What has happened to the English Languge?

Sorry sweetheart, I don't date fat cunts like you.

 

Yes you do.

 

You ain't got a clue mate. Just cos you like to fuck stranded whales, it doesn't mean that everyone else does.

 

That's where you're wrong, son. Once you've had blubber, there ain't no other.

 

Blubber;
Not just for breakfast anymore. Or lamps. Or insulatio-wait. No, it's still insulating.

 

My position is that if one believes in something that is not proven to exist, his accepting its existence is an act of faith. Likewise, if somebody has beliefs based on the assumption that something does not exist, then he too is exercising faith in something that has not been proven. Either way, faith is employed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but denying the existence of a higher power doesn't preclude one from an existence after this one.

 

TheDavisChanger-
I think you're confusing faith with logical reasoning. Faith by definition is a belief not based on proof. Logical reasoning, by contrast, has to be based on proof -- constructing an argument without proof makes the argument faulty. (In this case, arguing that something is true because it's never been proven false is a fallacy called an argumentum ad ignorantiam.)

You're correct on your second point, though. Denying the existence of a higher power does not preclude belief in the existence of an afterlife. Buddhism teaches something sort of like that. The opposite is also be true: denying the existence of an afterlife does not preclude belief in the existence of a higher power. The Phoenicians and Canaanites believed in various gods, but didn't believe in an afterlife.

Also I'm drunk, so if none of the above made sense now you know why.

 

Hold up now. Scientifically speaking, a theory is considered true unless proven otherwise. This is because it is usually easier to prove something to be wrong than to prove it to be right. One of the days I actually paid attention during lab at uni.

 

Damn, I did fuck that part up. I also thought I said something about falsifiability somewhere in there, but now I'm not seeing it. Clearly I'm way too drunk to be trying to explain anything to anyone, so feel free to correct me on whatever. I'm going to go sleep this off.

 

"Here we troll, here we troll, here we troll..."

 

Interesting conjecture, sir. To your point I pose this question: how does one define 'detrimental to the community'? Does one accept the commonly agreed upon policies, written or unwritten, perhaps? To what degree?

Also, I pose the following information in reference to said topic: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development)

You have anti-standards for intellectual exchange? I suppose it's better than an anarchistic standard. I also disagree. I see C64, as a result, as a more intelligent debater who doesn't need sarcastic overtones to pose a serious argument. Unlike you and Zanza, long posts don't make my eyes bleed so long as it contains justifiable content. Maybe if everyone on the internet put in more effort, forums boards would be a much more insightful medium to exchange thoughts and ideas. Something the individuals in this board already do, except you of course...to a degree.

Agreed, knowledge and freedom of choice seem to go hand in hand. It gives you the individual the ability to exert more control over your environment....and perhaps the people in it, but not always. Granted, the influx of knowledge can sometimes be a burden as well...at least initially.

Zanza will be quite displeased to hear of this. He was so very thoroughly looking forward to his new custom avatar.

 

This just goes to show how religion has permeated everyday existence to such an extent that it's nearly impossible to be discussed objectively.
TheDavisChanger claims that underwear fairies exist.
Dark Elf claims that underwear fairies do not exist.
Neither can prove his own position or disprove the other's, but any third party would view TheDavisChanger's claim as absurd. Even reading this, maintaining that each position is equally (in)valid seems flawed, but I don't know why. Maybe C64 has already explained this and it's gone over my head; it's been a while since my logic course.
However, replace "God" with "underwear fairies" and suddenly there is debate on the matter.

Right, but since neither the atheist or the mono-theist can prove that his position is correct, aren't they both rooted in faith?

 

In that case, I believe that I am God, we are the imagintion of ourselves and we are experiencing life, subjectively. By the way Davis, almost genius? I think you are being a slight bit too kind there. What it actually is, is complete nonsense!

 

Why did you single me out in all of this. I do believe if you look at my posts where I actually engage with people you will find they are not one liners. That being said I do believe in getting the point across in a short and concise manner rather than have everyone sit there for ten minutes as they muse over my literary skills. As of recently I have not found a topic that really calls out for an long winded answer which although could be summarised in probably two sentences would be an excellent medium for me to show strangers just how intelligent I am because I like to write 3 drafts of my response before editing it and submitting it.

 

I meant it in sarcastic jest: your sig, specifically. No offense was directly implied. You do have a point, however, about compacting a paragraph into a sentence, to which I agree. That itself requires restraint and forethought.

In afterthought, I don't know you well enough to make insulting jibes. I will forgo that in the future.

 

Jibes are fine, sarcasm can be difficult to to interpret in writing that is all.

 

(This turned out long. Sorry about that.)

That's only true if you assume that the burden of proof rests equally on both theist and atheist -- it isn't. The theist is making a rather extraordinary claim, i.e. that a higher power and/or an afterlife exist, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to validate them. Now, from a religious standpoint it's enough to say "you don't need evidence, you just have to believe," but that doesn't work in logical argumentation. The atheist counterargument here is that the theist is making an unfounded claim, therefore there is no logical reason to believe it is true.

To counter that, many theists have taken to arguing "well you can't prove that it isn't true," which is faulty logic because you can't disprove a negative (positive evidence can turn up later, but evidence of non-existence never will because something has to exist to produce evidence). Shifting the burden of proof like that is a favorite tactic of cranks and pseudoscience proponents the world over. For example:

1) "Bigfoot exists."
"Oh yeah? Prove it."
"Prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, asshole. Can't do it, can you?"

2) "You have problems in your life because your body is full of Thetan souls. Only by communicating telepathically with these murdered space aliens can you get rid of them and fix your problems."
"You're kidding, right? Where's your evidence?"
"Where's your evidence that body Thetans don't exist?"

3) "I believe that some people have psychic powers."
"Why? What proof do you have?"
"Well, no one's been able to prove that people don't have psychic powers, right?"

And so on. Again, faith circumvents this by requiring belief without the support of verifiable evidence or logical argumentation. For example, look at how Jesus rebukes Thomas' skepticism regarding the resurrection: "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe" (John 20:29). So, if you look at the argument from a theological standpoint, requiring belief without evidence is perfectly valid, but from an atheist standpoint it's faulty logic at best.

RunAwayScientist-
Well, that's where things start to get a whole lot messier, isn't it? There are certain things that every community can agree on as detrimental (murder, theft, rape, etc.), but once you get past the basic shit things become a lot more subjective. Things that are detrimental to one community are going to be acceptable in another, and so on. We pass laws to codify acceptable behavior in our communities, but as your link points out sometimes what's morally right and what's legal are two entirely different things ("separate but equal," gay marriage, etc.).

Us humans are a fallible, argumentative lot, and we're never going to agree on one perfect, inviolate list of what is and isn't permissible that will work for every person in every situation. And that's not taking into account the extent to which our community is dystopian -- if a society's values are fucked up enough, one could argue that doing things detrimental to that society is the only morally valid course of action (Germany under the Third Reich springs readily to mind here).

I suppose the best we can do is to force ourselves to pause and think about whether the good in the action we've chosen outweighs the bad, then have the balls to own up to our mistakes and correct them when we choose poorly.

 

Fair enough. Thanks for that.

 

Davis, don't stand for this shit! Kick him in the bollocks and show him who's man!