Random Thoughts, strictly Text

conspiracy theorist

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
No belief is 100% logically driven. Not one. I would link studies done on the brain but everything that contradicts what you already believe to be "the truth" is ignored without a second thought.
 
conspiracy theorist

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
petosiris said:
The average bible translation has about 1200 pages. Atlas Shrugged has about 1200 pages. That is quite a bit. :sad:
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I just found a collection of Rudolph Steiner's writings which is also a huge amount of material to go through. Maybe I should read more non-fiction because these books are always so dense :(
 
conspiracy theorist

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
petosiris said:
You don't need to read them, because you can have a discussion without reading any books, anyway lul.
Click to expand...

Logical, but doesn't need to read books. Skeptical of religious ideas but isn't open to scientific studies that contradict his beliefs. Will follow his idol into the ground, no matter what.

Hard to argue against that, huh?
 
P

petosiris

Banned
conspiracy theorist said:
Logical, but doesn't need to read books. Skeptical of religious ideas but isn't open to scientific studies that contradict his beliefs. Will follow his idol into the ground, no matter what.

Hard to argue against that, huh?
Click to expand...

I couldn't make him accept the widely held view among evolutionary biologists of kin altruism and reciprocal altruism. It is rational egoism until death.
 
M

moonkat235

Well-known member
Ukpoohbear said:
Thank you Apple, I would genuinely like your presence.

And to Moonkat, perhaps it would be more diplomatic if you refrained from advertising your exclusivity, that way you won’t need to actively reject people who then enquire about it.

Now everything is/should be balanced, I can rest.
Click to expand...

lol Apps, Rawr and I are simply good friends and I wanted to be able to speak with them in an intimate group setting. I'm not opposed to having open servers to all who wish to join, but people were joining and then sitting invisible in the server for weeks on end without saying anything. They didn't even introduce themselves. That's creepy.

I think it's cool that Gemini888 has her own server. Since it is so inclusive, who knows? I might pop in just to see what's up.
 
Ukpoohbear

Ukpoohbear

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
lol Apps, Rawr and I are simply good friends and I wanted to be able to speak with them in an intimate group setting. I'm not opposed to having open servers to all who wish to join, but people were joining and then sitting invisible in the server for weeks on end without saying anything. They didn't even introduce themselves. That's creepy.

I think it's cool that Gemini888 has her own server. Since it is so inclusive, who knows? I might pop in just to see what's up.
Click to expand...

Thing is, it’s actually been been expressed to me by others that people are being excluded and I hate that and I am very upfront in sorting things out.

Peoples feelings can get hurt.
 
AppLeo

AppLeo

Well-known member
conspiracy theorist said:
Logical, but doesn't need to read books. Skeptical of religious ideas but isn't open to scientific studies that contradict his beliefs. Will follow his idol into the ground, no matter what.

Hard to argue against that, huh?
Click to expand...

Pffffffffffft

You don't need to read the Lord of the Rings to know that it's not true. The bible is filled with a bunch of stories and commandments that should be accepted as truth without any logical reasons. Reading the bible is useless.

And as I said before, if someone is making an argument, they should be able to do so without the other person needing to read anything. Unless the conversation involves a very complicated subject with difficult terms, then one may need to read or study.

And also, I said this before but you fools don't seem to understand. Religion takes things on faith. In fact, it's a religious virtue to be faithful. Having faith is accepting knowledge with the absence of evidence. Not only that, but religious people take one of the most important aspects of life, morality and spirituality, on faith. Accepting something so important on faith is dangerous and destructive because you're acting on information that you don't know is true. And on top of it, it's false. You're acting on false information. How are you supposed to live properly and fulfilled when you can't even get fundamental metaphysical and epistemological facts under control. But of course, you don't respond to that argument. You just say, "quick pit and pathy" or whatever nonsense. Complete evasion.

Reading the bible won't change the fact that religion is based on faith. And frankly, I don't want to read about why homosexuality is wrong, and why eating a strangled animal is wrong when God provides no reasons for why they're wrong. He just appeals to violence by sending you to hell instead of having a rational discussion. Can I at least read a religious book with some scientific fact and logic?

What scientific studies are you talking about that I'm skeptical of? And why didn't you bring them up earlier? I don't think they contradict my beliefs.

And it's funny because Rand actually provides reasons and arguments for everything she says. And objectivism is living philosophy, so it will change and adapt as we learn more about the world. But no, you just say something like, "Oh you're a follower of Ayn Rand, so I win the argument." But you provide no arguments yourself. You've argued nothing against her ideas. Absolutely nothing. And you're criticizing about me not reading the bible, yet you haven't read Atlas Shrugged or anything else by Miss Rand, so you're a hypocrite really.

But that's how all irrational people are in arguments. They have to be dumb and evasive. What can you do when you assume an irrational position? You can either discuss and change your views to something rational. But that won't work because you'll lose. So you have to make character jabs, use shady word play, pretty much avoid the argument altogether really. You doon't get the bottom of anything you resort to things like, "People believe what they want to believe." Basically, forget the truth and forget making sense.

Leonard Peikoff pointed out three logical fallacies in agnosticism. But I didn't get any explanation about how he wrong. I just got this sarcastic response of "he just showed me." That's not an argument. And it seems like you're going to continue to be an agnostic. Pretty pathetic. Shows the intellectual dishonesty.

The retardation is above and beyond.
 
Last edited:
Ukpoohbear

Ukpoohbear

Well-known member
I used to think you were a charming dude and now I am aware it is Tom Riddle who I converse with, so my perception is clearer now.

I used to live within a time
Of days long gone
Where the present was always summer
And winter always too long
I would see you dressed in yarns of gold
When really you dressed in black
Now winter is here and summer is gone
There is no turning back.
 
Top