This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Verbatim
Pages: 1 ... 142414251426 14271428 ... 1601
42751
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:25:40 PM »
You think I haven't been trying? <_< I just said in the main thread that I have a battle scheduled with Iberian for 8:00 EST, so look forward to that. I'm also gonna do a role call of sorts for the most inactive members. someone of your skill level doesn't belong out of the top 4. aw, thanks
42752
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:20:58 PM »
42753
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:00:39 PM »
Super Mario World in twenty minutes.
42754
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:48:29 PM »
I'll be battling Iberian later tonight.
42755
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:47:13 PM »
It's as if my own lack of faith in it is evidence for its lack of veracity. lol
42756
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:46:03 PM »
Exclusives are dumb. Brand loyalty is even dumber.
42757
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:42:37 PM »
I guess I don't disagree, but something about it just rubs me the wrong way.
42758
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:39:45 PM »
If that were true, he'd be on the street sucking dick for heroin money. >implying he isn't
42759
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:36:12 PM »
The negation of a positive assertion necessarily entails some sort of negative evidence. Assuming that's right... I don't think it is, and I've never met any such concession, but assuming you're right, what would the negative evidence be for a deist god, if one denies the existence of any deist gods? I don't see that necessarily following.
42760
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:25:15 PM »
What's your name on showdown? I don't even know what type you are. All this information can be found within the OP.
42761
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:20:10 PM »
If there is, we put you in an asylum. And that's the argument? I'm not sure you're entirely seeing my point here.
42762
« on: February 08, 2015, 04:10:34 PM »
It's literally just a linguistic trick; "God exists" is the same as "God doesn't not exist". Negative assertions still have propositional content, and can be shown through absence of evidence despite attempted observation. "There is no milk in the bowl". I... don't like that. I see what you're saying, but it doesn't really work, because... I mean... When you say, "God doesn't not exist" (converting a poitive assertion into a negative assertion), when you boil the phrase down to its roots, you still get "god exists." You still have yourself a positive affirmation of the existence of god, and that is still subject to the burden of proof. How do you linguistically assert something's nonexistence without using negative terminology? "God exists not?" That's just... flipping the words around. When you boil the phrase down, you still have yourself a negative assertion on the existence of god. You can't boil it down further than "god doesn't exist." See what I mean? Now, you can redefine this velociraptor to the point where it has no empirical characteristics, and it becomes literally meaningless anyway. Meaningless to you, anyway. I might also claim to be the only one who can see it.
42763
« on: February 08, 2015, 12:27:36 PM »
I'm having trouble seeing how one can "prove" a negative, anyway. You use terms like "reasonable doubt," which is a good term, but the point of the adage is not to imply that anything else is provable--just that, fundamentally, there is nothing I can do (for example) to make a religious person concede to atheism just by using pure logic alone--Nothing. Which is unfortunate, but it's reality.
So instead of trying to show why there is no god by using logic, we just say, "you can't prove a negative"--because not only can't you prove a negative--it would be a waste of time to even attempt to do so. It's far easier for people to prove the existence of something rather than the nonexistence of something.
You're going to be hard-pressed to find proof that I don't have an invisible velociraptor in my garage, for example, but...
all I have to do to prove that I have eyes is post a picture of my eyes. You can say, "photoshop," but I mean... again, that's the function of the phrase, "beyond a reasonable doubt."
tl;dr
we're pretty much saying the same shit, just in different ways
i like my way better, so neener neener
42764
« on: February 08, 2015, 12:12:46 PM »
...
That's supposed to be an insulin shot for diabetics. Never met anyone with diabetes, so, I wouldn't know.
42765
« on: February 08, 2015, 11:20:26 AM »
You do realize that "you" is the version of you that has gone through things that respond to things that you've gone through, right? Yes. That doesn't change anything, though.
42766
« on: February 08, 2015, 11:19:07 AM »
It can't. Of course you can.
So long as prove = evidence to a suitable degree. Since nothing is absolutely provable. Nothing's absolutely suitable, either.
42767
« on: February 08, 2015, 11:15:56 AM »
Jokes aside, it's actually a very good cartoon/guide.
A bit like this one
 I don't see a problem with the midde/right logic. That's the exact reason why I would never take any medication, ever. Because... I'd much rather be me. Not... the medicated version of me.
42768
« on: February 08, 2015, 11:10:45 AM »
So it's actually just a null semantic issue, as opposed to a real epistemic one? As long as it can be agreed that one cannot "prove a negative", yeah.
42769
« on: February 08, 2015, 11:06:00 AM »
>probably doesn't even understand nihilism
He accused ME of being a nihilist, for cunt's sake. Then again, he probably just did it to get a rise out of me.
42770
« on: February 08, 2015, 11:04:51 AM »
There's definitely a difference in intent between the two statements. Sure, but I want to know if it qualifies different burdens of proof in any way.
I wouldn't say so.
42771
« on: February 08, 2015, 11:03:24 AM »
I think you already made a thread about this.
"I do not believe in X" is passive disbelief, whereas "I believe X is false" implies active disbelief.
Saying it passively is the equivalent of tacking on "in my opinion" when you make a subjective statement. It's just a way to placate sensitive people, which... Fuck that.
42772
« on: February 08, 2015, 10:59:42 AM »
haps
42773
« on: February 08, 2015, 07:59:46 AM »
I can only think of, like, two or three females on this site. Maybe four.
42774
« on: February 08, 2015, 07:47:59 AM »
There's a reason atheists have sort of become this laughingstock across the Internet.
42775
« on: February 08, 2015, 07:42:59 AM »
The average atheist is honestly pretty fucking goddamn dumb.
They're all either nihilists, hedonists, or crypto-religious. Wastes.
42776
« on: February 07, 2015, 10:30:30 PM »
Please read the rules before you post!
42777
« on: February 07, 2015, 10:29:29 PM »
Guess I took too long :/
Well, I got a team ready for you, now in any case...
So ends the first two weeks. Three weeks remain.
42778
« on: February 07, 2015, 09:54:10 PM »
i think she makes a lot of good points in her videos
not her later ones, but like... the first two in her tropes vs women series
42779
« on: February 07, 2015, 09:50:08 PM »
lighting's p. bad but whatever  i like my eyes i can't do both up close 'cause then i go cross-eyed
42780
« on: February 07, 2015, 09:33:10 PM »
Bad.
Pages: 1 ... 142414251426 14271428 ... 1601
|
Show Posts