100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Peter_Pan69
|
|
|
Putz. Nah, I told you already. I'm being creative! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... Unless you can answer my questions and agree on basic definitions, what's the point, except maybe for a few laughs? What's the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" if Jill were to ask Joe over the phone? *I predict yet again that creative will avoid answering that question* (I also predict misquotes)  BTW, it's still HILARIOUS!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is impossible for that argument to be true because it is impossible "that Joe doesn't assume anything and simply answers the question as posed without inferring anything not stated." Do you understand that?  Make up you're mind. I guess you were lying when you said: Hundreds of claims... not a single argument. So which is it, huh? You called it an argument here yet earlier you claimed I had not a single one. Seriously, do you ever speak honestly? Now, on what do you base that impossibility that you've claimed above? You're understanding? You're ability has been shown to be lacking in the fundamental basics... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have an odd way of identifying a misquote. That quote was exactly your words... verbatim. Speaking of literal, do you still hold the following as the basis of your 'argument'? I'm basing an argument on the possibility that Joe doesn't assume anything and simply answers the question as posed without inferring anything not stated. ... Unless you can answer my questions and agree on basic definitions, what's the point, except maybe for a few laughs? What's the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" if Jill were to ask Joe over the phone? *I predict yet again that creative will avoid answering that question* (I also predict misquotes) BTW, it's still HILARIOUS! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no argument to be made from me. Well at least we agree on something. I suspect we disagree on why. It is my considered opinion that you do not know what it is that you're talking about, therefore you cannot effectively argue for it. Rather, your thoughts are reduced to rhetoric, name-calling, avoiding relevant questions, and blatant refusal to justify the claims that you are making. These are all clear signs of intellectual dishonesty. When one enters into a philosophical discussion/debate, one voluntarily enters into an obligation to justify their claims. That is done with philosophical argument.  Misquote and all, damn you're predictable... ... There's no argument to be made from me. You have proven yourself to be deceitful and biased. It's also a waste of time because you refuse to agree on the very basic of definitions like "there" and "literal". Instead, you would redefine "literal" to suit your misguided understandings. Then you would accept a scenario that had absolutely zero relevance to the literal words expressed when it is painfully clear by your setup and clarification that Jill was just taking a census of who was in the house and was too effin lazy to check for herself. ( = deceitful and biased) Unless you can answer my questions and agree on basic definitions, what's the point, except maybe for a few laughs? What's the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" if Jill were to ask Joe over the phone? *I predict yet again that creative will avoid answering that question* (I also predict misquotes) BTW, it's still HILARIOUS! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have 2 conclusions that are prominent. Soooo, either you're stupid or lying, I went with the latter... And I was correct... So what's your point? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sophistry. Excelent self-descriptive term for you there, kudos. I should have been using it the whole time... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" if Jill were to ask Joe over the phone? *I predict yet again that creative will avoid answering that question* (I also predict misquotes) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good. Now, how does that work, on your view? With you posting... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, all honorable, truthful words from myself... Ahh. A truth claim. My favorite. Let's do some philosophy. What do you suppose makes any of them, some of them, or all of them true? Reality... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All that and much more, but STILL no argument. Yup, all honorable, truthful words from myself... Don't get upset just because you failed miserably defending your claims about me being dishonest. Don't get upset if your lame inuendos are thrown right back at ya. Don't get upset because everyone isn't confined to the same box that you are stuck in. Don't hate me because I'm right, hate me because I'm an azzhole. Almost all of those quotes had to do with my disagreeing with the use of deception in communication and the exposure of said methods employed by yourself. Thanks for arguing for me there, Jill ole gal. There's no argument to be made from me. You have proven yourself to be deceitful and biased. It's also a waste of time because you refuse to agree on the very basic of definitions like "there" and "literal". Instead, you would redefine "literal" to suit your misguided understandings. Then you would accept a scenario that had absolutely zero relevance to the literal words expressed when it is painfully clear by your setup and clarification that Jill was just taking a census of who was in the house and was too effin lazy to check for herself. ( = deceitful and biased) Unless you can answer my questions and agree on basic definitions, what's the point, except maybe for a few laughs? What's the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" if Jill were to ask Joe over the phone? *I predict yet again that creative will avoid answering that question* (I also predict misquotes) BTW, it's still HILARIOUS! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To show me that you're here to do philosophy in good faith. Do you want that explained as well?  What? Do you mean act like you do? No thanks, I'm honorable... I know why you refuse to define anything. It's is so that you may refute it later if you don't agree with something. I seriously doubt that you know what "good faith" means either... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
|
|
There will be an explanation to this, but i dont know what it is. Maybe someone more knowlegable than me will give the answer. I'm sure there will be an explanantion. It will possibly be just as sensless and never-ending as the religious stuff. Yup! Although to give science its credit, it will be based on at least some credible facts. I'm all about the facts. I don't know if you saw that I had edited above, but the facts have always led me to believe there must be a creator. Simply put, it's that "nothingness" that started everything. That "nothingness" that exists between electrons. That "nothingness" that comprises the greater part of your physical existense. Ive seen it now. And your edit does make some sense to me but i dont agree that if something had to have always existed that it has to be god. Maybe its the LAW of gravity that always existed, rather than anything physical(Just a thought out loud). Whatever it is, I don't think it was an accident... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Tue 04/10/12 12:44 AM
|
|
There will be an explanation to this, but i dont know what it is. Maybe someone more knowlegable than me will give the answer. I'm sure there will be an explanantion. It will possibly be just as sensless and never-ending as the religious stuff. Yup! Although to give science its credit, it will be based on at least some credible facts. I'm all about the facts. I don't know if you saw that I had edited above, but the facts have always led me to believe there must be a creator. Simply put, it's that "nothingness" that started everything. That "nothingness" that exists between electrons. That "nothingness" that comprises the greater part of your physical existense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
|
|
There will be an explanation to this, but i dont know what it is. Maybe someone more knowlegable than me will give the answer. I'm sure there will be an explanantion. It will possibly be just as sensless and never-ending as the religious stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Tue 04/10/12 12:15 AM
|
|
I believe in aliens. (Non human type) Feel free to laugh out loud at that. I'm really quite used to that. I hope I am wrong cause the aliens are not nice -- and they are not all our friends. They could just be demons. Some religions believe in demons. People laugh at that too. If you believe in God and the Devil, you shouldn't laugh at me for believing in aliens. They could be one and the same. That's all made up fiction conjured up to scare the masses. You may place your faith in man-made stories, but I don't. Why should I believe in your pure fiction. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of your ficticious characters! FICTION! FICTION! FICTION! FICTION! FICTION! IT'S FICTION!!!! I simply stated that I believe in aliens. I did not say that YOU should believe. However, religious fanatics try to convince others that they should believe the same or else they will go to hell. You are more than welcome to believe in fiction. If you want to believe in fiction without evidence, that's fine. Just remember, IT IS FICTION! LOL! Aliens are a lot less ficticious than God. It is massively probable that somewhere out there are many other forms of intelligent and not so intelligent life. This is based on science, and not any kind of ficticious book. The only reason there is no actual evidence of life elsewhere is because of the massive distance there would be between us. The nearest star(besides the sun) that a planet with life could potentially be revolving around, is about 25 billion miles away. We'll most likely never see any evidence of aliens but it doesnt mean they aren't out there. if its massively probable there are other forms of intelligent life,, what mkes it so improbable there is such an intelligent life that we refer to as 'God'? Because we exist it is likely that others exist, it makes sense. They would have evolved in the same or a similar way we did. An omnipotent creator doesnt make sense, because it begs the question, who/what created the creator. And who/what created the creator's creator etc, it doesnt make any sense at all. No that wouldn't make sense. Why would our creator need to be created? Why couldn't whom created us have always been since the beginning? The cycle of life is only the cycle of life in this world, in this flesh eg., born, live, die, ect. So again, I ask why would our creator have to have a creator itself? Explain to me how you know that 'God has always been' please. And i would appreciate it if you dont waste my time by quoting scripture. Of course i cant prove that everything needs a beginning. Maybe there are physicists out there that can, im not sure. But it MAKES SENSE that everything needs to come from somewhere. It does not make any sense that anything could always have been. And this is just one aspect of relgion that doesnt make any sense, the list of senseless stuff about religion goes on and on(almost infinitely it seems), so i can only assume i am right to believe that even a creator would need creating. emphasis mine* Yes, it does make sense. Postulating that something has always existed could very well explain the way science has detected that matter decays. If something cannot come from nothing, then there has to be something that has always existed. Charles Darwin removed the need for a creator in a very plausible way(which no doubt you will be able to explain is not correct although nobody else has been able to do this in a couple of hundred years). Stephen Hawking has explained how the universe could have been created from nothing in a way that is plausible to those who understand quantum physics(not me). It is something to do with the Law of Gravity, which apparantly has always existed. If you were to tell me that you believed gravity was god i wouldnt argue with you too much. Stephen Hawking runs into a little trouble with his "gravity" theory. Gravity doesn't exist without mass yet his gravity somehow created mass? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still no argument. I don't think that you have one. For what do I need an argument? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CTW |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You guys are still on about this?  So Jill, are you done licking that chocolate lollipop? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. You've said enough. Says Jill, who thinks that the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" is "Are you alone or am I here too". |
|
|
|
|
Previous
