Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Tell me which one of these if greatest rivalry of all time.
Batman and The Joker
Spiderman and Green Goblin
Superman and Lex Luthor
X-Men and Magneto
Dr. Strange and Baron Mordo
Fantasic 4 and Dr. Doom
Thor and Loki
Captain America and The Red Skull
Silver Surfer and Galactus
Iron Man and The Mandarin
The Hulk and Abomination
Daredevil and The Kingpin

You should try the comic book forum...

the greatest rivalry?

Christendom vs Islamdom

the whopper vs the big mac or coke vs pepsi

Peanut Butter Vs Jelly

Laurel vs Hardy

Goku and Vegeta.

Jotaro and Dio. Though, you could make a case for Dio and the entire Joestar family.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/221/461791525_eb7ae87ff4.jpg

Habs / Bruins

Flesh light vs hand

Yankees/Red Sox
Hal Jordan/Sinestro

Superman/Lex Luthor

DC vs Marvel

loeb/good

In reality, Real madrid/Barcelona

In comics Superman/Hulk

Popeye and Bluto

Originally posted by Zack Fair
loeb/good

Originally posted by Zack Fair
loeb/poop
Fixed.

Silver Surfer & Galactus shouldn't be in there; not a strictly adversarial relationship.

Batman vs the Joker is very iconic and symbolic. But, there's something special about Daredevil vs. Kingpin - it is so deep & embittered. A contest of wills that's gone on for decades (years in the comic), trying everything to break the will of the other. The fights are personal, vicious brawls.
It's what distinguishes it from others like Superman/Lex Luthor, Captain America/Red Skull, FF4/Doom, and even Batman/Joker to a degree - there, it's one side doing everything to harass & destroy the other, & the other side just waits for it, puts up with it & tries not to think about them otherwise.
Not like the chess game of life Daredevil & the Kingpin(and by proxy, Bullseye) are trapped in.

.

Originally posted by I'm Bran
.

I don't see these as a rivalry at all.

They complement each other more than anything.

Please stay on topic, Bran...

I'm going to go with Batman and Joker. Everyone knows them, even if they don't read comics.

coke and pepsi or batman and joker

Originally posted by Captain REX
Please stay on topic, Bran...

I'm going to go with Batman and Joker. Everyone knows them, even if they don't read comics.

biscuits

Originally posted by Captain REX
Please stay on topic, Bran...

The Sea v The Land


Oh this was moved to the comic book forum, didn´t know it was a comic book base question

I´d have to go for Xavier V Magnetto.

Both leaders with apposing ideals with lots of talented followers.

Goku vs. Vegeta...easy.

Originally posted by I'm Bran
.

That signature is offensive.

Me and Phenomenol

j/k

I'll go with Cap vs Red Skull only because it literally spans decades of comic book time.

Dr.Light vs Age of consent

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Dr.Light vs Age of consent

You mean Hal?

Wolverine/Saberooth
and Jin/Hwoarang for non-comic rivalry...

Claw and Inspector Gadget.
Batman and Joker
Splinter and Shredder

Punisher/Daredevil.

Because any other Hero/Villain rivalry isn't really a rivalry since the heroes pretty much win.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You should try the comic book forum...

the greatest rivalry?

Christendom vs Islamdom

Rationality vs religion.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Rationality vs religion.

Positivism vs Spiritual experience?

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Rationality vs religion.

Now that's an ignorant response.

You're basing your opinion, on other people's opinions ? And contrary to some beliefs, naming a multitude of philosophers and the like doesn't make you seem smarter.

And as long as they aren't passing their opinions as facts like you do, no, they are not ignorant.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Most rational internal beliefs (not external like sensory data) are based on the opinions of others.

Or have you actually observed the earth from Space to see that its round, or tried heroine to see that its dangerous ?

And no im not stating it as a fact, its just a very rational opinion, i.e. similar to the notion that the sun will probably rise tomorrow.

You seem to have a hard time differentiating opinion from fact. It's not some random person's accepted opinion on Earth's form as seen from space or the effects of heroine. It's a proven fact. For somebody who tries to pass off as smart, you've made an awfully stupid comparison.

I'm not going to argue your opinion, simply because I do not care for it. I was just calling your reponse, stating that rationality and religion as the greatest rivalry of all time, ignorant and quite frankly not having anything to do with a comic book forum.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
P.S. Calvin, the founder of most of the nmodern forms of Christianity, regarded rationality as the work of the Devil.

Which is funny because there are lots of modern Christians who thing Calvin was completely out of his mind about many things. Also funny because rational people would known that Calvin represents . . . well Calvin himself and really nobody else.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
I suppose David Hume, Frederick Nietzsche, Jean Paul Sartre, Bertrand Russel are all ignorant then ?

Definitely, to name but one of their faults.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is funny because there are lots of modern Christians who thing Calvin was completely out of his mind about many things. Also funny because rational people would known that Calvin represents . . . well Calvin himself and really nobody else.

Agreed

I'm a Christian and whilst Calvin had many interesting arguments, I don't subscribe to Calvinism. In fact many Christian's don't.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

This might sound a little idiosyncratic but You cannot "know" anything for sure. Hence my examples.

Brain In Vats, World Wide Conspiracy's etc.

Just like you can't know that the attitude of not being able to really know anything is correct, either.

Originally posted by willRules




Just like you can't know that the attitude of not being able to really know anything is correct, either.

That's is easily one of the cleverest responses i have ever read on this forum. But skepticism is one of the only analytical truths one can know, hence Descartes only decent contribution to philosophy "One can know one is doubting because this thought process is a form of doubting itself". Cogito I'l Sum, I think therefore I am.

Originally posted by willRules
Definitely, to name but one of their faults.

David Hume and Betrand Russel are arguably two of the cleverest people to have ever existed. Suggesting they are ignorant is like saying happiness is bad. There are cases in which you can argue that happiness is infact bad (pedophillia etc), but the general consensus is that it is a really good thing.

Originally posted by willRules
Agreed

I'm a Christian and whilst Calvin had many interesting arguments, I don't subscribe to Calvinism. In fact many Christian's don't.


Yeah ... but if you don't take the Calvanist perspective you get into deep water into clarifying which parts of the bible are symbolism and metaphorical.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
David Hume and Betrand Russel are arguably two of the cleverest people to have ever existed. Suggesting they are ignorant is like saying happiness is bad. There are cases in which you can argue that happiness is infact bad (pedophillia etc), but the general consensus is that it is a really good thing.

Happiness is a bad thing considering that attempts to make oneself happy are usually ineffective and damaging in the long run. Also cleverness and ignorance are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Yeah ... but if you don't take the Calvanist perspective you get into deep water into clarifying which parts of the bible are symbolism and metaphorical.

Sadly for you this doesn't happen in practice.

angolena jolie and jennifer anderston

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos




Sadly for you this doesn't happen in practice.

Sadly for you ... as if I prefer the Aithiest option ?

And yes it does all the time ... One of the main reason that secularization has become so prominent since the 1950's is because the church started moving away from its conservative routes. Churches started becoming really ambiguous about which parts of the bible to take literally and which parts to interpret metaphorically. Hence why the Western world lives is in a prominently secularized state.

Hence the controversy surrounding issues such as Homosexuality and sex before marriage. If its so obvious how one is supposed to interpret the bible, how do you interpret very controversial verses such as; Exodus 34; 13 - 17, Genesis 20; 2-5, Judges 19 chapter 11? Or how do you explain how the Vatican only yesterday recognized the compliance of Darwinian science with creation? Even the most senior, educated members of the Churches constituency can't see the apparent transparency of the bibles definitive meaning, let alone the masses who still believe in it.

So no you are wrong. Stating something and actually showing are very different things, matey.

Well this thread went off - track fast

Anyway Martin Luther was the one who said that reason was evil, IIRC

And solipsism is just annoying

And as an atheist I would like to say that this discussion has no place here and should be taken to the general discussion forum

Originally posted by Endless Mike
And as an atheist I would like to say that this discussion has no place here and should be taken to the general discussion forum

There's also a religion forum where he can go dicking around and discover that he isn't alone.

Donald Trump - Good haircut

Originally posted by Martian_mind
Shit like this is why you're one of my favourite posters ever to grace this forum.

So few people ever seem willing to call out Cartesian as the pretentious wanker he is.



You're a hot peice of ass too.

Pretentious ... yes

Wanker ... yes

Smarter than you ... yes

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's also a religion forum where he can go dicking around and discover that he isn't alone.

How is it dicking around ?

A lot of others tried to shift the thread off topic previously and few were met with the same hostility. Its funny how I can back up my responses, where as like most religious Zealots (Note that im not implying that you are a religious zealot, just that you are responding ina similar fashion), make refutable claims and then don't back them up. There's a diffrence between responding to a claim and actually refuting it.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Well this thread went off - track fast

Anyway Martin Luther was the one who said that reason was evil, IIRC

And solipsism is just annoying

And as an atheist I would like to say that this discussion has no place here and should be taken to the general discussion forum

Im not advocating solipsism, and Im not an Aithest. I see myself more as a trans-humanist Deist. i was simply highlighting the fact that rationalism and empiricism have generally been at odds with religion since Aristotle. You cannot really claim otherwise without ignoring 2 000 years of history.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Pretentious ... yes

Wanker ... yes

Smarter than you ... yes


Never claimed otherwise.

Though fortunately,I have several other redeeming features.

Originally posted by Martian_mind
Never claimed otherwise.

Though fortunately,I have several other redeeming features.

Im glad we agree.

You seem like a nice chap.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Im glad we agree.

You seem like a nice chap.

Hey,it's not personal,I just fail to see the need to spin-off into random tangents in "I'm smarter then you" pissing contests.Also,in Oz it's bloke,not chap.

Originally posted by Martian_mind
Hey,it's not personal,I just fail to see the need to spin-off into random tangents in "I'm smarter then you" pissing contests.Also,in Oz it's bloke,not chap.

Its also steal and not buy ...





















Probably tell im from England.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Its also steal and not buy ..

Probably tell im from England.


Go scull a lager.

Actually,i retract that,I wouldn't wish that horse piss on anyone.

Originally posted by Martian_mind
Go scull a lager.

Actually,i retract that,I wouldn't wish that horse piss on anyone.

thats because half of its made in your country

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
That's is easily one of the cleverest responses i have ever read on this forum. But skepticism is one of the only analytical truths one can know, hence Descartes only decent contribution to philosophy "One can know one is doubting because this thought process is a form of doubting itself". Cogito I'l Sum, I think therefore I am.

Oh well if Descartes said it the it's a given fact right? Oh wait....

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Most rational internal beliefs (not external like sensory data) are based on the opinions of others.

Or have you actually observed the earth from Space to see that its round, or tried heroine to see that its dangerous ? Did you go back in time to witness Hitlers invasion of Russia ? The list goes on and on btw.

Not saying I disagree with Descartes, just your method of argument


Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
David Hume and Betrand Russel are arguably two of the cleverest people to have ever existed. Suggesting they are ignorant is like saying happiness is bad. There are cases in which you can argue that happiness is infact bad (pedophillia etc), but the general consensus is that it is a really good thing.

Nope, I can safely say they appeared ignorant to me

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Yeah ... but if you don't take the Calvanist perspective you get into deep water into clarifying which parts of the bible are symbolism and metaphorical.

Not really, I have a God who helps with that. "I think because he loves me." - willRules

I apologise for contributing to the continued derailment of this thread

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
David Hume and Betrand Russel are arguably two of the cleverest people to have ever existed. Suggesting they are ignorant is like saying happiness is bad. There are cases in which you can argue that happiness is infact bad (pedophillia etc), but the general consensus is that it is a really good thing. I find it ironic that you can back up your opinions/'facts' by claiming that it's impossible to prove anything as fact, and then, mere posts later, assert that others' beliefs concerning people you've only read about, are wrong.

One can't know anything, but one can know that Hume and Russel were extremely clever, and saying otherwise is akin to saying happiness is bad?

Originally posted by Original Smurph
I find it ironic that you can back up your opinions/'facts' by claiming that it's impossible to prove anything as fact, and then, mere posts later, assert that others' beliefs concerning people you've only read about, are wrong.

One can't know anything, but one can know that Hume and Russel were extremely clever, and saying otherwise is akin to saying happiness is bad?

My point exactly

Originally posted by Original Smurph
I find it ironic that you can back up your opinions/'facts' by claiming that it's impossible to prove anything as fact, and then, mere posts later, assert that others' beliefs concerning people you've only read about, are wrong.

One can't know anything, but one can know that Hume and Russel were extremely clever, and saying otherwise is akin to saying happiness is bad?

Actually i can, its called contextualism, and its a very popular epistemological theory.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/

It allows one to meanigfully talk about "knowing" about trivial things e.g. i Know I will go to college tomorrow, without having to worry about things like being a Brain in a Vat.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Actually i can, its called contextualism, and its a very popular epistemological theory.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/

It allows one to meanigfully talk about "knowing" about trivial things e.g. i Know I will go to college tomorrow, without having to worry about things like being a Brain in a Vat.

Which seems to amount to simply ignoring stuff when it's inconvenient. Then again your link is impenetrable.

Originally posted by willRules




Not saying I disagree with Descartes, just your method of argument

This doesn't really effectively challenge anything. Your response amounts tovery circular reasoning which is unfortunately common.

"Your arguement is bad, because your argument is bad"




Originally posted by willRules
Nope, I can safely say they appeared ignorant to me

Its funny how one can't help noticing that word idiosyncratic sounds a bit like the words idiot and spastic put together ?


Originally posted by willRules
Not really, I have a God who helps with that. "I think because he loves me." - willRules


So how exactly do you know that your God loves you ?, i hazard a guess that it maybe based on what has been said by the bible or what someone has interpreted in the bible and then passed onto yourself. Its funny how i've heard simillar interpretations and am yet to be convinced that any God, whether its Muhammad, Jehovah, Yahweh, Darksied, Jesus, Zeus, Xenu or Zoltan loves me in any way what so ever. However im skeptical about the lock ness monster, UFO's and Father Christmas as well. The point is, unless you've had some Cartesian innate idea about God existence, you cannot claim your perspective on religion hasn't been influenced by another hearsay source of Authority. In the end all Christian sources of Authority lead back to the bible. I would take the rationality of David Hume and Bertrand Russel (Those you have idiosyncratically claimed to be ignorant) over that weird hypocritical nonsense any day of the week.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which seems to amount to simply ignoring stuff when it's inconvenient. Then again your link is impenetrable.

Impenetrable ?

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Actually i can, its called contextualism, and its a very popular epistemological theory.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/

It allows one to meanigfully talk about "knowing" about trivial things e.g. i Know I will go to college tomorrow, without having to worry about things like being a Brain in a Vat. Yet you still fail to address your own inconsistencies, which was what my post was about.

At one point, you justify your own opinions by claiming that nothing is truly fact, then you claim that you can treat trivial things as fact for the sake of an argument.

If you respond again, try to have it contain more than a link to a theory, followed by an explanation that has little to do with what I said.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
I understood it enough to use it as main revision source for my exam.

Philosophy major?

Originally posted by Original Smurph
Yet you still fail to address your own inconsistencies, which was what my post was about.

At one point, you justify your own opinions by claiming that nothing is truly fact, then you claim that you can treat trivial things as fact for the sake of an argument.

If you respond again, try to have it contain more than a link to a theory, followed by an explanation that has little to do with what I said.

No it means that different situations require differing amounts of evidence to prove the knowledge is a J.T.B. (Justified true belief). Making a claim like someone is clever (E.g. Bertrand Russel) is requires less eveidence/justification to be supported than the notion that there is an all powerful, all knowing psychopath who created the universe while promoting the molestation and rape of children and the genocide of entire races, as well as requiring the sacrificing of children and men for his appraisal.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Philosophy major?

No .... in fashion

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
No .... in fashion

Then I assume you would have spent time studying the is rather than being handed an extensive article on the subject with little context and less background.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
No it means that different situations require differing amounts of evidence to prove the knowledge is a J.T.B. (Justified true belief). Making a claim like someone is clever (E.g. Bertrand Russel) is requires less eveidence/justification to be supported than the notion that there is an all powerful, all knowing psychopath who created the universe while promoting the molestation and rape of children and the genocide of entire races, as well as requiring the sacrificing of children and men for his appraisal.

You provided no evidence that Bertrand Russel was clever . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then I assume you would have spent time studying the is rather than being handed an extensive article on the subject with little context.



You provided no evidence that Bertrand Russel was clever . . .

Well to name one of his many, many achievements he basically was the first person to dick on Frege's template for Propositional logic, which is used to prove things like 1 + 1 = 2. He was also Ludwig Wittgenstein (Who was in fact a Christian)tutor, whose is arguably the greatest philosopher who ever lived. I.e. he basically invented the philosophy of Language.

I wish everyone would stop challenging me and start providing some sort of evidence that religion is rational that doesn't involve Aquinas, Pascal, Descrates or William frikin Paley.

The point is all rational explanaitions of God fail miserably. Hence my original claim, God vs Rationality.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
No it means that different situations require differing amounts of evidence to prove the knowledge is a J.T.B. (Justified true belief). Making a claim like someone is clever (E.g. Bertrand Russel) is requires less eveidence/justification to be supported than the notion that there is an all powerful, all knowing psychopath who created the universe while promoting the molestation and rape of children and the genocide of entire races, as well as requiring the sacrificing of children and men for his appraisal. I don't see where I stated anything concerning religion.

You claimed you could present your opinions as facts because nothing was necessarily fact.

You then essentially asserted that someone was wrong based on what we know (the facts) about Russel and Hume.

Originally posted by Original Smurph
I don't see where I stated anything concerning religion.

You claimed you could present your opinions as facts because nothing was necessarily fact.

You then essentially asserted that someone was wrong based on what we know (the facts) about Russel and Hume.

Oh God this is so annoying ... re read my post.

The God bashing in my last response, isn't point of the post. Its an example of when higher levels of evidence are required to produce what we regard as knowledge, mainly because the stakes of the claim are higher.

Ok if you don't want a humorous example i'll provide a more mundane one.

I claim that my Uni locker is locked. There is nothing in the locker, so the stakes are very low in this case.

However If you where going to hide 20,000 pounds of cocaine in my locker, and we found that it had been burgled, you would now be a lot more skeptical about my the claim; i had locked my locker ?

When the stakes are higher, the evidence required to prove your justified true belief increase proportionally.

Thats what the God bashing was trying to highlight. ... God !

When it comes to asserting that Bertrand Russel is clever, we require very little evidence, as its quite a verifiable trivial claim.

When it comes to proving the claim that there is an all powerful psychopathic God who is simultaneously all loving and all knowing, the stakes have have increased substantially. In this case we have to turn to logic, rational and science as sources of Authority. The claims of a few nutcases who lived nearly 2,000 years ago while spouting irrational contradictions, are not going to hold any weight when the stakes are this high.

As i mentioned previously the claim that I know that Bertrand Russel is clever, requires far less intensive scrutiny as the stakes are low.

Therefore I "KNOW" that Bertarnd Russel is clever, but I don't "know" that I didn't dream him or that the world is flat etc.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
This doesn't really effectively challenge anything. Your response amounts tovery circular reasoning which is unfortunately common.

"Your arguement is bad, because your argument is bad"


Its funny how one can't help noticing that word idiosyncratic sounds a bit like the words idiot and spastic put together ?

Well that's my opinion and it's very kind of you to ridicule me for it Nah, I wouldn't insult you because of your view and I hope you can find the decency not to do the same to me

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
So how exactly do you know that your God loves you ?, i hazard a guess that it maybe based on what has been said by the bible or what someone has interpreted in the bible and then passed onto yourself. Its funny how i've heard simillar interpretations and am yet to be convinced that any God, whether its Muhammad, Jehovah, Yahweh, Darksied, Jesus, Zeus, Xenu or Zoltan loves me in any way what so ever. However im skeptical about the lock ness monster, UFO's and Father Christmas as well. The point is, unless you've had some Cartesian innate idea about God existence, you cannot claim your perspective on religion hasn't been influenced by another hearsay source of Authority. In the end all Christian sources of Authority lead back to the bible. I would take the rationality of David Hume and Bertrand Russel (Those you have idiosyncratically claimed to be ignorant) over that weird hypocritical nonsense any day of the week.

Well I'd love to go into a debate with you about the historical reliability of the Bible (especially when compared to other sources from the period and numerous other religious sources) but that seems like a another derailed conversation for another time.

Did I gather this from my interpretation of the Bible? From what someone told me about the Bible? No actually. I know the comment I made from one of many personal experiences. My biggest and most significant influence in my mind is undoubtedly a higher power speaking to me on a very personal level.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Oh God this is so annoying ... At last, we agree.

You've done a wonderful job of dodging everything I've said, and managing not to address the one point that I've consistently highlighted- the fact that you're completely hypocritical and inconsistent with what you regard as a reasonable argument. You simultaneously believe that your opinions can't be wrong because nothing can be proven as fact, and believe that others' opinions are wrong. That is the only point to this whole discussion, and not once have you actually responded to it, instead resorting to discussing the irrelevant and off base, and then telling me I need to re-read what you've written.

Originally posted by Original Smurph
At last, we agree.

You've done a wonderful job of dodging everything I've said, and managing not to address the one point that I've consistently highlighted- the fact that you're completely hypocritical and inconsistent with what you regard as a reasonable argument. You simultaneously believe that your opinions can't be wrong because nothing can be proven as fact, and believe that others' opinions are wrong. That is the only point to this whole discussion, and not once have you actually responded to it, instead resorting to discussing the irrelevant and off base, and then telling me I need to re-read what you've written.

Can you not actually read my posts or are you illiterate or something ?

Can we please get on topic? God-bashing has NOTHING to do with tremendous rivalries...

Courtney Love - Sanity

Amy Whinehouse - Being sober

Woody Allen - Desire to participate in the first role in his movies

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
I suppose David Hume, Frederick Nietzsche, Jean Paul Sartre, Bertrand Russel are all ignorant then ?

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

Good vs Evil

Originally posted by kgkg
Good vs Evil

Like I said, Dr.Light vs Age of consent.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Like I said, Dr.Light vs Age of consent. there's an age for consent?.........droolio

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Yes, yes, yes and yes.

Last in-thread warning, kids. Rex already told you to stop with the trolling and off-topic crap. At this point, it's an official warning to anyone who continues it.

Originally posted by Digi
Last in-thread warning, kids. Rex already told you to stop with the trolling and off-topic crap. At this point, it's an official warning to anyone who continues it.

Troll

Originally posted by Nihilist
there's an age for consent?.........droolio

Not in my mind

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Can you not actually read my posts or are you illiterate or something ? lulz