[jdjtcagle]

ROTFL:lol:

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
Tiara: "open my mind to other posibilities" screw you, only the weak and pathetic debator resorts to argumentum ad hominem - YOU JUST DID

Iti s because my mind is OPEN and I follow OBJECTIVE PROCESSES that I am atheist, and see religion as irrational

Having an open mind is not what you do or don't belive, but what you understand of those.  You aren't willing to accept or understand the reasons why people have religious beliefs - so your mind is closed to understanding them.

Trying to ignore the hard facts with latin quotes - it doesn;t work, it isn't big, and it isn't clever.  If you really want to refute this, then give your reaosning, your logic.  Otherwise it just looks like you've decided what is right, and come up with a suitably vague excuse to disparage the rest.

[Kazan]

aldo_14: I perfectly understand _why_ people are religious and that makes it all the more despicable

"try to ignore the hard facts with latin quotes" well excuse the **** out of me for being more educated than you and able to cite the exact name of a logical fallacy - whether I cite the name in the proper latin or a translation to english it's still a logical fallacy commited by the other person


The Fact is: I UNDERSTAND YOUR MOTIVIATIONS PERFECTLY, AND I FIND THEM DEPLORABLE

[01010]

Could you repeat that? I didn't quite catch it the first time.

[Kazan]

it's ASCII expressed in binary

"LOL 01010
Shut up"

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: I perfectly understand _why_ people are religious and that makes it all the more despicable

"try to ignore the hard facts with latin quotes" well excuse the **** out of me for being more educated than you and able to cite the exact name of a logical fallacy - whether I cite the name in the proper latin or a translation to english it's still a logical fallacy commited by the other person


The Fact is: I UNDERSTAND YOUR MOTIVIATIONS PERFECTLY, AND I FIND THEM DEPLORABLE

Translation: "My arguments are utter cack no matter the subject, so I go out of my way to appear more intelligent than I really am.  This is just me acting out all my suppressed anger over being beaten up in school all the time.  Could someone pass me a napkin to cry in?"

Crikey, Mr. I've-Got-To-Get-To-Boston, address his arguments already.

[Kazan]

you people are hopeless - you cannot win so you start throwing feces.

[Grey Wolf]

Kazan, you've been "throwing feces" for a while now, so don't start being a hypocrite.

[ionia23]

*content deleted*

[jdjtcagle]

*shakes head*
Think it's time to start shutting down people... iona, that was not necessary at all

[ionia23]

Originally posted by jdjtcagle
*shakes head*
Think it's time to start shutting down people... iona, that was not necessary at all

Accepted and removed.  My apologies.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Kazan, you've been "throwing feces" for a while now, so don't start being a hypocrite.

Yes, pointing out tautologies is such throwing of feces

[Sandwich]

Red pill or blue pill, guys - you decide. Blue pill, and this gets locked, never to be revived. Red pill, and we resume the discussion on a much more mature note than is being displayed be certain parties.

[Tiara]

[size=235234]BLUE PILL![/size]



(j/k)

[Ace]

Personally I think this thread needs:
DAMITOL: The Green Pill

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: I perfectly understand _why_ people are religious and that makes it all the more despicable

"try to ignore the hard facts with latin quotes" well excuse the **** out of me for being more educated than you and able to cite the exact name of a logical fallacy - whether I cite the name in the proper latin or a translation to english it's still a logical fallacy commited by the other person


The Fact is: I UNDERSTAND YOUR MOTIVIATIONS PERFECTLY, AND I FIND THEM DEPLORABLE

a) What are my motivations?

b) being able to phrase an argument in a clear and logical manner - i.e. in the preferred language of this boards - is equally as important as throwing about latin quotes in the obvious hope of trying to confuse people / look a smart-arse.  At least I can say I've always tried to explain the fundamental basis of my own arguments - you haven't insofar as I can see, and you haven't responded to those questions that have been asked.

So i'll ask again - what is your 'understanding' of this issue? What are 'the rules of logic' you are using, and how are you applying them? Why do / how can you 'loathe' a belief structure - is is simply because you don't subscribe to it?

NB: what exactly does 'excuse the **** out of me' mean?  Does that mean you're admitting **** is coming out of you? (hopefully from the biologically natural areas of the body, otherwise I'd see a doctor )

[Kazan]

Originally posted by aldo_14


a) What are my motivations?

The basic motivation of all humans is obtain happiness, most humans have no learned that truth is worth more than happiness, or have not learned to seperate their emotions from their critical thinking.  

Either way the first one leads to the second one - and therefore they both interfere with your ability to make rational decisions.  This is the primary fundamental motiviation for people to be religious.  

Now I probably hear and objection about "but some good scientists are religious!"  This is due to the process of compartmentalization.  A certain area of your knowledge/consciousness is partitioned in your mind and one refuses to apply critical thinking to it.  This is partially enabled by the fact that most people are indoctrinated before they are capable of critically thinking, most people are almost completely incapable of total and complete reconstruction o their thought processes by the time they learn critical thinking, if they ever truely learn it.

Originally posted by aldo_14

b) being able to phrase an argument in a clear and logical manner - i.e. in the preferred language of this boards - is equally as important as throwing about latin quotes in the obvious hope of trying to confuse people / look a smart-arse.  At least I can say I've always tried to explain the fundamental basis of my own arguments - you haven't insofar as I can see, and you haven't responded to those questions that have been asked.

Excuse me?! "In obvious hope of trying to confuse people" BULL**** - when I say someone has commited a logical fallacy, and named that logical fallacy - it means they commited a logical fallacy and that's simple - if you don't like me using the proper terminology - TOUGH ****

You clearly haven't even been reading this thread the fundamental basis of my arguments is quite clear.  Tiara commited an argumentum ad hominem (for the petulenetly undereducated: "Attack against the person")  and so are you.  

Originally posted by aldo_14
So i'll ask again - what is your 'understanding' of this issue? What are 'the rules of logic' you are using, and how are you applying them? Why do / how can you 'loathe' a belief structure - is is simply because you don't subscribe to it?

A) I have been debating this issue for 8 years, I have an intiminate knowledge of the human pyschology involved, the neurochemistry behind that psychology, the evidential status of all subjects uinvolved in this issue

B) There is only one set of the rules of Logic - it's the ones they would have taught you in university had you listened [in some better educated areas like mine you tend to learn them in high school]    

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Philosophical_logic

C) I loath any belief structure in which the person takes pleasant lies over boring reality.  I loath any belief structure to which a person clings to something fervently without evidence.  I loath any belief structure to which a person clings to elements that are directly disproven by evidence.

Originally posted by aldo_14
NB: what exactly does 'excuse the **** out of me' mean?  Does that mean you're admitting **** is coming out of you? (hopefully from the biologically natural areas of the body, otherwise I'd see a doctor )

Hardy Har har - you know exactly what I mean - excuse me for using the proper nommeclature of Logic in my application of logic

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan

The basic motivation of all humans is obtain happiness, most humans have no learned that truth is worth more than happiness, or have not learned to seperate their emotions from their critical thinking.  

Either way the first one leads to the second one - and therefore they both interfere with your ability to make rational decisions.  This is the primary fundamental motiviation for people to be religious.  

Now I probably hear and objection about "but some good scientists are religious!"  This is due to the process of compartmentalization.  A certain area of your knowledge/consciousness is partitioned in your mind and one refuses to apply critical thinking to it.  This is partially enabled by the fact that most people are indoctrinated before they are capable of critically thinking, most people are almost completely incapable of total and complete reconstruction o their thought processes by the time they learn critical thinking, if they ever truely learn it.

I don't believe that answers the question -  what is my[/b] motivation?

Originally posted by Kazan
Excuse me?! "In obvious hope of trying to confuse people" BULL**** - when I say someone has commited a logical fallacy, and named that logical fallacy - it means they commited a logical fallacy and that's simple - if you don't like me using the proper terminology - TOUGH ****

You clearly haven't even been reading this thread the fundamental basis of my arguments is quite clear.  Tiara commited an argumentum ad hominem (for the petulenetly undereducated: "Attack against the person")  and so are you.  

If you are as intelligent as I assume you are, you would no doubt be aware that latin is a dead and little taught language in most schools / eduaction systems.  Thus, it would be obvious that using what is to most an untranslatable phrase - a cliche even - would be an obvious barrier between clear and unambigous communication.

Originally posted by Kazan

A) I have been debating this issue for 8 years, I have an intiminate knowledge of the human pyschology involved, the neurochemistry behind that psychology, the evidential status of all subjects uinvolved in this issue

Debating or researching?  And if you your position has not changed in 8 years, and is as - how shall I say - extreme as it is, how could you draw an unbiased opinion?

Originally posted by Kazan

B) There is only one set of the rules of Logic - it's the ones they would have taught you in university had you listened [in some better educated areas like mine you tend to learn them in high school]    

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Philosophical_logic

Oh, an insult on my intelligence.  That's very effective - are you hopingthat will make some sort of a point?  Thankfully, I'm not so vain is to respond to such petty and - dare I say - immature name-calling.

Wis it that allows you to make generalised judgements about the ducation systems in another country? (without, may i add, any evidence to support it).  And what stage, exactly, of your education are you at?

(NB: philosophy is not a fundamental part of any CS course I know of - and if you're saying that you're phrasing this logic in mathematical terms...well, that's just silly, because your not dealing with absolute sentences).

I note that you still have yet to illustrate your reasoning with regard to these rules.

Originally posted by Kazan

C) I loath any belief structure in which the person takes pleasant lies over boring reality.  I loath any belief structure to which a person clings to something fervently without evidence.  I loath any belief structure to which a person clings to elements that are directly disproven by evidence.

Well, what aspects are definitively disproven by evidence?  Backing this up would be very useful in forming your argument (i.e. with sources) - especially if you can show that this evidence is not tainted by your opinion.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I don't believe that answers the question -  what is my motivation?[/B]

exactly as stated

Originally posted by aldo_14
If you are as intelligent as I assume you are, you would no doubt be aware that latin is a dead and little taught language in most schools / eduaction systems.  Thus, it would be obvious that using what is to most an untranslatable phrase - a cliche even - would be an obvious barrier between clear and unambigous communication.

ooh booo hooo, boo hoo

it's still used for the official nomeclature of quite a few things, logic included

Originally posted by aldo_14
Debating or researching?  And if you your position has not changed in 8 years, and is as - how shall I say - extreme as it is, how could you draw an unbiased opinion?

Questioning my objectivity is the ultimate insult

furthermore my opinion has changed - i have grown to despise your side more due to their fanatacism.  

Yes it's so extreme to say "if you believe in something with no evidence your'e irrational" (def of irrational) and "people who base their worldview off irrationality are dangerous" (quite obvious and easily demonstrated)

Originally posted by aldo_14
Oh, an insult on my intelligence.  That's very effective - are you hopingthat will make some sort of a point?  Thankfully, I'm not so vain is to respond to such petty and - dare I say - immature name-calling.

I was merely being specific - you like to insult my intelligence a lot though so "pot calling kettle"

Originally posted by aldo_14
Wis it that allows you to make generalised judgements about the ducation systems in another country? (without, may i add, any evidence to support it).  And what stage, exactly, of your education are you at?

going through the motions to get a degree to which I already know the entire course content for

Originally posted by aldo_14
(NB: philosophy is not a fundamental part of any CS course I know of - and if you're saying that you're phrasing this logic in mathematical terms...well, that's just silly, because your not dealing with absolute sentences).

I note that you still have yet to illustrate your reasoning with regard to these rules.

philosophical and mathematical logic are extensinos of the same thing, and I am extremely well versed in _BOTH_

If you are unable to see the illustration of _my_ reasoning then uo haven't even been reading this thread

furthermore - I am taking the negative proposition position - ie questioning someone elses positive proposition (ie their claim that something exists) - the Burdeon of Proof rests ton the knees of the pro-goddists

Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, what aspects are definitively disproven by evidence?  Backing this up would be very useful in forming your argument (i.e. with sources) - especially if you can show that this evidence is not tainted by your opinion.

here comes a small sample

Creationism -> Disproven
Great Flood -> Disproven
Flat Earth -> Disproven
Earth Center Of universe -> Disproven

Most of the "morals" -> Illogical in light of modern psychological knowledge, medical knowledge, etc
Certain morals - such as antihomosexuality -> completely and totally troglodytic

[Kazan]

-- Admins I apologize in advance --

ionia - you didn't quite clean up after yourself

Here is something I have ABSOLUTELY NO TOLERANCE FOR

Translation: "My arguments are utter cack no matter the subject, so I go out of my way to appear more intelligent than I really am. This is just me acting out all my suppressed anger over being beaten up in school all the time. Could someone pass me a napkin to cry in?"

Crikey, Mr. I've-Got-To-Get-To-Boston, address his arguments already.

This sounds like exactly the type of response I expect out of immature irrational children who have too little of an education

listen ass**** - excuse the hell out of me for using the official nomeclature of logic.

IT'S ****ING COMPLIMENT THAT I PRESUME YOU ARE EDUCATED ENUOGH AND SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND ME -- Clearly you have demonstrated that my presumption was incorrect.   That is pretty much the only thing I will presume, but i know full well that this is exactly the type of behavior that is coming from the likes of you.  

you are unable to win your argument, so soon as I use a word you don't understand you're like "OMG! he's trying to sound intelligent! *orgasm of idiocy ensues"

Get over yourself.  YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT, YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL, YOU WERE NOT CREATED WITH A PURPOSE

You are an immature and undereducated halfwit to whom I will no longer have any patience.

You are an irrational little child