The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Dr McBeefington3,287 pages

Originally posted by Zampanó
Cosmological: Everything needs a cause, unto infinity, so there must have been a first cause (which may as well be called god).
Ontological: We can imagine a perfect being. Non-existence is an imperfection so the perfect being exists. This perfect being is god.
Teleological: (had to wiki this one) This is the argument from design; nature is far more complicated than the things humans can make. If you found a watch (very complicated) lying on the beach, you would not imagine that it had simply happened--you infer a designer. The universe is thus compared with a watch found on the beach.

The problem with these arguments, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, is that going from "First Cause" to "Personal God" is too much of a leap. I might concede the necessity of an unmoved mover (in a word, Deism) but that isn't enough to prove a personal God. (And I'm not even sure I concede that much, to be honest.)

And on the other side of the debate, truthful Epistemology has to acknowledge that it is impossible to prove a negative. To quote Hermione Granger,

Very interesting.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
There's a reason we have the written torah and the oral torah. I never said I accept everything or anything in Leviticus, it's just that I find it amusing that those without any knowledge take a literal meaning and call it stupid. For instance, I can at least call some of the rabbinic laws stupid because I understand them. Now whether I'm right or wrong, is another story. I'm sure we will agree on many interpretations, btw.

I don't see how you could interpret the silly Leviticus stuff as anything but literal. 'Don't eat shrimp' doesn't have quite the same metaphorical punch as... well, anything. Thats pretty literal.

Originally posted by Zampanó

Ontological: We can imagine a perfect being. Non-existence is an imperfection so the perfect being exists. This perfect being is god.

Ugh. I've always found that argument to be absurd.

That argument is easily the stupidest argument for the existence of God. Anselm was a complete retard.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I don't see how you could interpret the silly Leviticus stuff as anything but literal. 'Don't eat shrimp' doesn't have quite the same metaphorical punch as... well, anything. Thats pretty literal.

Find out the reasons given for the prohibition.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I suppose.. Or you COULD at least provide an argument supporting your assertion (ironic since you just called me out on that).

How the hell do I need to provide a source for Leviticus being stupid? You realize that it says you can't cut the hair at your temples, wear clothing from two different cloth types, touch swine's flesh, nor can you come near a woman if she's in period? Do I need to find a scholarly journal that agrees with my opinion on a source available to everyone?

This from the guy who off-handedly does this:

I'd say the black community in this country is still playing the victim/race card decades after MLK. They will never be satisfied so the answer for them, as well as the homosexual community, is "more".

And this:

Laughably skewed? Absolutely not. While I wouldn't go as far to say it's dead even with the white folk, there are plenty of morons out there like Jesse Jackson or Sharpton (with a cult following) who are still stuck in the 60s. When something goes wrong, it's the man's fault. The African American is just a victim. That kind of mentality doesn't go away.

And Janus I think you missed the point which is why you're focusing on my statement, which didn't matter. These two groups of people (not everyone in them) enjoy a good crusade. I'm actually ok with allowing same sex marriages to see if they nut up and shut up, or if they demand some other rights.

And this gem:

BS, because we've also discussed kids being driven to suicide just for cyberbullying. In fact, we had a whole discussion about that a few months ago on KMC. Not that it matters though because I can simply argue that the media focuses more on cyberbullying as a result of homosexuality rather than just cyberbullying. It's the media, not an objective fact finder.

So essentially, here's how you've supported your arguments:

[list][*]Constitution Daily articles
[*]Cracked articles (Wait, no nvm)
[*]Completely refusing to acknowledge valid points by opposition; using your own assertions as self-supporting, but requiring some kind of objective proof from others; dismissing any such objective proof should it be presented; repeating assertion with new words.[/list]

And please show understanding of Leviticus, not just a literal (or YOUR) interpretation. Not that I support Leviticus, but your statement makes the anti religious seem as ignorant as the religious.

I'm confused. So because I agree with some religious arguments, that makes me religious? Because I have a belief in God, that makes me religious? I guess you and I have different definitions of what makes one religious. If I were truly religious, like other religious people are, for me there would be no secular viewpoint.

I bolded and then colored the text which showcases your amazing sophistry and inability to recognize common definitions in an effort to equally debate with other people to reach some kind of mutual conclusion.

In other words, you just spin-doctor the **** out of anything said that you don't agree with just so you can avoid actually defending your own half-assed arguments and somehow come away looking better. This is the last time I will address your points period, on RoK or here if you're going to insist on this one-sided debating style.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
How the hell do I need to provide a source for Leviticus being stupid? You realize that it says you can't cut the hair at your temples, wear clothing from two different cloth types, touch swine's flesh, nor can you come near a woman if she's in period? Do I need to find a scholarly journal that agrees with my opinion on a source available to everyone?

No, because it's apparently stupid because you say it is. And your response is the reason I wrote this:
There's a reason we have the written torah and the oral torah. I never said I accept everything or anything in Leviticus, it's just that I find it amusing that those without any knowledge take a literal meaning and call it stupid.

This from the guy who off-handedly does this:

Amusing response from a guy who went on an Oprah like tirade that had nothing to do with anything

And this:

Which is supported by everyday daytime tv shows as well as political shows. Swing and a miss.

And this gem:

Yup, I said that the while cyberbullying and cyberbullying in response to homosexuality exists, the media tends to focus more on the homosexual issue as this is the hypersensitive issue of our country. Your response to this fact was a paper indicating the cyberbullying of homosexuals and suicidal tendencies... Talk about gems.

So essentially, here's how you've supported your arguments:

[list][*]Constitution Daily articles
[*]Cracked articles (Wait, no nvm)
[*]Completely refusing to acknowledge valid points by opposition; using your own assertions as self-supporting, but requiring some kind of objective proof from others; dismissing any such objective proof should it be presented; repeating assertion with new words.[/list]


As opposed to:
1. Quoting a source you didn't actually list so nobody had any idea what you were quoting.
2. Spinning your own logic from said source in order to come up with your desired conclusion
3. The hypocrisy of the bolded text is too funny to pass up, especially since that's the 3rd or 4th time you've been called out on it. Speaking of using own assertions as self supporting. This coming from a guy that calls leviticus stupid because "they say eating shrimp is bad!!"? LOL
Also, I made it clear that what I said about the black community was based on my experiences. Way to read Janus.

I bolded and then colored the text which showcases your amazing sophistry and inability to recognize common definitions in an effort to equally debate with other people to reach some kind of mutual conclusion.

Yes, and I mentioned to RH as much, your continual inability to follow simple logic. It's not my fault you're having time grasping such a simple concept.

In other words, you just spin-doctor the **** out of anything said that you don't agree with just so you can avoid actually defending your own half-assed arguments and somehow come away looking better. This is the last time I will address your points period, on RoK or here if you're going to insist on this one-sided debating style. [/B]
😆 😂
Dear lord, I call you out on your hypocrisy and spinning arguments to fit your own conclusions and you...Repeat me? Do us all a favor and don't address anybody's arguments because you'll waste less text and people will be less confused as to what you're talking about and what you're currently smoking, depending on your current tirade and inconsequential rebuttals. At least attempt to be objective instead of ranting on about someone else's supposed subjectivity. 😂 😂

Yes, and I mentioned to RH as much, your continual inability to follow simple logic. It's not my fault you're having time grasping such a simple concept.

Keep me out of this.

Originally posted by Zampanó
Keep me out of this.
Well I DID mention it a few hours ago and you WERE the person I mentioned it to and you DID say that Janus is a retarded chimp worthy of the GOP Debates... So....

Hey don't hate the player hate the game.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-problems-with-living-in-game-thrones-universe/

I am now declared as a triple major in Economics, Math, and Philosophy. Two of my advisers (econ/math) say that if I don't [gently love] up the GRE AND I get my ass published, then I have a shot at full rides to top-ten Ph.D programs. You guys, if I get into Chicago for grad school, you don't even know. Hell, I don't even know.

Today was a good day.

So you're going to spend 6 years and $xx, xxx+ in undergrad and then possibly $xxx,xxx+ for 5 years in grad school only to come out and maybe be employed? Interesting strategy.

At least he knows what he kinda sorta wants to do. I'm in College right now and I have no ****ing clue what I want to even major in.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
So you're going to spend 6 years and $xx, xxx+ in undergrad and then possibly $xxx,xxx+ for 5 years in grad school only to come out and maybe be employed? Interesting strategy.

I'm being paid to go to undergrad, am graduating in 4 years (could be 3 w/o the math degree) and plan to be paid to go to grad school, as well.

Then I'll nab a kooshy professorship and enjoy the highest ratio of pay:hrs worked in the nation.

Oh you're getting a full ride to undergrad. How are you graduating in 4 years as a triple major? Also, you'll have to be 100% perfect on your GRE if you expect a full ride. Law schools don't give full rides anymore unless your GPA/LSAT are both perfect, and even then its not a guarantee. And highest ratio of pay:hrs? So you'll make 150k a year working 80 hours?

How are you graduating in 4 years as a triple major?

Transfer Credit.

Originally posted by Zampanó
Transfer Credit.

Oh that's cool thought you were still in high school. Unless you're in honors and your high school has college classes.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Oh that's cool thought you were still in high school. Unless you're in honors and your high school has college classes.

No, I'm in my 1st year of college now. Last year I took college classes (on campus) and had a bunch of AP credit throughout the whole time period.