John_Doe wrote:The only thing you have his your ignorance of the human anatomy and your BS evidence of no pic no proof. I can with xrays, MRIs and knowledge of the human anatomy infer that i have a brain, keep trolling with your BS reasoning as it just makes you look more stupid each post.
Also I will now conclude that you have no brain, what do I have as evidence, all your retarded post combine. If you have no evidence to suggest your brains exists GTFO until farther noticed.
Have you done the xrays and MRIs etc to see if you have a brain (you might be surprised D;) Do you even have proof that you are human? DNA etc for example
I believe i have a brain, because as a "theist" i can believe in whatever i want without needing evidence
maybe i should stop now
let it gooooo let it gooooOoOooOOOOOO
Let her suck my pistol She open up her mouth and then I blow her brains out
I was going to stop posting here because the thread has been derailed into a cacophonous medley of insult-flinging and an overall lack of educated posts with many assertions and little substance (though I'm not implying that it was much better to begin with). There aren't many other threads as entertaining as this one though.
UnbeatableDevil wrote:I say you aren't human because you have no proof that you have a brain what so ever. If you still believe you are human, you are no better than the few hundreds who follow their religion blindly.
Hypocrisy ftw.
You keep using this argument ad nauseum even though it has unbelievably flawed logic and I'm willing to bet you yourself don't fully understand it. This is called an Argument from Ignorance, and it has such face-palm'ingly flawed logic that I'm not sure if you're willfully ignoring it just to keep being relevant in the discussion. When you're presented with two claims with equal ambiguity, you do not assume both have similar chances of being true. This is because reality is very specific in what is real and what is not. The fact is that there will always be more variations of the claim than reality can support which is why when extraordinary claims are presented, the default position we hold it to is 'not true'. However, when you compare something clearly in the realm of reality, like questioning the existence of the human brain, to something transcendent, like a god, it is not even a challenge. Since the human brain is already a well established fact of human anatomy, and therefore a fact of reality, you'd have to put the opposing claim to that same test of reality, which is where your argument falls and the logical fallacy begins. Your error is thinking that all claims begin equally plausible and get demoted if no new evidence is found.
i havent really been keeping up, but the general idea im getting is that unobservability = non existant. But ive been reading A brief history of time so i thought id quote something with hopes to get a better understanding:
Real gravitons make up what classical physicists would call gravitational waves, which are very weak – and so difficult to detect that they have not yet been observed.
as far as im aware, the theory of the genuine existance of a graviton is technically only speculative. the only thing we can do is observe the effect. if i hold the existance of the graviton to the standard many of you hold to the existance of god, would i be right to say it doesnt exist???
Fug_Dup wrote:I was going to stop posting here because the thread has been derailed into a cacophonous medley of insult-flinging and an overall lack of educated posts with many assertions and little substance (though I'm not implying that it was much better to begin with). There aren't many other threads as entertaining as this one though.
You keep using this argument ad nauseum even though it has unbelievably flawed logic and I'm willing to bet you yourself don't fully understand it. This is called an Argument from Ignorance, and it has such face-palm'ingly flawed logic that I'm not sure if you're willfully ignoring it just to keep being relevant in the discussion. When you're presented with two claims with equal ambiguity, you do not assume both have similar chances of being true. This is because reality is very specific in what is real and what is not. The fact is that there will always be more variations of the claim than reality can support which is why when extraordinary claims are presented, the default position we hold it to is 'not true'. However, when you compare something clearly in the realm of reality, like questioning the existence of the human brain, to something transcendent, like a god, it is not even a challenge. Since the human brain is already a well established fact of human anatomy, and therefore a fact of reality, you'd have to put the opposing claim to that same test of reality, which is where your argument falls and the logical fallacy begins. Your error is thinking that all claims begin equally plausible and get demoted if no new evidence is found.
let it gooooo let it gooooOoOooOOOOOO
Let her suck my pistol She open up her mouth and then I blow her brains out
CeLL wrote:i havent really been keeping up, but the general idea im getting is that unobservability = non existant. But ive been reading A brief history of time so i thought id quote something with hopes to get a better understanding:
Real gravitons make up what classical physicists would call gravitational waves, which are very weak – and so difficult to detect that they have not yet been observed.
as far as im aware, the theory of the genuine existance of a graviton is technically only speculative. the only thing we can do is observe the effect. if i hold the existance of the graviton to the standard many of you hold to the existance of god, would i be right to say it doesnt exist???
Yes, but you are aware the theory clearly state it is a hypothetical particle, unlike God. You ask us about gravitons we say its a hypothetical particle infer by observations, you ask a theist about god they said hes real by faith?
Fug_Dup wrote:I was going to stop posting here because the thread has been derailed into a cacophonous medley of insult-flinging and an overall lack of educated posts with many assertions and little substance (though I'm not implying that it was much better to begin with). There aren't many other threads as entertaining as this one though.
You keep using this argument ad nauseum even though it has unbelievably flawed logic and I'm willing to bet you yourself don't fully understand it. This is called an Argument from Ignorance, and it has such face-palm'ingly flawed logic that I'm not sure if you're willfully ignoring it just to keep being relevant in the discussion. When you're presented with two claims with equal ambiguity, you do not assume both have similar chances of being true. This is because reality is very specific in what is real and what is not. The fact is that there will always be more variations of the claim than reality can support which is why when extraordinary claims are presented, the default position we hold it to is 'not true'. However, when you compare something clearly in the realm of reality, like questioning the existence of the human brain, to something transcendent, like a god, it is not even a challenge. Since the human brain is already a well established fact of human anatomy, and therefore a fact of reality, you'd have to put the opposing claim to that same test of reality, which is where your argument falls and the logical fallacy begins. Your error is thinking that all claims begin equally plausible and get demoted if no new evidence is found.
"I'm not an evolved being, how dare you call me that" - Christian
Why bother fug_dup? The second you post something that includes...logic, they resort to troll posts. They are the reason these threads eventually get closed.
Xem posted a picture not too long ago that summed it up nicely, can't find it though =(
I love how Fug_Dup pretty much wrecks (in a good way) and then all the theist preachers (except CeLL) are trolling. And CeLL, I would argue simply that we observe gravity, in the sense of quantifiable observations etc. I am not sure what you are arguing 100%.
ZSZC Water - Pure Int S/S 3x ZSZC Fire - Pure Str Bow 4x ZSZC Fire - Pure Int Spear 4x
It seems what is being argued is if the glass is half full or half empty (not in a sort of pessimist/optimist way) but rather something that can be argued both ways without a clear right or wrong.
Shomari wrote:It seems what is being argued is if the glass is half full or half empty (not in a sort of pessimist/optimist way) but rather something that can be argued both ways without a clear right or wrong.
:/
ZSZC Water - Pure Int S/S 3x ZSZC Fire - Pure Str Bow 4x ZSZC Fire - Pure Int Spear 4x
Crumpets for Pres
