I do have drug problems

[Hasbinbad]

I told you specific reasons why i don't take you seriously. I believe that you're either pretending ignorance or stupid, because I'm sure you've been exposed to these ideas before.

You might say *I* am the one who looks bad here, lol, but if you really can't tell me how "some dude saying they saw a hairy tall guy in the woods" is different than wondering at the origin of things beyond the horizon of our universe, I absolutely don't give a shit what you say. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hailto]

There is no more evidence for the hairy tall guy in the woods, than there is for the existence of a deity. Why do you feel comfortable saying big foot doesn't exist, but you don't feel comfortable when faced with the same evidence for god's existence?

The scope of the question should not affect how you view the evidence.

[Kagatob]

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

There is no more evidence for the hairy tall guy in the woods, than there is for the existence of a deity. Why do you feel comfortable saying big foot doesn't exist, but you don't feel comfortable when faced with the same evidence for god's existence?

The scope of the question should not affect how you view the evidence.

Your issues seem to be primarily contextual.

I would say it's a fair assumption that it's likely Bigfoot doesn't exist.

You're also arguing with HBB who has formally stated several times he's against the bridging between atheism and agnosticism so take that as it is.

[Hasbinbad]

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

There is no more evidence for the hairy tall guy in the woods, than there is for the existence of a deity. Why do you feel comfortable saying big foot doesn't exist, but you don't feel comfortable when faced with the same evidence for god's existence?

The scope of the question should not affect how you view the evidence.

it absolutely should, and you're and idiot for saying it shouldn't.

we know a lot about forests, we know about things that live in forests. we know how to look for things that live in forests. while we discover new species on occasion, those species aren't huge primates, and is usually because a given area hasn't been adequately explored. in the case of bigfoot, rumors, hundreds if not thousands of expeditions have been mounted in those areas. maybe if the rumors of bigfoot were in a forest nobody had ever been in surrounded by other species of primates where evolution like that is possible, etc etc, i would feel the same way, but that is not the case, we've brought the scope "DOWN TO EARTH." in the case of the existence of prime motivation, that is beyond what we can currently detect at all. that kind of "no evidence" is the kind where we don't even know what questions to ask in order to developt technology which will allow us to ask questions about the nature of our limitations which may give further generations some kind of insight about which way to direct research.

if you're still having issues idk what to say to you.

oh, but u win forumquest bro, u win. lulz.

[pharmakos]

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

There is no more evidence for the hairy tall guy in the woods, than there is for the existence of a deity. Why do you feel comfortable saying big foot doesn't exist, but you don't feel comfortable when faced with the same evidence for god's existence?

The scope of the question should not affect how you view the evidence.

actually, there is more evidence for the existence of bigfoot

[Barkingturtle]

I'm not convinced Bigfoot isn't God.

[Hailto]

Valid point, I can admit when I'm wrong. That was not a good analogy.

[Barkingturtle]

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

Valid point, I can admit when I'm wrong. That was not a good analogy.

Should have said you were trolling. By admitting the error in your thinking you have forever invalidated your intellect. Might as well just reroll a new forum persona. I mean, unless you're roleplaying a dipshit in which case: bravo.

[Hailto]

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

Should have said you were trolling. By admitting the error in your thinking you have forever invalidated your intellect. Might as well just reroll a new forum persona. I mean, unless you're roleplaying a dipshit in which case: bravo.

If only I were that insecure on an elf emulator forum.

[Hasbinbad]

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

Valid point, I can admit when I'm wrong. That was not a good analogy.

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

Should have said you were trolling. By admitting the error in your thinking you have forever invalidated your intellect. Might as well just reroll a new forum persona. I mean, unless you're roleplaying a dipshit in which case: bravo.

Of course barking is trolling you here, and he understands as well as I do that you've actually shown yourself to have an inquisitive and adaptive mind by admitting when you feel you've traveled down an erroneous road in an informal conversation.