Atheist reply to religous "question".

A place for general discussions about anything and everything.

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby talin » Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:24 am

Talin Wrote:Either way, know that I will never hate you for simply believing in something.

Smackman Wrote:Yeah fould I really don't have respect for your opinions anymore. you obviously see logic where there is none and reject any logical retort to your opinions.

Unfortunately, I can't speak for everyone.
What is a goal but an attempt to gain a purpose? We don't really want the goals and advancements for themselves, we want them because it gives us a reason to act.
RP DnD roller: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dice/dice.htm
User avatar
talin
 
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:14 am
Location: Laptops can go almost anywhere.

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby fould12 » Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:45 am

IrrelevantComment Wrote:
it was obvious he wasn't raping her, since she wasn't crying out for help.

As you continue to ignore my point, I am getting increasingly frustrated. Are you stupid? Can you not read? Has it not even crossed your mind once, that YOU CANNOT ALWAYS SCREAM IF YOU ARE BEING RAPED. This could happen for a multitude of reasons, for example the man threatens to kill the woman if she screams.
I'm not even going to try and deal with the rest of it.

Ugh, I'm getting tired of this. I don't see any point in explaining this; even if I do convince you that this law isn't flawed, I doubt you'd change your view on the bible, god, or anything for that matter.

Anyway, I'm leaving these forums. I've had some good times here, but I don't really have any reason for using it anymore.
User avatar
fould12
 
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby Smackman » Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:52 pm

-Rape victim could have been drugged (daterape)
-Rape victim could ahve been gagged
-threatened
-trauma could impair speech functions
-it could be rape on a date, which is the most common from what I know. (ive known at least 5 chicks who've had this happen to them) where the guy takes more than he was offered basically, its a hell of a lot harder for her to scream bloody murder when this happens and usually she's just shocked that its happening
Suraru Wrote:Hey smackman, I've decided your a douchebag :P

OMG IM SO HURT *Whatever*
Trolololololo
User avatar
Smackman
 
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:30 am

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby talin » Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:30 pm

... damn... my thread might have been the last straw for fould. I feel kinda bad right now. Still, I guess there's not much I can do about this now. T~T
What is a goal but an attempt to gain a purpose? We don't really want the goals and advancements for themselves, we want them because it gives us a reason to act.
RP DnD roller: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dice/dice.htm
User avatar
talin
 
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:14 am
Location: Laptops can go almost anywhere.

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby Smackman » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:41 pm

he was being a dumbass, he knew it, and didnt want to own up to it, thats it. dunno why bible thumpers play games like LoK anyways. Go have missionary sex with your plain wife or something.
Suraru Wrote:Hey smackman, I've decided your a douchebag :P

OMG IM SO HURT *Whatever*
Trolololololo
User avatar
Smackman
 
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:30 am

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby talin » Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:37 am

As right as you are, you're still a complete ass. I don't like you but I can at least understand you to some extent.
What is a goal but an attempt to gain a purpose? We don't really want the goals and advancements for themselves, we want them because it gives us a reason to act.
RP DnD roller: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dice/dice.htm
User avatar
talin
 
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:14 am
Location: Laptops can go almost anywhere.

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby Smackman » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:27 pm

Hey im not the one who thinks homosexuals should burn alive for eternity... or even condones worshiping a god that would do that shit to people. i mean seriously, i wouldn't condemn a serial killer to infinite torture.
Suraru Wrote:Hey smackman, I've decided your a douchebag :P

OMG IM SO HURT *Whatever*
Trolololololo
User avatar
Smackman
 
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:30 am

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby BlueLight » Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:01 pm

Smackman Wrote:Hey im not the one who thinks homosexuals should burn alive for eternity...


um... you do understand how silly of a argument that sounds in any context?

lets take 2 women from 2 time periods. One from the 2000's; lets call her Women A; take one from from 1700-1800's and call her Women B (I believe this is the right time period. I admit i might be wrong.)

Now the Women A, she's wearing a dress, that completely covers her torso but is sleeveless.
Women B, she's wearing a dress much like Women A but you can see a lot of her breast and she's wearing gloves that go all the way to her elbows.

put Women A and Women B in the same room and they think the other is a slut.
in the 1700-1800 area of time (I believe this is the right time zone) showing your wrist, or elbows was like showing your boobs now a days; but showing boob back then was perfectly fine.
You act like homosexuality is right but you don't really give any reason to believe it. My best guess is that it's right because people in this time believe it's right; that is kinda silly because i have no reason for believe it's right.

Sure maybe your right but statements like the one you made above is kinda silly.
User avatar
BlueLight
Gangs n' Whores Developer
 
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:23 am

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby laa » Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:35 pm

talin Wrote:... damn... my thread might have been the last straw for fould. I feel kinda bad right now. Still, I guess there's not much I can do about this now. T~T


I have no hate towards religious people, and I've been in his footsteps twice I think. So yeah, I feel a bit bad about it as well, even though I haven't been active for a while in this discussion. :/

I believe it's fair enough to believe in religion. There is no evidence that it does not exist, nor that it does exists, so I won't go and simply say 'it doesn't exist', but 'I don't believe it exists'.

Well, not that It's a surprising outcome. Religious topics tend to shed Internet blood. :/
laa
 
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:46 pm

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby IrrelevantComment » Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:20 am

BlueLight Wrote:You act like homosexuality is right but you don't really give any reason to believe it. My best guess is that it's right because people in this time believe it's right; that is kinda silly because i have no reason for believe it's right.

Sure maybe your right but statements like the one you made above is kinda silly.


You are confusing cultural and moral issues. While I agree that cultural issues such as dress code are completely arbitrary and do not make any difference, that has no bearing on homosexuality whatsoever, just as it doesn't make the Mayan human sacrifices or the crusades morally acceptable just because the society at the time considered them to be so.

And no, homosexuality is right simply because it's not wrong - it's not unnatural, immoral or harmful, and the only objections to it come from people who say that it's wrong simply because the Bible says so. Something that causes good (love and happiness) but not bad is right in my opinion.
IrrelevantComment
 
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:46 pm

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby BlueLight » Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:46 pm

IrrelevantComment Wrote:
You are confusing cultural and moral issues. While I agree that cultural issues such as dress code are completely arbitrary and do not make any difference, that has no bearing on homosexuality whatsoever, just as it doesn't make the Mayan human sacrifices or the crusades morally acceptable just because the society at the time considered them to be so.

wait wouldn't my... never mind; it's pointless at this point.
I am sorry about i'm going to have to break down the last part.
also cultural and moral issues can be the same thing. Honor, well medieval ages if you didn't have honor then you weren't a moral person... i don't see us using that standard anymore; must be cultural *facepalm*

IrrelevantComment Wrote:And no, homosexuality is right simply because it's not wrong.

Sorry but i do think it's wrong, and not because anyone or thing told me it was... also it's that saying the same thing?

{wrong} is like saying {not right};
{not wrong} is like saying {not not right} or {right};
{not not wrong } or {wrong} is like saying {not not not right} or {not right}
Just saying!

IrrelevantComment Wrote: it's not unnatural, immoral or harmful, and the only objections to it come from people who say that it's wrong simply because the Bible says so.

New challenger!

IrrelevantComment Wrote:Something that causes good (love and happiness) but not bad is right in my opinion.

I'm sorry but are you saying being gay is not bad or it's not bad in your opinion? There is a major difference.
Now i do admit that this looks like double standard, however your acting like this is a truth that will never be changed in time. Okay great, this isn't what they thought in the past but okay i'll play along. Now your trying to convince me by telling me your own personal beliefs on the subject which at best, are going be around until your heart stop beating.


let me restate my problem with your guys argument.
Your arguments are using morality which in some cases, is subject to change, but in others, it isn't. I personally wouldn't argue from morality because i don't understand the rules.
basically for sound logical arguments, i would stop arguing from a over arcing moral stand point.

IrrelevantComment Wrote:Something that causes good (love and happiness) but not bad is right in my opinion.

This on it's own and without the over arcing moral baggage would be a great argument for anyone saying they we should kill Homosexual people so long as you added the fact that you thought Homosexual people were a good(love and happiness) thing with out bad. It does a major flaw; lets say who your arguing with doesn't agree with your stance. well you really can't say that it's the right way to think. You've already said it's your own belief... which kinda was why the over arcing argument failed on convincing me.

(I do find the " but not bad" silly since there are so many things i personally consider bad but i didn't know any bad thing attached to them. It also leaves it self open to nit pickers questioning stupid stuff like love because of all the bad in that. without it i can make a case for drugs being good. 50/50 either way. )

Now any argument on the subject is going to stray from the top. I never once used any religion, so i doubt that any counter arguments will contain this subject matter.
If you wish to counter this you can PM or start another topic. I don't really which to continue this top in a thread however since it's kinda silly.
User avatar
BlueLight
Gangs n' Whores Developer
 
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:23 am

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby talin » Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:33 am

What's right and wrong is purely subjective to begin with.

So, at our current state of the world, I have no issues with consensual homosexual activities. I could go into specifics but to be honest, even though I don't believe it is "wrong", I won't claim it is "right" in every sense either. I simply have no issues with it and will therefore tolerate it and not take it into account when judging someone's morality.
What is a goal but an attempt to gain a purpose? We don't really want the goals and advancements for themselves, we want them because it gives us a reason to act.
RP DnD roller: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dice/dice.htm
User avatar
talin
 
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:14 am
Location: Laptops can go almost anywhere.

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby laa » Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:05 pm

Bluelight? I have some good news and some bad news.
The good news is, I found this awesome game. You may like it. http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/598731
The bad news is, the game is about critical reasoning. And I just completed it. So! With next to no experience in critical reasoning, here I go!

1: Some religions believe in a god.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of god, THEN there is no reason to assume god exists.
3: There is no physical evidence of god.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to assume god exists. (Though you can still do so)

1: Some religions believe homosexuality is bad.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of said religion, THEN there is no reason to assume the religion is without error.
3: Something with error is unreliable.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to believe homosexuality is bad, based on unreliable religions.

1: Homosexuality is defined by sex between two of the same gender.
2: Homosexuality spreads regardless of preventive measures, and will at all times exist in humans. Otherwise, there would be no reason for any bible to ban it, if it didn't exist by the creation of the book.
3: Homosexuality can spread AIDS AND makes it hard IF NOT impossible to attain biological children THROUGH mating with said partner. As the not-getting-any-children problem is by the definition of our human rights their own problem, I will ignore this.
4: We assume dying is bad for everyone who wants to live.
5: AIDS is said to be able to kill.
THEREFOR AIDS is bad for everyone who wants to live.
6: Homosexuals only want to have sex with other homosexuals of the same gender.
7: Homosexuals do not want people to hate them for being homosexuals, and may be troubled by this.
8: Troubled homosexuals may have sex with people not homosexual.
THEREFORE, Homosexual people have no reason to have sex with people not homosexual, UNLESS the fact that they are homosexual is troubling them OR their close relations OR people they socially interact with is troubled by their homosexuality.
9: Mostly young people are prone to be disturbed by their own homosexuality, and are not likely to have AIDS.
THEREFORE, untroubled homosexuals will not spread AIDS OR any of the other negative effects associated with homosexuality to anyone but other homosexuals. THIS is likely to come with a few exceptions.
10: Homosexuality spreads AIDS. AIDS is bad.
11: Untroubled and accepted homosexuals will mostly spread AIDS to other homosexuals.
12: Condoms can stop AIDS.
13: IF Homosexuality spreads AIDS to other homosexuals AND said homosexuals are using condoms THEN Homosexuality won't spread AIDS unless homosexuals are NOT accepted by their close relations or social contacts (In most cases).
THEREFORE, homosexuals should always use condoms.
THEREFORE, homosexuality should be socially accepted.
ALSO, homosexuals are not always infected with AIDS, making it even less of a problem. Condoms are still recommended though.
14: IF there is no negative effect spread beyond homosexuals (OR to anyone at all) AND IF homosexuals are accepted in society and are using condoms, THEN there is no physiological reason to say that homosexuality is bad or good.

Now back to roleplaying. Hehe :P
laa
 
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:46 pm

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby Smackman » Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:30 pm

BlueLight Wrote:
Smackman Wrote:Hey im not the one who thinks homosexuals should burn alive for eternity...


um... you do understand how silly of a argument that sounds in any context?

lets take 2 women from 2 time periods. One from the 2000's; lets call her Women A; take one from from 1700-1800's and call her Women B (I believe this is the right time period. I admit i might be wrong.)

Now the Women A, she's wearing a dress, that completely covers her torso but is sleeveless.
Women B, she's wearing a dress much like Women A but you can see a lot of her breast and she's wearing gloves that go all the way to her elbows.

put Women A and Women B in the same room and they think the other is a slut.
in the 1700-1800 area of time (I believe this is the right time zone) showing your wrist, or elbows was like showing your boobs now a days; but showing boob back then was perfectly fine.
You act like homosexuality is right but you don't really give any reason to believe it. My best guess is that it's right because people in this time believe it's right; that is kinda silly because i have no reason for believe it's right.

Sure maybe your right but statements like the one you made above is kinda silly.

that analogy was completely unrelated.
Just stop replying to me blue, you don't understand shit and you're comparing sexuality to fashion like its a logical statement.
Suraru Wrote:Hey smackman, I've decided your a douchebag :P

OMG IM SO HURT *Whatever*
Trolololololo
User avatar
Smackman
 
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:30 am

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby Smackman » Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:35 pm

laa Wrote:Bluelight? I have some good news and some bad news.
The good news is, I found this awesome game. You may like it. http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/598731
The bad news is, the game is about critical reasoning. And I just completed it. So! With next to no experience in critical reasoning, here I go!

1: Some religions believe in a god.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of god, THEN there is no reason to assume god exists.
3: There is no physical evidence of god.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to assume god exists. (Though you can still do so)

1: Some religions believe homosexuality is bad.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of said religion, THEN there is no reason to assume the religion is without error.
3: Something with error is unreliable.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to believe homosexuality is bad, based on unreliable religions.

1: Homosexuality is defined by sex between two of the same gender.
2: Homosexuality spreads regardless of preventive measures, and will at all times exist in humans. Otherwise, there would be no reason for any bible to ban it, if it didn't exist by the creation of the book.
3: Homosexuality can spread AIDS AND makes it hard IF NOT impossible to attain biological children THROUGH mating with said partner. As the not-getting-any-children problem is by the definition of our human rights their own problem, I will ignore this.
4: We assume dying is bad for everyone who wants to live.
5: AIDS is said to be able to kill.
THEREFOR AIDS is bad for everyone who wants to live.
6: Homosexuals only want to have sex with other homosexuals of the same gender.
7: Homosexuals do not want people to hate them for being homosexuals, and may be troubled by this.
8: Troubled homosexuals may have sex with people not homosexual.
THEREFORE, Homosexual people have no reason to have sex with people not homosexual, UNLESS the fact that they are homosexual is troubling them OR their close relations OR people they socially interact with is troubled by their homosexuality.
9: Mostly young people are prone to be disturbed by their own homosexuality, and are not likely to have AIDS.
THEREFORE, untroubled homosexuals will not spread AIDS OR any of the other negative effects associated with homosexuality to anyone but other homosexuals. THIS is likely to come with a few exceptions.
10: Homosexuality spreads AIDS. AIDS is bad.
11: Untroubled and accepted homosexuals will mostly spread AIDS to other homosexuals.
12: Condoms can stop AIDS.
13: IF Homosexuality spreads AIDS to other homosexuals AND said homosexuals are using condoms THEN Homosexuality won't spread AIDS unless homosexuals are NOT accepted by their close relations or social contacts (In most cases).
THEREFORE, homosexuals should always use condoms.
THEREFORE, homosexuality should be socially accepted.
ALSO, homosexuals are not always infected with AIDS, making it even less of a problem. Condoms are still recommended though.
14: IF there is no negative effect spread beyond homosexuals (OR to anyone at all) AND IF homosexuals are accepted in society and are using condoms, THEN there is no physiological reason to say that homosexuality is bad or good.

Now back to roleplaying. Hehe :P

1. Heterosexual sex can spread AIDS
2. Not all heterosexuals have AIDS
Suraru Wrote:Hey smackman, I've decided your a douchebag :P

OMG IM SO HURT *Whatever*
Trolololololo
User avatar
Smackman
 
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:30 am

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby laa » Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:16 pm

1: Never said they couldn't.
2: You're right. I didn't mean to make it sound like every homosexuals have AIDS, but I can see how that have slipped now and then in my statement. :P

Reason that I centered the statement around AIDS, is that I've heard many rumors where people believe that homosexuals spreads AIDS, so I thought I'd do a vaccine against such a counter-argument. It's a speech-technique. :P
laa
 
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:46 pm

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby BlueLight » Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:45 pm

Great, i had hoped this died. Okay i've looked over most of these and quite frankly the arguments suck.
i admit i skimmed though the arguments but these seem to be directed at me; the problem is that they don't change a thing i said or are just bad.


laa Wrote:1: Some religions believe in a god.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of god, THEN there is no reason to assume god exists.
3: There is no physical evidence of god.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to assume god exists. (Though you can still do so)

Sorry i have to do this.

Spoiler (click to show/hide):

1: Some people believe in a dark matter.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of dark matter, THEN there is no reason to assume dark matter exists.
3: There is no physical evidence of dark matter.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to assume dark matter exists. (Though you can still do so)


... You've gotten to me. I really believe this. I'm going to throw away my nonexistent; really expensive book; that must be bull shit; about dark matter.
Just to clarify, the only proof i've heard that dark matter exist is the fact that the universe does wacky things.... other wacky things.
No content i've seen on science websites how ever said there is physical evidence. They mostly say they believe it's out there because it makes sense.
It goes more in depth but that's basically the gist of it.
A example i like is with a coffee cup. Take a cup of coffee and put crumbs in it then stir the coffee. great that's how dark matter effect's the world around us if we're the crumbs.
Now you can't see or even sense the coffee; stir it again! You'll have the same effect but you now literally can't see the coffee and this is how dark matter works.

also your games circular argument puzzle would have been better than this.
Spoiler (click to show/hide):

laa Wrote:1: Some religions believe homosexuality is bad.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of said religion, THEN there is no reason to assume the religion is without error.
3: Something with error is unreliable.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to believe homosexuality is bad, based on unreliable religions.


Okay, so what? I don't give squat about homosexuality because of a religion.

laa Wrote:1: Some religions believe homosexuality is bad.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of said religion, THEN there is no reason to assume the religion is without error.
3: Something with error is unreliable.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to believe homosexuality is bad, based on unreliable religions.

1 personally i have moral problems with this. Not intellectual. (EDITED)
2 Okay um... you are going to tell us if there is "no physical evidence", right? GOD DAMN YOU! You didn't.
3 what's this line used... oh oh we're going to do a modus tollens aren't we?!! YAAA YAA YAA!!!... GOD DAMMIT; we're still doing modus ponens!
THEREFORE (<- typed silly) okay i wouldn't say the conclusion really fits with the

Alright I need some help with a logic problem
1 H
2 if E, then L
3 R
================
4
no really i want you to solve that. Because i can't! how ever that is your argument... i think... you know what fuck it. it's close enough to and it shows how confused I am!

laa Wrote:1: Homosexuality is defined by sex between two of the same gender.
2: Homosexuality spreads regardless of preventive measures, and will at all times exist in humans. Otherwise, there would be no reason for any bible to ban it, if it didn't exist by the creation of the book.
3: Homosexuality can spread AIDS AND makes it hard IF NOT impossible to attain biological children THROUGH mating with said partner. As the not-getting-any-children problem is by the definition of our human rights their own problem, I will ignore this.
4: We assume dying is bad for everyone who wants to live.
5: AIDS is said to be able to kill.
THEREFOR AIDS is bad for everyone who wants to live.
6: Homosexuals only want to have sex with other homosexuals of the same gender.
7: Homosexuals do not want people to hate them for being homosexuals, and may be troubled by this.
8: Troubled homosexuals may have sex with people not homosexual.
THEREFORE, Homosexual people have no reason to have sex with people not homosexual, UNLESS the fact that they are homosexual is troubling them OR their close relations OR people they socially interact with is troubled by their homosexuality.
9: Mostly young people are prone to be disturbed by their own homosexuality, and are not likely to have AIDS.
THEREFORE, untroubled homosexuals will not spread AIDS OR any of the other negative effects associated with homosexuality to anyone but other homosexuals. THIS is likely to come with a few exceptions.
10: Homosexuality spreads AIDS. AIDS is bad.
11: Untroubled and accepted homosexuals will mostly spread AIDS to other homosexuals.
12: Condoms can stop AIDS.
13: IF Homosexuality spreads AIDS to other homosexuals AND said homosexuals are using condoms THEN Homosexuality won't spread AIDS unless homosexuals are NOT accepted by their close relations or social contacts (In most cases).
THEREFORE, homosexuals should always use condoms.
THEREFORE, homosexuality should be socially accepted.
ALSO, homosexuals are not always infected with AIDS, making it even less of a problem. Condoms are still recommended though.
14: IF there is no negative effect spread beyond homosexuals (OR to anyone at all) AND IF homosexuals are accepted in society and are using condoms, THEN there is no physiological reason to say that homosexuality is bad or good.

Now back to roleplaying. Hehe :P

Huh? sorry. but this is a jumble of text to me.I'll look at it later, again.
Last edited by BlueLight on Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BlueLight
Gangs n' Whores Developer
 
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:23 am

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby laa » Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:31 pm

BlueLight Wrote:Great, i had hoped this died. Okay i've looked over most of these and quite frankly the arguments suck.
i admit i skimmed though the arguments but these seem to be directed at me; the problem is that they don't change a thing i said or are just bad.


laa Wrote:1: Some religions believe in a god.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of god AND god's existence is untestable, THEN there is no reason to assume god exists.
3: There is no physical evidence of god.
4: The existence of god is untestable.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to assume god exists. (Though you can still do so)

Sorry i have to do this.

Spoiler (click to show/hide):

1: Some people believe in a dark matter.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of dark matter, THEN there is no reason to assume dark matter exists.
3: There is no physical evidence of dark matter.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to assume dark matter exists. (Though you can still do so)


... You've gotten to me. I really believe this. I'm going to throw away my nonexistent; really expensive book; that must be bull shit; about dark matter.
Just to clarify, the only proof i've heard that dark matter exist is the fact that the universe doesn't do wacky things.... any other wacky things.
No content i've seen on science websites how ever said there is physical evidence. They mostly say they believe it's out there because it makes sense.
It goes more in depth but that's basically the gist of it.
A example i like is with a coffee cup. Take a cup of coffee and put crumbs in it then stir the coffee. great that's how dark matter effect's the world around us if we're the crumbs.
Now you can't see or even sense the coffee; stir it again! You'll have the same effect but you now literally can't see the coffee.

also your games circular argument puzzle would have been better than this.

Eh, this should do the trick.
Spoiler (click to show/hide):

laa Wrote:1: Some religions believe homosexuality is bad.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of said religion, THEN there is no reason to assume the religion is without error.
3: Something with error is unreliable.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to believe homosexuality is bad, based on unreliable religions.


Okay, so what? I don't give squat about homosexuality because of a religion.

Relates to the argument you didn't read, and the subject this all started with, religion. If religion is not your motivator, then th
laa Wrote:1: Some religions believe homosexuality is bad.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of said religion, THEN there is no reason to assume the religion is without error.
3: Something with error is unreliable.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to believe homosexuality is bad, based on unreliable religions.

1 why are we on this bullshit arguing again?
2 Okay um... you are going to tell us if there is "no physical evidence", right? GOD DAMN YOU!
3 what's this line used... oh oh we're going to do a modus tollens aren't we?!! YAAA YAA YAA!!!... GOD DAMMIT; we're still doing modus ponens!
THEREFORE (<- typed silly) okay i wouldn't say the conclusion really fits with the

Alright I need some help with a logic problem
1 H
2 if H NOT R, then H NOT without L
3 L is bad.
================
4 THEREFORE H with L is bad.
no really i want you to solve that. Because i can't! how ever that is your argument... i think... you know what fuck it. it's close enough to and it shows how confused I am!


That should do it. Somewhat.
laa Wrote:1: Homosexuality is defined by sex between two of the same gender.
2: Homosexuality spreads regardless of preventive measures, and will at all times exist in humans. Otherwise, there would be no reason for any bible to ban it, if it didn't exist by the creation of the book.
3: Homosexuality can spread AIDS AND makes it hard IF NOT impossible to attain biological children THROUGH mating with said partner. As the not-getting-any-children problem is by the definition of our human rights their own problem, I will ignore this.
4: We assume dying is bad for everyone who wants to live.
5: AIDS is said to be able to kill.
THEREFOR AIDS is bad for everyone who wants to live.
6: Homosexuals only want to have sex with other homosexuals of the same gender.
7: Homosexuals do not want people to hate them for being homosexuals, and may be troubled by this.
8: Troubled homosexuals may have sex with people not homosexual.
THEREFORE, Homosexual people have no reason to have sex with people not homosexual, UNLESS the fact that they are homosexual is troubling them OR their close relations OR people they socially interact with is troubled by their homosexuality.
9: Mostly young people are prone to be disturbed by their own homosexuality, and are not likely to have AIDS.
THEREFORE, untroubled homosexuals will not spread AIDS OR any of the other negative effects associated with homosexuality to anyone but other homosexuals. THIS is likely to come with a few exceptions.
10: Homosexuality spreads AIDS. AIDS is bad.
11: Untroubled and accepted homosexuals will mostly spread AIDS to other homosexuals.
12: Condoms can stop AIDS.
13: IF Homosexuality spreads AIDS to other homosexuals AND said homosexuals are using condoms THEN Homosexuality won't spread AIDS unless homosexuals are NOT accepted by their close relations or social contacts (In most cases).
THEREFORE, homosexuals should always use condoms.
THEREFORE, homosexuality should be socially accepted.
ALSO, homosexuals are not always infected with AIDS, making it even less of a problem. Condoms are still recommended though.
14: IF there is no negative effect spread beyond homosexuals (OR to anyone at all) AND IF homosexuals are accepted in society and are using condoms, THEN there is no physiological reason to say that homosexuality is bad or good.

Now back to roleplaying. Hehe :P

Huh? sorry. but this is a jumble of text to me.I'll look at it later, again.

You lazy bum. Arguing is fun! :O

Don't know about changing a thing you said, I'm just putting out my arguments. TL;DR there are no physiological reasons to say homosexuality is good or bad.
Last edited by laa on Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
laa
 
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:46 pm

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby BlueLight » Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:41 pm

um... while arguing is fun, my brain can't tell what you are arguing and what your quoting. Fix your god damn post man!
Now i'm going to fix mine of some spelling errors i spotted.

LAA text
Code: Select All Code
1: Some religions believe homosexuality is bad.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of said religion, THEN there is no reason to assume the religion is without error.
3: Something with error is unreliable.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to believe homosexuality is bad, based on unreliable religions.



BlueLights version
Code: Select All Code
1 H
2 if E, then L
3 R


Thing laa changed in a quote... i think?
Code: Select All Code
1 H
2 if H NOT R, then H NOT without L
3 L is bad.


H = Some religions believe homosexuality is bad.
H + ~R= IF there is no physical evidence of said religion, (wait, this doesn't say anything about homosexuality at all.)
H +~L = THEN there is no reason to assume the religion is without error.
L = Something with error is unreliable.

wait what?
this translation sucks. 3 is basically saying "not not something"... wait no; gahh!!! Okay maybe i just got the symbols wrong on H~R and H~L.
Tell me which is should be.
Code: Select All Code
1: if (H + ~R) then (H +~L)
2: if (H [or] ~R) then (H [or]~L)
3: if (~H + R) then (~H +L)
4: if (~H [or] R) then (~H [or] L)


or is the 'not' out side?
Last edited by BlueLight on Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BlueLight
Gangs n' Whores Developer
 
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:23 am

Re: Atheist reply to religous "question".

Postby laa » Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:58 pm

Code: Select All Code
1 H
2 if H NOT R, then H NOT without L
3 L is bad.
================
4 THEREFORE H with L is bad.


And...

1: Some religions believe in a god.
2: IF there is no physical evidence of god AND god's existence is untestable, THEN there is no reason to assume god exists.
3: There is no physical evidence of god.
4: The existence of god is untestable.
THEREFORE, there is no reason to assume god exists. (Though you can still do so)


There you go.
laa
 
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users