DRUGS?

[Feachie]

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. They say there is "hell", or "god". I don't need to give you proof of your own fallacies

This.

I don't need promises of paradise to make me be a good person.

[Piff]

Originally Posted by Knuckle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry you fail at religion

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What can be asserted without evidence can also be
dismissed without evidence.

To dismiss something because it cannot produce the kind of evidence you demand - at present - is itself more erroneous than simply believing something that isn't transferable to others by a common means - science and reason alone.

Immanuel Kant disagrees with you and Christopher Hutchens and your categorical mistake. Again, you need to be a better Atheist. Right now you're just a comfortable hedonist.

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't need to give you proof of your own fallacies.

Don't you see that's a fallacy in itself? To believe something without redundant, scientific (aka experiential) evidence isn't necessarily wrong - it's just nontransferable and at present, unverifiable by common means. You may dismiss it as irrelevant, but you don't know any more or any less than that which you categorize as a fallacy.

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Keep believing in your God, keep paying your churches.

Did I argue that I did or you should? Why bring this in? Again - you reaffirm to me that you choose Atheism as a reaction, not as a genuine attempt to believe what is true. You simply dislike what the red team does, so you choose blue team. Sounds like a brilliant move.

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Keep allowing the governtment to use morals built off of the bible as excuses. If you're down with that, cool. But you're a fool yo.

Keep allowing the government to use morals built from individuals who believe they should control most of your life since they're more intelligent and more evolved than you - and your individual choices are ruining the world and must be controlled.

Hell, you don't even know where I stand or how I choose my political philosophy and you've categorized me as part of 10-15% of the Republican party. That's probably more evidence than I need to know how you choose how to live the rest of your life.

[Bardalicious]

Originally Posted by Knuckle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

as per the bible, i will lead you to the land of mead and honey.

Sorry you fail at religion

Originally Posted by Bardalicious [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth..." (Genesis 1:29)

The same can be said about Marijuana, Papaver somniferum, etc. Since it was "God" that created it for us, no? There are plenty of obscure passages that we can quote back and forth to cherry pick for our own defense.

If you are religious and condemning others for partaking in things like Marijuana while you obviously partake in alcohol yourself, you are a fool. It's easily asserted that the bible indicates that moderate consumption of alcohol is permitted, however drunkenness as a condition is condemned. I don't suppose you'd like to argue that you've never gotten drunk?

Do not be confused - I am not religious nor do I believe in God. There was a perfectly good Cthulu thread floating around RnF for you kiddies to argue his existence in.

[Piff]

Originally Posted by Messianic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To dismiss something because it cannot produce the kind of evidence you demand - at present - is itself more erroneous than simply believing something that isn't transferable to others by a common means - science and reason alone.

Immanuel Kant disagrees with you and Christopher Hutchens and your categorical mistake. Again, you need to be a better Atheist. Right now you're just a comfortable hedonist.



Don't you see that's a fallacy in itself? To believe something without redundant, scientific (aka experiential) evidence isn't necessarily wrong - it's just nontransferable and at present, unverifiable by common means. You may dismiss it as irrelevant, but you don't know any more or any less than that which you categorize as a fallacy.



Did I argue that I did or you should? Why bring this in? Again - you reaffirm to me that you choose Atheism as a reaction, not as a genuine attempt to believe what is true. You simply dislike what the red team does, so you choose blue team. Sounds like a brilliant move.



Keep allowing the government to use morals built from individuals who believe they should control most of your life since they're more intelligent and more evolved than you - and your individual choices are ruining the world and must be controlled.

Hell, you don't even know where I stand or how I choose my political philosophy and you've categorized me as part of 10-15% of the Republican party. That's probably more evidence than I need to know how you choose how to live the rest of your life.

Atleast you're eco-friendly. You built your wall of text out of bullshit haha. You sound retarded. The fact is you can't believe there's a pen in your hand unless you prove it.

It's not a big deal bud, it's just this Jesus guy and his pops are innocent until proven guilty. Imaginary until proven reality. y'know?

[Bardalicious]

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Atleast you're eco-friendly. You built your wall of text out of bullshit haha. You sound retarded. The fact is you can't believe there's a pen in your hand unless you prove it.

It's not a big deal bud, it's just this Jesus guy and his pops are innocent until proven guilty. Imaginary until proven reality. y'know?

Piff = ignorant troll.

Not worth getting excited over Messianic, I assure you. If you can't tell by now, he hasn't got the intelligence to partake in a conversation past the level of "no u r" retorts.

[Piff]

Originally Posted by Bardalicious [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Piff = ignorant troll.

Not worth getting excited over Messianic, I assure you. If you can't tell by now, he hasn't got the intelligence to partake in a conversation past the level of "no u r" retorts.

u go 2 hard 4 me man. 8 posts a day, i can't keep up. keep running circles around me bro. i'll be outside with a fine biddie and a better brew, listening to some tunes and enjoying another beautiful afternoon.

[Bardalicious]

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

QQ justifying my real life worth on a forum

yep, u still mad pixel princess

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Bardalicious [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Piff = ignorant troll.

Not worth getting excited over Messianic, I assure you. If you can't tell by now, he hasn't got the intelligence to partake in a conversation past the level of "no u r" retorts.

Eh, I figure i'll give him another labored response for good measure. I try to be honest with myself and everyone else at all times, and give them the benefit of the doubt while I can.

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Atleast you're eco-friendly. You built your wall of text out of bullshit haha. You sound retarded.

And you haven't built a reasonable reply to a glaring fallacy in your central point - your Christopher Hutchens quote (tbh, I didn't know it off hand, I googled it since it sounded familiar).

It's okay if you genuinely didn't understand what was written - that can often happen when you're confronted with problems with what you believe and you're more happy insulting someone else than dealing with those problems...

Or, you could at least admit that you'd rather not spend the time replying and being honest with yourself - don't waste my time and yours insulting me if you really can't coherently defend your point with reason and evidence - what you claim to base things on.

But if you made a bold statement that someone else's belief - not even necessarily mine - is stupid when your own belief is vulnerable to the same criticism...You should expect a response in a public arena.

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The fact is you can't believe there's a pen in your hand unless you prove it.

The above statement has no evidential basis. How do you arrive at that belief except by assuming without adequate evidence? It sounds nice, but if statements have to be believed based on a specific standard of evidence, what is the basis of believing the above statement? Boil it down, and you'll find an assumption not based on evidence, but based on a pragmatic decision that appears right, but has no ultimate justification.

If you're trying to actually say "You shouldn't believe things you can't prove, or at least hold them in a different regard from things you can prove," accommodating for the difference in kinds of proofs and appropriate categorization, then you have a coherent statement.

I don't have to be able to prove anything to anyone else to believe something and have it be true - but my methodology was certainly wrong if I believed it cause a drunk frog told me so and I accepted it because of that.

But here's the point: wrong methodology doesn't necessarily make someone wrong about their overall point. You assume wrong methodology (a whole other argument) means wrong conclusion.

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not a big deal bud, it's just this Jesus guy and his pops are innocent until proven guilty. Imaginary until proven reality. y'know?

But if it can't be proven that Jesus is imaginary, why are you believing it? I thought you couldn't do that. It's not like you have to choose one or the other at the end of a gun.

And again, i'm not trying to argue from the position of a Theist or argue you into God or something - that's a really stupid goal - i'm just trying to show you that when you make statements like the ones you've made, you're contradicting yourself.

[Fourthmeal]

Damn Messianic, way to write a book there.