01 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei was being ironic. reading you posts is like watching jackass the movie. you realize they are being morons, you realize your iq is dropping each second you watch it yet you cannot bring yourself to smash the tv to bits so you don't watch it anymore.
see the good effect i have upon you my friend, now you are glad! before when you woke up and were probably quite glum, now we are both happy 🙂
i am curious if anyone can find a post of yours where you were remotely intelligent.
01 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziLol, perhaps you should follow my chess games instead of watching them movies, they are quite instructive, you may learn something 😉 and while on the subject of intelligence, is it not a theme from Steinbecks, 'of mice and men', which states that you do not need to be intelligent to be a worthwhile human being, the quotation escapes me at the moment, but you would do well to remember that!, for your own sake!
i was being ironic. reading you posts is like watching jackass the movie. you realize they are being morons, you realize your iq is dropping each second you watch it yet you cannot bring yourself to smash the tv to bits so you don't watch it anymore.
i am curious if anyone can find a post of yours where you were remotely intelligent.
01 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiesure, if you acknowledge that you are ignorant( you do not have to acknowledge you are less intelligent) and that you may learn something from more knowledgeable people.
Lol, perhaps you should follow my chess games instead of watching them movies, they are quite instructive, you may learn something 😉 and while on the subject of intelligence, is it not a theme from Steinbecks, 'of mice and men', which states that you do not need to be intelligent to be a worthwhile human being, the quotation escapes me at the moment, but you would do well to remember that!, for your own sake!
if you are ignorant (or downright stupid) and you insist you have all the answers and all the rest are puny mortals compared to you, if you insist on making scientifical claims based on a holy book (that was never intended as a science book, might or might not have been inspired by god, written by men, savage when compared to our standards, who had no idea of the workings of the universe, only what god told them, which was little seeing as science was not the bible's purpose), if you insist on ignoring anything the "godless heathens" throw at you while always chanting that those are not evidences (of course without saying why), if you continue to ask for proofs from the evolutionists but offer none for your claims,
if you do all the above and more, you are not a "worthwhile human being"
01 Apr 09
Originally posted by Zahlanzias I have stated to you and others, the best that we can hope for, and i have come to appreciate this not from a theist, nor from a holy book, but from an atheist and friend, is a correct evaluation with our own minds, based on our understanding at present this being a derivative of the knowledge that we hold before us at present. therefore you are unable to aim your criticisms to justify a difference in opinion, get it, for its based on your evaluation and on mine, both of which may be equally valid!
sure, if you acknowledge that you are ignorant( you do not have to acknowledge you are less intelligent) and that you may learn something from more knowledgeable people.
if you are ignorant (or downright stupid) and you insist you have all the answers and all the rest are puny mortals compared to you, if you insist on making scientifical claims based on ...[text shortened]... or your claims,
if you do all the above and more, you are not a "worthwhile human being"
01 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieif you spent more than 2 seconds thinking this post you should slap yourself. hard. for time wasted.
as I have stated to you and others, the best that we can hope for, and i have come to appreciate this not from a theist, nor from a holy book, but from an atheist and friend, is a correct evaluation with our own minds, based on our understanding at present this being a derivative of the knowledge that we hold before us at present. therefore you are ...[text shortened]... inion, get it, for its based on your evaluation and on mine, both of which may be equally valid!
2 contradictory evaluations may be equally valid? i say evolution happened you say it didn't and we can both be right?
i shouldn't ask you to do complex tasks, it seems you fail miserably.
01 Apr 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziRe-read his post and you should get it.
if you spent more than 2 seconds thinking this post you should slap yourself. hard. for time wasted.
2 contradictory evaluations may be equally valid? i say evolution happened you say it didn't and we can both be right?
i shouldn't ask you to do complex tasks, it seems you fail miserably.
He means that the evaluations may be valid even when they come to different conclusion if the source data is different. He does not mean that the conclusions themselves are necessarily valid.
I agree with him on that point but would like to point out that he frequently refuses to accept any source data that does not fit his desired conclusion. He is also mostly uninterested in learning anything new on subjects he considers might conflict with his beliefs.
01 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadif two lines of reasoning reach different results about a subject, results that are incompatible with one another, something is wrong in at least one of those reasoning.
Re-read his post and you should get it.
He means that the evaluations may be valid even when they come to different conclusion if the source data is different. He does not mean that the conclusions themselves are necessarily valid.
I agree with him on that point but would like to point out that he frequently refuses to accept any source data that does ...[text shortened]... uninterested in learning anything new on subjects he considers might conflict with his beliefs.
perhaps you could offer an example to contradict this claim?
01 Apr 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziI tell you that I have pink unicorns in my fridge and that pink unicorns emit red flashes of light. You would correctly reason that there should be red flashes of light coming out of my fridge.
if two lines of reasoning reach different results about a subject, results that are incompatible with one another, something is wrong in at least one of those reasoning.
perhaps you could offer an example to contradict this claim?
I tell someone else that the pink unicorns emit green flashes of light and he correctly reasons that my fridge should be emitting green flashes of light.
The reasoning is not flawed in any way it merely has different facts to work with.
I do think Robbies reasoning is seriously flawed and that he knows it, but I do not think that the fact that his results contradict yours is proof that one of you has flawed reasoning.
01 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadnot quite. i would question your claim that you have pink unicorns in your fridge.
I tell you that I have pink unicorns in my fridge and that pink unicorns emit red flashes of light. You would correctly reason that there should be red flashes of light coming out of my fridge.
I tell someone else that the pink unicorns emit green flashes of light and he correctly reasons that my fridge should be emitting green flashes of light.
The rea ...[text shortened]... k that the fact that his results contradict yours is proof that one of you has flawed reasoning.
for a reasoning to be valid it must first make sure the information, the facts it works with are also valid. one cannot reach valid results starting with false facts or facts whose validity is unknown so then who cares if the logical processes involved in deducing knowledge are valid.
are you claiming that your reasoning can be flawless if you don't know if your information is? how do you know your reasoning is flawless then? and if you do not allow anyone to question the facts from which you started, how can anyone disprove you?
01 Apr 09
Originally posted by scherzothe term "ad-hominum" has other usages. Ad-hominem (this is how it is spelled for your future reference, not being a grammar nazi just saying) arguments are used to describe practices when one debater attacks the other debater rather than his arguments.
Such ad hominum attacks! What are you on? This isn't a flamefest, this is a religious, er, flame-civilized-party.
i wasn't performing an ad-hominem because there was no debating. what i did is called "insulting". i was calling him ignorant, stupid, obnoxious, and some more, i don't remember?
he is ignorant, because he doesn't know anything about evolution, what it stands for, how it contradicts many of the creation stories etc.
stupid? this is dependent on whether he wants to think about all the arguments presented to him or simply is to dense to comprehend.
obnoxious is subjective. it is my opinion of him based on my feeling queasy everytime i have to point out that he is being moronic again. which is why i stopped debating him. i simply insult him from time to time because i am jealous of his high chess rating and because i am a nobody. exactly like i stopped debating you and will insult you from time to time because you i am jealous that you are a brave muslim warrior and i am a capitalist coward pig infidel who will never get 72 virgins.