I don't give a flying fuck what you think.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 23, 2025, 2:12 am
Thread Rating:
Classical Logic
|
(October 8, 2010 at 3:26 am)theVOID Wrote: Enjoy: Wow. That was really difficult for me to follow but it was very interesting (I saw all five parts).
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925 Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan Statler Waldorf Wrote:I couldn't help but notice that your post was completely void of specifics. Pretty much a bunch of meaningless assertions. Another lacking post. You think too much of yourself buddy, just a heads up: you are not the first self righeous theist in this forum, nor do I expect you to be the last. (October 13, 2010 at 5:20 am)LastPoet Wrote:Statler Waldorf Wrote:I couldn't help but notice that your post was completely void of specifics. Pretty much a bunch of meaningless assertions. Another lacking post. Again a bunch of baseless assertions without specifics. You have no idea what I think of myself. You really need to learn basic argumentation "buddy".
I stand corrected, you are not a self righteous theist, you are the normal garden variety troll
![]() (October 13, 2010 at 1:28 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That's why I am dealing with you right? I can already tell that you are one of the guys on here who really doesn't have any way to back his posts up so he just slings mud and pretends it proves something. You should really try reading the rest of the forum before making such stupid statements.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
Okay, how about this for a refutation of the 'argument': if logical absolutes exist only in God's mind, then they are not absolute, they are contingent. If God's mind were different, A could equal not A, which is nonsense. So the argument actually raises the possibility that, for instance, a chair might not be a chair. Great work there. Furthermore, a simpler explanation of logical absolutes is that they are a conceptual description of physical objects; they describe the nature of all physical things.
Howzat?
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology. 'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain 'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln (October 13, 2010 at 2:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Again a bunch of baseless assertions without specifics. You have no idea what I think of myself. You really need to learn basic argumentation "buddy". You've got to prove your worth our time before you'll get taken seriously. Start a thread and state your arguments for the existence of God ![]()
.
RE: Classical Logic
October 14, 2010 at 3:55 pm
(This post was last modified: October 14, 2010 at 3:57 pm by Cerrone.)
(October 14, 2010 at 3:50 pm)theVOID Wrote: You've got to prove your worth our time before you'll get taken seriously. Start a thread and state your arguments for the existence of God I don't think your time is worth that much anyway buddy xD Still awaiting a reply on that other thread btw Kind of makes me think some of the regular posters on here just prefer talking shit with christian shit talkers rather than questioning their own behaviour. .. or should i say... rather than questioning anything of any meaning instead of repeating the same shit over and over. meow ![]() ![]()
He may have a impossible task given the depth of the hole he's already dug for himself.
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)