Do you believe in a god?

[CKent]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis
no

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/religion2.jpg

That is probably one of the ugliest browsers I have ever seen in my life.. I hope god saves you.

ive never thought of a browser as ugly or not ugly, me thinks you have more issues then we allready know about.

its a 5 y/o SS either way

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/opera-ff.jpg

Both are not that hot lookin'

Mine is sex.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3348/11940803bw6.jpg

Y'all straight trippin'. Mine's the best.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis
no

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/religion2.jpg

That is probably one of the ugliest browsers I have ever seen in my life.. I hope god saves you.

ive never thought of a browser as ugly or not ugly, me thinks you have more issues then we allready know about.

its a 5 y/o SS either way

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/opera-ff.jpg

Both are not that hot lookin'

Mine is sex.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3348/11940803bw6.jpg

Y'all straight trippin'. Mine's the best.

Lol what's with the leopard print? You a 45 year old divorcee MILF on the prowl? Watch out boys! :laugh:

KT

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: jonks
The poll makes me feel nice and warm inside.

me too... a little cold though.. The Yes results disturb me still.

Why?

Because many people interpret the texts in religion to mean things such as gay people equal bad people. It doesn't mean that agnostics or atheists won't do the same, but it is just far less likely IMO. Also atheists/agnostics tend to be more scientifically inclined, at least from what I see.

You incorrectly assume that everyone who posted yes follows a religion, or if they do, follows it fundamentally.

You are irrationally confusing hatefull fundamentalists with all believers. You are falling into the us vs them mentality.

I understand that you are young and gay. But please don't let the irrational hate of others make you hate indiscriminately too. That makes you no better than them.

85+% of people believe in a god in the US. But most of them have no problem with gays and lesbians. Remember that when you judge believers based on a subsection who irrationally hate gays.

You are reacting instead of acting. You are being a puppet.

BTW, the majority of scientists AND gays have some form of belief in a god or gods.

 

[TheInternet1980]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: TheInternet1980
No. Only Jimi Hendrix exists. And Canadian Mounted policemen.

You better watch out, I'm coming for you!

KT

DO NOT ANGER THE MOUNTY. HE WILL SMITE YOU FOR YOUR SINS, AND CAST YOU DOWN TO THE USA, WITH NO BACON OR MAPLE SYRUP.

Seriously though, reps for Canada. And for you KT, +2 reps.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: TheInternet1980

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: TheInternet1980
No. Only Jimi Hendrix exists. And Canadian Mounted policemen.

You better watch out, I'm coming for you!

KT

DO NOT ANGER THE MOUNTY. HE WILL SMITE YOU FOR YOUR SINS, AND CAST YOU DOWN TO THE USA, WITH NO BACON OR MAPLE SYRUP.

Seriously though, reps for Canada. And for you KT, +2 reps.

Actually, "I'm coming for you!" has a different meaning in this thread.

 

[TheInternet1980]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TheInternet1980

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: TheInternet1980
No. Only Jimi Hendrix exists. And Canadian Mounted policemen.

You better watch out, I'm coming for you!

KT

DO NOT ANGER THE MOUNTY. HE WILL SMITE YOU FOR YOUR SINS, AND CAST YOU DOWN TO THE USA, WITH NO BACON OR MAPLE SYRUP.

Seriously though, reps for Canada. And for you KT, +2 reps.

Actually, "I'm coming for you!" has a different meaning in this thread.

Oh...well that's just a normal day then. KT = the Canada hotness. He said he loved me, and we called off of work together one Wednesday a while back. He said it was a statement.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Amused

Your opinion is just an exercise in futility. It's not geared on what you know, but on what you want to make others believe.

Why reach around your ass to get to your elbow? Because, in the end, the only answer is: Unknowable.

You can lay out all the lack of evidence on both sides of the argument, but in the end, that's all you have and you've accomplished nothing but wasting time and energy.

It really is better to just say "I don't know." Agnosticism is really the only logical and intellectually honest answer.

I feel leaving it at "I don't know" is intellectually dishonest. Yes, you don't know for sure, like I don't know for sure that you exist, but the evidence points one way or the other. By stopping at "I don't know" you might as well stop at "I don't know" for everything. Your view isn't logical at all.

I used to think the way you did actually. You say how it's amazing that people are resistant to thinking like you do now? I've already been there. I eventually found it to be intellectually lazy and meaningless, so I moved on. And I actually, even as an Atheist, have less of a problem with people believing in a religion after examining the evidence and seeing something there that guides them to believe as opposed to people who just say (as I used to) "I don't know."

It's not lazy, it's honest. You want to twist and turn something into something it's not. You want to influence others rather than admit the facts.

The fact is, it's unknowable and you don't know. Anything beyond that is a waste of time and energy and is usually an attempt to make it appear as though you do know.

It's unknowable if there are invisible men telepathically cracking jokes about your attire hiding in the room with you, but you wouldn't call yourself "agnostic" to the claim, would you?

Stop the special pleading for god.

The hilariously sad thing is that you think the intellectually honest stance of agnosticism is a "special pleading for god."

Ladies and gentleman, this is a fine case of the paranoia the us vs them mentality I spoke of earlier leads to. He has a classic case of "commies under the bed" syndrome. He's seeing believers where none exist. Anyone who does not emphatically deny god is a believer who must be outed and shamed.

Sorry, SO. I make no case for, or against a god or gods. I have no evidence to support either claim and neither do you.

You didn't address my point at all. What does that have to do with my point? Next time, just post "hey look over there, a bear!"

Your implication that something which you have no evidence for cannot be said to not exist is special pleading. You wouldn't accept that argument for ANYTHING else.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: TheInternet1980

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TheInternet1980

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: TheInternet1980
No. Only Jimi Hendrix exists. And Canadian Mounted policemen.

You better watch out, I'm coming for you!

KT

DO NOT ANGER THE MOUNTY. HE WILL SMITE YOU FOR YOUR SINS, AND CAST YOU DOWN TO THE USA, WITH NO BACON OR MAPLE SYRUP.

Seriously though, reps for Canada. And for you KT, +2 reps.

Actually, "I'm coming for you!" has a different meaning in this thread.

Oh...well that's just a normal day then. KT = the Canada hotness. He said he loved me, and we called off of work together one Wednesday a while back. He said it was a statement.

Official and confirmed.

KT

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Amused

Your opinion is just an exercise in futility. It's not geared on what you know, but on what you want to make others believe.

Why reach around your ass to get to your elbow? Because, in the end, the only answer is: Unknowable.

You can lay out all the lack of evidence on both sides of the argument, but in the end, that's all you have and you've accomplished nothing but wasting time and energy.

It really is better to just say "I don't know." Agnosticism is really the only logical and intellectually honest answer.

I feel leaving it at "I don't know" is intellectually dishonest. Yes, you don't know for sure, like I don't know for sure that you exist, but the evidence points one way or the other. By stopping at "I don't know" you might as well stop at "I don't know" for everything. Your view isn't logical at all.

I used to think the way you did actually. You say how it's amazing that people are resistant to thinking like you do now? I've already been there. I eventually found it to be intellectually lazy and meaningless, so I moved on. And I actually, even as an Atheist, have less of a problem with people believing in a religion after examining the evidence and seeing something there that guides them to believe as opposed to people who just say (as I used to) "I don't know."

It's not lazy, it's honest. You want to twist and turn something into something it's not. You want to influence others rather than admit the facts.

The fact is, it's unknowable and you don't know. Anything beyond that is a waste of time and energy and is usually an attempt to make it appear as though you do know.

It's unknowable if there are invisible men telepathically cracking jokes about your attire hiding in the room with you, but you wouldn't call yourself "agnostic" to the claim, would you?

Stop the special pleading for god.

The hilariously sad thing is that you think the intellectually honest stance of agnosticism is a "special pleading for god."

Ladies and gentleman, this is a fine case of the paranoia the us vs them mentality I spoke of earlier leads to. He has a classic case of "commies under the bed" syndrome. He's seeing believers where none exist. Anyone who does not emphatically deny god is a believer who must be outed and shamed.

Sorry, SO. I make no case for, or against a god or gods. I have no evidence to support either claim and neither do you.

You didn't address my point at all. What does that have to do with my point? Next time, just post "hey look over there, a bear!"

Your implication that something which you have no evidence for cannot be said to not exist is special pleading. You wouldn't accept that argument for ANYTHING else.

Sure I would. If someone makes a claim of existence that I cannot disprove, I will say it is unknowable. On the other hand, if someone makes a claim that there is an elephant in my fridge, I can disprove that.

No special pleading here. Only you being fanatical and making claims you cannot prove.

Not everything in life so far can be proved or disproved. To take a stance other than neutrality on these issues is intellectually dishonest. It's what gave us religion in the first place: The need to explain the unknown.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Amused
Sure I would. If someone makes a claim of existence that I cannot disprove, I will say it is unknowable. On the other hand, if someone makes a claim that there is an elephant in my fridge, I can disprove that.

No special pleading here. Only you being fanatical and making claims you cannot prove.

Not everything in life so far can be proved or disproved. To take a stance other than neutrality on these issues is intellectually dishonest. It's what gave us religion in the first place: The need to explain the unknown.

So, just to be totally clear, you are saying that you would consider yourself agnostic to the claim that invisible, miniature capybaras are holding you to the earth with their teeth, right?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused
Sure I would. If someone makes a claim of existence that I cannot disprove, I will say it is unknowable. On the other hand, if someone makes a claim that there is an elephant in my fridge, I can disprove that.

No special pleading here. Only you being fanatical and making claims you cannot prove.

Not everything in life so far can be proved or disproved. To take a stance other than neutrality on these issues is intellectually dishonest. It's what gave us religion in the first place: The need to explain the unknown.

So, just to be totally clear, you are saying that you would consider yourself agnostic to the claim that invisible, miniature capybaras are holding you to the earth with their teeth, right?

If you make that claim, and make the claim in such a way as it cannot be disproven, than I would say it's unknowable. Yes.

But you're reaching here and you know it.

This is a perfect example of what I've been talking about. The inability to say I don't know or to admit something is unknowable. Just know that this very inability is what gave rise to religion in the first place. Relying on faith based answers to questions whos answers are, in reality, unknown or unknowable.

We can no more prove there is not a god than a theist can prove there is. Therefore taking a stance other than neutral is as faith based as the theist.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused
Sure I would. If someone makes a claim of existence that I cannot disprove, I will say it is unknowable. On the other hand, if someone makes a claim that there is an elephant in my fridge, I can disprove that.

No special pleading here. Only you being fanatical and making claims you cannot prove.

Not everything in life so far can be proved or disproved. To take a stance other than neutrality on these issues is intellectually dishonest. It's what gave us religion in the first place: The need to explain the unknown.

So, just to be totally clear, you are saying that you would consider yourself agnostic to the claim that invisible, miniature capybaras are holding you to the earth with their teeth, right?

If you make that claim, and make the claim in such a way as it cannot be disproven, than I would say it's unknowable. Yes.

But you're reaching here and you know it.

This is a perfect example of what I've been talking about. The inability to say I don't know or to admit something is unknowable. Just know that this very inability is what gave rise to religion in the first place. Relying on faith based answers to questions whos answers are, in reality, unknown or unknowable.

We can no more prove there is not a god than a theist can prove there is. Therefore taking a stance other than neutral is as faith based as the theist.

You're getting closer. A claim to the negative may be unprovable -- but would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible? We we may not be able to prove that they aren't there. What if we look at it from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever? Then, for all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis
no

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/religion2.jpg

That is probably one of the ugliest browsers I have ever seen in my life.. I hope god saves you.

ive never thought of a browser as ugly or not ugly, me thinks you have more issues then we allready know about.

its a 5 y/o SS either way

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/opera-ff.jpg

Both are not that hot lookin'

Mine is sex.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3348/11940803bw6.jpg

Y'all straight trippin'. Mine's the best.

Lol what's with the leopard print? You a 45 year old divorcee MILF on the prowl? Watch out boys! :laugh:

KT

Wow, figures he would be on d2jsp...

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis
no

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/religion2.jpg

That is probably one of the ugliest browsers I have ever seen in my life.. I hope god saves you.

ive never thought of a browser as ugly or not ugly, me thinks you have more issues then we allready know about.

its a 5 y/o SS either way

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/opera-ff.jpg

Both are not that hot lookin'

Mine is sex.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3348/11940803bw6.jpg

Y'all straight trippin'. Mine's the best.

Lol what's with the leopard print? You a 45 year old divorcee MILF on the prowl? Watch out boys! :laugh:

KT

Wow, figures he would be on d2jsp...

Purrrrrrrrrr

 

[Rufus12]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis
no

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/religion2.jpg

That is probably one of the ugliest browsers I have ever seen in my life.. I hope god saves you.

ive never thought of a browser as ugly or not ugly, me thinks you have more issues then we allready know about.

its a 5 y/o SS either way

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/opera-ff.jpg

Both are not that hot lookin'

Mine is sex.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3348/11940803bw6.jpg

Y'all straight trippin'. Mine's the best.

Lol what's with the leopard print? You a 45 year old divorcee MILF on the prowl? Watch out boys! :laugh:

KT

Wow, figures he would be on d2jsp...

Coming from you that's not much of an insult.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: jonks
The poll makes me feel nice and warm inside.

me too... a little cold though.. The Yes results disturb me still.

Why?

Because many people interpret the texts in religion to mean things such as gay people equal bad people. It doesn't mean that agnostics or atheists won't do the same, but it is just far less likely IMO. Also atheists/agnostics tend to be more scientifically inclined, at least from what I see.

You incorrectly assume that everyone who posted yes follows a religion, or if they do, follows it fundamentally.

You are irrationally confusing hatefull fundamentalists with all believers. You are falling into the us vs them mentality.

I understand that you are young and gay. But please don't let the irrational hate of others make you hate indiscriminately too. That makes you no better than them.

85+% of people believe in a god in the US. But most of them have no problem with gays and lesbians. Remember that when you judge believers based on a subsection who irrationally hate gays.

You are reacting instead of acting. You are being a puppet.

BTW, the majority of scientists AND gays have some form of belief in a god or gods.

You incorrectly assumed I assumed that. I never said that did I?

I said many, not all. Did I not?

I'm not, actually. :-/ (Not gay)

Yet Prop 8 still passed...

Uh, how would I act?

I would love to see where you get that # for scientists. What fields of study?

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Rufus12

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis
no

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/religion2.jpg

That is probably one of the ugliest browsers I have ever seen in my life.. I hope god saves you.

ive never thought of a browser as ugly or not ugly, me thinks you have more issues then we allready know about.

its a 5 y/o SS either way

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/opera-ff.jpg

Both are not that hot lookin'

Mine is sex.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3348/11940803bw6.jpg

Y'all straight trippin'. Mine's the best.

Lol what's with the leopard print? You a 45 year old divorcee MILF on the prowl? Watch out boys! :laugh:

KT

Wow, figures he would be on d2jsp...

Coming from you that's not much of an insult.

Hah, I am not one of the 12 year olds that is on d2jsp saying, "your a i love you. im gunna go blast sum techno music yaaahh" <--- That's exactly how they sound too, it's pathetic.

EDIT:And who the hell plays classic?

 

[mxyzptlk]

damnit, I clicked yes by mistake, meant no... can a mod (or god) fix my vote please?

Thanks!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused
Sure I would. If someone makes a claim of existence that I cannot disprove, I will say it is unknowable. On the other hand, if someone makes a claim that there is an elephant in my fridge, I can disprove that.

No special pleading here. Only you being fanatical and making claims you cannot prove.

Not everything in life so far can be proved or disproved. To take a stance other than neutrality on these issues is intellectually dishonest. It's what gave us religion in the first place: The need to explain the unknown.

So, just to be totally clear, you are saying that you would consider yourself agnostic to the claim that invisible, miniature capybaras are holding you to the earth with their teeth, right?

If you make that claim, and make the claim in such a way as it cannot be disproven, than I would say it's unknowable. Yes.

But you're reaching here and you know it.

This is a perfect example of what I've been talking about. The inability to say I don't know or to admit something is unknowable. Just know that this very inability is what gave rise to religion in the first place. Relying on faith based answers to questions whos answers are, in reality, unknown or unknowable.

We can no more prove there is not a god than a theist can prove there is. Therefore taking a stance other than neutral is as faith based as the theist.

You're getting closer. A claim to the negative may be unprovable -- but would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible? We we may not be able to prove that they aren't there. What if we look at it from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever? Then, for all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

If you make a claim that, by it's very nature is not disprovable, than it cannot be disproved.

Again, you're reaching. Why not try a practical example? All you are doing is creating more claims that are identical to the god claim. You are just making them more silly sounding in an attempt to make me back down.

I choose neutrality in that I have no reason to believe or disbelieve in a god. There is no evidence either way therefore no reason to consider it.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused
Sure I would. If someone makes a claim of existence that I cannot disprove, I will say it is unknowable. On the other hand, if someone makes a claim that there is an elephant in my fridge, I can disprove that.

No special pleading here. Only you being fanatical and making claims you cannot prove.

Not everything in life so far can be proved or disproved. To take a stance other than neutrality on these issues is intellectually dishonest. It's what gave us religion in the first place: The need to explain the unknown.

So, just to be totally clear, you are saying that you would consider yourself agnostic to the claim that invisible, miniature capybaras are holding you to the earth with their teeth, right?

If you make that claim, and make the claim in such a way as it cannot be disproven, than I would say it's unknowable. Yes.

But you're reaching here and you know it.

This is a perfect example of what I've been talking about. The inability to say I don't know or to admit something is unknowable. Just know that this very inability is what gave rise to religion in the first place. Relying on faith based answers to questions whos answers are, in reality, unknown or unknowable.

We can no more prove there is not a god than a theist can prove there is. Therefore taking a stance other than neutral is as faith based as the theist.

You're getting closer. A claim to the negative may be unprovable -- but would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible? We we may not be able to prove that they aren't there. What if we look at it from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever? Then, for all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

If you make a claim that, by it's very nature is not disprovable, than it cannot be disproved.

Again, you're reaching. Why not try a practical example? All you are doing is creating more claims that are identical to the god claim. You are just making them more silly sounding in an attempt to make me back down.

I choose neutrality in that I have no reason to believe or disbelieve in a god. There is no evidence either way therefore no reason to consider it.

I don't know, there could be an invisible, weightless, and unfeelable baboon rubbing its ass all over my head right now... I'm just going to go with a no though.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Rufus12

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis
no

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/religion2.jpg

That is probably one of the ugliest browsers I have ever seen in my life.. I hope god saves you.

ive never thought of a browser as ugly or not ugly, me thinks you have more issues then we allready know about.

its a 5 y/o SS either way

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/opera-ff.jpg

Both are not that hot lookin'

Mine is sex.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3348/11940803bw6.jpg

Y'all straight trippin'. Mine's the best.

Lol what's with the leopard print? You a 45 year old divorcee MILF on the prowl? Watch out boys! :laugh:

KT

Wow, figures he would be on d2jsp...

Coming from you that's not much of an insult.

Hah, I am not one of the 12 year olds that is on d2jsp saying, "your a i love you. im gunna go blast sum techno music yaaahh" <--- That's exactly how they sound too, it's pathetic.

EDIT:And who the hell plays classic?

Yeah that pretty much describes the D2 and surrounding community. It's irritating. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about it . . .

I never bought the expansion because battle.net is so laggy it didn't warrant giving Blizzard more of my money. If more people were as principled they would have had to supply a decent prodct to make money, instead they can get away with selling overpriced shit.

I play for a month or two every few years, then inevitably get bored and quit. This is my 3rd or 4th cycle, and I haevn't played in a week till today. I think I'm going to end up forgetting about it soon.

What brought this on, tridentboy?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: jonks
The poll makes me feel nice and warm inside.

me too... a little cold though.. The Yes results disturb me still.

Why?

Because many people interpret the texts in religion to mean things such as gay people equal bad people. It doesn't mean that agnostics or atheists won't do the same, but it is just far less likely IMO. Also atheists/agnostics tend to be more scientifically inclined, at least from what I see.

You incorrectly assume that everyone who posted yes follows a religion, or if they do, follows it fundamentally.

You are irrationally confusing hatefull fundamentalists with all believers. You are falling into the us vs them mentality.

I understand that you are young and gay. But please don't let the irrational hate of others make you hate indiscriminately too. That makes you no better than them.

85+% of people believe in a god in the US. But most of them have no problem with gays and lesbians. Remember that when you judge believers based on a subsection who irrationally hate gays.

You are reacting instead of acting. You are being a puppet.

BTW, the majority of scientists AND gays have some form of belief in a god or gods.

You incorrectly assumed I assumed that. I never said that did I?

I said many, not all. Did I not?

I'm not, actually. :-/ (Not gay)

Yet Prop 8 still passed...

Uh, how would I act?

I would love to see where you get that # for scientists. What fields of study?

Don't make false claims in threads then.

Condemning all for the deeds of many, especially a minority, is bigotry. Why are you so resistant to accepting your own bigotry?

Prop 8 passed not because of hatred of gays, but because of tradition. When polled, the majority of prop 8 supporters support a legal equivalent of "civil union." They just have a thing about the word "marriage." Silly? Yes, but that's the reality of it.

Google is your friend. I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Rufus12

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Anubis
no

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/religion2.jpg

That is probably one of the ugliest browsers I have ever seen in my life.. I hope god saves you.

ive never thought of a browser as ugly or not ugly, me thinks you have more issues then we allready know about.

its a 5 y/o SS either way

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/TheEvil1/opera-ff.jpg

Both are not that hot lookin'

Mine is sex.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3348/11940803bw6.jpg

Y'all straight trippin'. Mine's the best.

Lol what's with the leopard print? You a 45 year old divorcee MILF on the prowl? Watch out boys! :laugh:

KT

Wow, figures he would be on d2jsp...

Coming from you that's not much of an insult.

Hah, I am not one of the 12 year olds that is on d2jsp saying, "your a i love you. im gunna go blast sum techno music yaaahh" <--- That's exactly how they sound too, it's pathetic.

EDIT:And who the hell plays classic?

Yeah that pretty much describes the D2 and surrounding community. It's irritating. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about it . . .

I never bought the expansion because battle.net is so laggy it didn't warrant giving Blizzard more of my money. If more people were as principled they would have had to supply a decent prodct to make money, instead they can get away with selling overpriced shit.

I play for a month or two every few years, then inevitably get bored and quit. This is my 3rd or 4th cycle, and I haevn't played in a week till today. I think I'm going to end up forgetting about it soon.

What brought this on, tridentboy?

Mmm? I've played d2 before, and been on d2jsp a lot. Check TridenT_Boy3555 as one of the usernames there.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: jonks
The poll makes me feel nice and warm inside.

me too... a little cold though.. The Yes results disturb me still.

Why?

Because many people interpret the texts in religion to mean things such as gay people equal bad people. It doesn't mean that agnostics or atheists won't do the same, but it is just far less likely IMO. Also atheists/agnostics tend to be more scientifically inclined, at least from what I see.

You incorrectly assume that everyone who posted yes follows a religion, or if they do, follows it fundamentally.

You are irrationally confusing hatefull fundamentalists with all believers. You are falling into the us vs them mentality.

I understand that you are young and gay. But please don't let the irrational hate of others make you hate indiscriminately too. That makes you no better than them.

85+% of people believe in a god in the US. But most of them have no problem with gays and lesbians. Remember that when you judge believers based on a subsection who irrationally hate gays.

You are reacting instead of acting. You are being a puppet.

BTW, the majority of scientists AND gays have some form of belief in a god or gods.

You incorrectly assumed I assumed that. I never said that did I?

I said many, not all. Did I not?

I'm not, actually. :-/ (Not gay)

Yet Prop 8 still passed...

Uh, how would I act?

I would love to see where you get that # for scientists. What fields of study?

Don't make false claims in threads then.

Condemning all for the deeds of many, especially a minority, is bigotry. Why are you so resistant to accepting your own bigotry?

Prop 8 passed not because of hatred of gays, but because of tradition. When polled, the majority of prop 8 supporters support a legal equivalent of "civil union." They just have a thing about the word "marriage." Silly? Yes, but that's the reality of it.

Google is your friend. I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true.

I shouldn't have to validate your numbers, you should be linking me!

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

You're getting closer. A claim to the negative may be unprovable -- but would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible? We we may not be able to prove that they aren't there. What if we look at it from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever? Then, for all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

If you make a claim that, by it's very nature is not disprovable, than it cannot be disproved.

Again, you're reaching. Why not try a practical example? All you are doing is creating more claims that are identical to the god claim. You are just making them more silly sounding in an attempt to make me back down.

I choose neutrality in that I have no reason to believe or disbelieve in a god. There is no evidence either way therefore no reason to consider it.

Please address my question directly. My example is fine. If you wanted, I could pick "prove saddam didn't have WMDs" but you get the point already.

So, answer the following:
1. would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible?

Now, assume that we look for evidence from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever.
2. For all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

I have to see where you stand on 1 & 2 before we wander to more complicated or less abstract discussions. I don't mean to stifle you from making a point, but if we want to get somewhere in this discussion, we can't bounce from topic to topic.