Actually I was channeling my old self back there where you found a kindred spirit in me. See, I already went through that stage you're in now back when I was not much more than a kid.
Nobody said you should agree with the judgement of society. Almost every single person on this forum doesn't on one major issue at the very least.
What you should do though is read some good books, at least if you're not going to take our words for it, because your thinking is definitely flawed right now, in more ways than one - in terms of approaching and solving any given issue, for example. I'm sure this is through no fault of your own but take my advice; you won't truly achieve the freedom of thought you seem to be seeking or wrongly think you already have, until you admit your own ignorance and reject your own dogmatic thinking - we all have those more or less.

(July 6, 2015 at 11:10 am)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 11:05 am)pool Wrote: I don't understand.
If i choose the 5 others then i have a higher probability of being a bridge to have more significant contributions done to society.
And i'm a member of society so its all beneficial to only me.

I don't have any illness,i can simply look at things in such a way that nobody else can.(Apparently)

You're deviating the discussion - they haven't admitted defeat

Yeah, look, I totally agree on the whom to sacrifice part. But according to you, you can't make that choice - you said yourself that every life matters just as much, no matter what.
Here, let me show you:

A.
Society determines the value of a persons life by evaluating the positive qualities a person have and the negative qualities a person have.
More positive qualities and least negative qualities means more value to someone's life.

Anyway,my point is i think everyone's life is equally important when you look at it logically.

VS

B.
Also,its impossible to determine the future of an individual unless i know them very well so 1(or more) of the 5 persons may contribute something significant to society whereas i know my mother very well and i'm positive she won't contribute anything significant to society.

That's my reasoning.

See how A contradicts B?

Why can't you do what you did right there and tell me why i'm wrong about thinking why theism and atheism is senseless?
I'd be more than willing to correct my mistake if you point it out like that rather simply saying that my reasoning is wrong.

I feel bad about arguing with you though because you're very understanding with me.
But with you i feel like i'm no longer arguing but rather discussing.

(July 6, 2015 at 11:56 am)pool Wrote: Why can't you do what you did right there and tell me why i'm wrong about thinking why theism and atheism is senseless?
I'd be more than willing to correct my mistake if you point it out like that rather simply saying that my reasoning is wrong..

Just a minute ago you were proclaiming that theists didn't exist. Now your just saying that theism is senseless. These are two very different claims; which is it?

(July 6, 2015 at 11:59 am)Cato Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 11:56 am)pool Wrote: Why can't you do what you did right there and tell me why i'm wrong about thinking why theism and atheism is senseless?
I'd be more than willing to correct my mistake if you point it out like that rather simply saying that my reasoning is wrong..

Just a minute ago you were proclaiming that theists didn't exist. Now your just saying that theism is senseless. These are two very different claims; which is it?

First of all,Thank you for being understanding and wording your question in such a way that i can grasp its idea.

To answer your question:
I said theists didn't exist because theism is senseless because the base of theism is the concept of a god which doesn't have a consistent definition,meaning even theism doesn't specify what god is so i didn't feel the need to give theism any credit which would mean that theism is senseless and therefore theists do not exist and only people that think they are theists exist.

Edit: I think if you take a minute and think about it rather than just reading you'd probably understand what i'm trying to say.

This is exactly why I feel so protective of you. You are very easily manipulated.

Please tell me again why do you find atheism to be illogical - or whatever - and I'll try and argue to the best of my ability even though I think these guys know better how to do it, but so be it.

Look, pool. You're trying to say that theists don't exist just because what they worship isn't well defined. But they do exist, just as football exists, even though football players play an imperfect game. Catch my drift?

(July 6, 2015 at 12:05 pm)pool Wrote: I said theists didn't exist because theism is senseless because the base of theism is the concept of a god which doesn't have a consistent definition,meaning even theism doesn't specify what god is so i didn't feel the need to give theism any credit which would mean that theism is senseless and therefore theists do not exist only people that think they are theists exist.

Theists are people that believe in god.
This definition is true regardless of the validity of the god claim.

You can disagree with their claims, you don't have to give them credit, and you can label their beliefs senseless, but you cannot claim there is no such thing as theists and have anyone take you seriously. Theists exist whether you like it or not. Any argument that follows from the premise that theists don't exist is pure bullshit.

(July 6, 2015 at 12:05 pm)pool Wrote: Edit: I think if you take a minute and think about it rather than just reading you'd understand what i'm trying to say.

I took three and I understand what you're trying to say, but you're confused about it.

Theism does exist. There are people who believe in the existence of god, described by their definition. It is illogical, inconsistent and contradictory, but that just means they believe in something that is illogical, inconsistent and contradictory, not that they don't believe at all.

I get what your trying to say, but people don't think they believe, they just believe. And a claim that is illogical CAN be made, and it IS being made, hence atheism-the rejection of that claim.

Still dunno what you're on about with the burden of proof being on atheists tho.

Like I said before he is trying to argue that because theism doesn't exist then atheism cant exist, so its illogical to say your an atheist or a theist. The argument is completely stupid:

1. Theists exist, no getting around that.

2. Even if we accept that there are no people who believe in god(theists), that only leaves people who don't believe in god(atheists), therefore the atheist position is not only logical, its automatic.

3. Burden of proof would not even exist for his argument, because nobody would be making a claim if theists didn't exist.

(July 6, 2015 at 12:11 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: This is exactly why I feel so protective of you. You are very easily manipulated.

Please tell me again why do you find atheism to be illogical - or whatever - and I'll try and argue to the best of my ability even though I think these guys know better how to do it, but so be it.

Look, pool. You're trying to say that theists don't exist just because what they worship isn't well defined. But they do exists, just as football exists, even though football players play an imperfect game. Catch my drift?

And now i'm just sitting here sobbing like a 2 year old because nobody has ever been that understanding with me,even my dad - i'd probably save you if i had to choose between you and 5 random people.

*That's exactly what i'm saying.
How can someone believe in something with no physical or theoretical evidence(But probability can say that the existence is probable because:aliens(long story))but when it is also something that is ill defined?Then it's a whole another thing..

*It's like believing in fldsmdfrism which is a ism that says that fldsmdfr exists and fldsmdfrists doesn't even know what fldsmdfr is.Therefore i can discredit fldsmdfrism and therefore fldsmdfrists cannot exist because the reason why they existed in the first place is itself flawed!

*I can't seem to connect god with football because football has a physical evidence also it has a consistent definition.("Any of various forms of team game involving kicking (and in some cases also handling) a ball, in particular (in the UK) soccer or (in the US) American football.")

*So if god doesn't exist theism shouldn't exist either because the most basic element that was used to build theism is "God".So theists do not also exists.But theists that "think" they know the definition of God exists,but they aren't truly theists because they only "think" they know it there can never be "theists".Don't you agree?
If you do,then why should atheism exist?Which is a ism that rejects the claim of theism(which cannot make a claim because what they are claiming to exist doesn't have any theoretical evidence nor does it have any physical evidence and then they say they don't even have a consistent definition of it!What the fuck theists??)

This is almost painful. I'm so glad I don't care.