he/she/it does. Why are you so hostile to believers? As I said above: Saying that the burden of proof lies with believers, not nonbelievers, is not being hostile to believers. It's applying Occam's Razor. By the way, Occam was a Christian. That theory you quoted said, "the simpler one is USUALLY correct." Not always. Besides that has nothing to do with why believers choose to believe. I was using that comparison to show the illogicality of those who are hostile to believers. Not to show why either choice is equally logical. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 9, 2019 8:35:21 GMT
Nobody can prove God exist. And nobody can prove He doesn't. So that means non believers are no better or worse than believers. Not quite. Have you heard of Occam's Razor? The principle that you use as few unproven assumptions as possible when formulating a hypothesis? And when you have two concurring hypotheses, the simpler one is usually correct; simpler meaning: Using less unproven assumptions? God is an unproven assumption. Therefore, assuming nonexistance is the default position. Conclusion: According to Occam's Razor, it's not up to nonbelievers to prove that God does not exist; it's up to believers to prove that he/she/it does. Why are you so hostile to believers? As I said above: Saying that the burden of proof lies with believers, not nonbelievers, is not being hostile to believers. It's applying Occam's Razor. By the way, Occam was a Christian. We don't go by Occam's Razor. We go by the Golden Rule. The ones with the gold make the rules. There is no burden of proof on believers in anything to prove that what they believe in exists. Never has been. Never will be. Get over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 9, 2019 8:42:38 GMT
There is no burden of proof on believers in anything to prove that what they believe in exists. Never has been. Never will be. Get over it. Almost correct. There is no burden of proof on believers to prove their belief - as long as they don't try to convince others of their belief, or codify their beliefs into secular law that everybody has to follow. Given the long history of some believers trying to do both things, like influencing school curricula, or controlling women's reproductive organs, or implementing sharia law... The hostility they get from nonbelievers is partly understandable.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 9, 2019 8:45:23 GMT
I was using that comparison to show the illogicality of those who are hostile to believers. Not to show why either choice is equally logical. The hostility comes when believers try to force their belief on others. See also my reply to Erjen.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 8:52:46 GMT
I was using that comparison to show the illogicality of those who are hostile to believers. Not to show why either choice is equally logical. The hostility comes when believers try to force their belief on others. See also my reply to Erjen. I agree. But I am not one of those people. I do not deserve to be treated with aggressive hostility. I like talking about religion. Even my own faith. But I do not like being treated with hostility --- like Toasted Cheese has been exhibiting. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 9, 2019 8:59:43 GMT
There is no burden of proof on believers in anything to prove that what they believe in exists. Never has been. Never will be. Get over it. Almost correct. There is no burden of proof on believers to prove their belief - as long as they don't try to convince others of their belief, or codify their beliefs into secular law that everybody has to follow. Given the long history of some believers trying to do both things, like influencing school curricula, or controlling women's reproductive organs, or implementing sharia law... The hostility they get from nonbelievers is partly understandable. If you ever catch me trying to convince you, please let me know. If you ever catch anyone else trying to convince you, please let me know. And we will codify anything we want. If you don't like it, get yourselves organized and go to the polls on election day and do something about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 9:04:31 GMT
So you don't want to answer the question, but have a tanty instead? Nice going doofus! He is acting 'crazy' again! What a confused dichotomy. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 9:05:57 GMT
He is acting 'crazy' again! Toasted Cheese keeps asking the same stupid questions over and over again. I have answered him. I don't believe he is interested in a genuine conversation. I am tired of repeating myself. And what's the use? He either can't get it. Or refuses to. The problem is, you don't get it, so avoid answering the questions, due to your steadfast, inflexible and ludicrous belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 9, 2019 9:15:46 GMT
If you ever catch anyone else trying to convince you, please let me know. It has happened in the past. At school, in my family, at my door, in the streets... If I had received the equivalent of a US dollar everytime a believer tried to convince me, I might be a millionaire by now. And we will codify anything we want. If you don't like it, get yourselves organized and go to the polls on election day and do something about it. I already do. And I am happy that people in Ireland and Poland are doing it too. Two countries that are slowly freeing themselves from a century-long Catholic grip.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 9:18:46 GMT
If you ever catch anyone else trying to convince you, please let me know. It has happened in the past. At school, in my family, at my door, in the streets... If I had received the equivalent of a US dollar everytime a believer tried to convince me, I might be a millionaire by now. And we will codify anything we want. If you don't like it, get yourselves organized and go to the polls on election day and do something about it. I already do. And I am happy that people in Ireland and Poland are doing it too. Two countries that are slowly freeing themselves from a century-long Catholic grip. So, you want to erradicate all believers? Or just those who try to convince non believers they should believe? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 9, 2019 9:26:49 GMT
It has happened in the past. At school, in my family, at my door, in the streets... If I had received the equivalent of a US dollar everytime a believer tried to convince me, I might be a millionaire by now. I already do. And I am happy that people in Ireland and Poland are doing it too. Two countries that are slowly freeing themselves from a century-long Catholic grip. So, you want to erradicate believers. No I don't. And I never said so on this thread. If you lie about other posters, don't be surprised if you receive hostility. Or just those who try to convince non believers they should believe? I don't want to eradicate them. But I don't want them to force their beliefs on others, whether through indoctrination or law.
|
|
