If you can't make the obvious connection, it's really your own fault.
You don't expect to be spoon fed your whole life. Or do you?
It's abundantly evident you're confused. Like a child who wanders into the middle of a film they can't possibly begin to comprehend, but demands to know what is going on.
edit: you really should go back and listen to my advice. <--- more free great advice
Originally posted by Robtard
If you can't make the obvious connection, it's really your own fault.You don't expect to be spoon fed your whole life. Or do you?
It's abundantly evident you're confused. Like a child who wanders into the middle of a film they can't possibly begin to comprehend, but demands to know what is going on.
It's obvious if I take your word for it, which I suppose I do. I'm not entitled to do that simply because you expect it, though.
I've made it evidently clear I'm not confused so if you ironically cannot, at the bare minimum, understand that, I'm not sure what else I can do for you.
For all I know, you f*cked up and meant religion. However, you could have just been vague and lazily referenced Christianity using the term "religion" which, you know, you were being precise about, like saying you were really trying to get a point across about apples but used the word "fruit" instead. Without referencing apples, of course.
I'll buy it. We can never prove otherwise but, even though you're acting foolish about it, I suppose I believe you. That's all we can really do, though.
Making the obvious connection after 'it' has been qualified is expected. We're not in kindergarten now.
If I take your word for it, which I will, cos I am kind.
If you follow the flow of what I was saying and the qualifier of "Christianity" I used, you'd see I was referring to Christianity all along. This is why I thought you were confused.
See, when you say that, you come off as still being confused. Oh well.
Originally posted by Robtard
Making the obvious connection after 'it' has been qualified is expected. We're not in kindergarten now.If I take your word for it, which I will, cos I am kind.
If you follow the flow of what I was saying and the qualifier of "Christianity" I used, you'd see I was referring to Christianity all along. This is why I thought you were confused.
See, when you say that, you come off as still being confused. Oh well.
No, not at all, which I made clear. This is all a fancy way of saying, "Okay, so I was vague. If you don't assume, you're confused."
Also, I don't think you know what a qualifier is. It has to modify an adverb or adjective. Example: I antagonized her a little bit. You saying "religion" instead of "Christianity" isn't a f*cking qualifier, you dope.
If I follow the "flow" of what you were saying? Hahaha, man. You messed up. You were vague where you should have been specific. It's not a big deal. However, don't sit here and blame everyone else for your sh*t communication.
Also, you don't have to take my word for it because I indicated that I knew beforehand. You could gather this by reading, as opposed to merely looking at what I've posted.
Originally posted by The Renegade
No, not at all, which I made clear. This is all a fancy way of saying, "Okay, so I was vague. If you don't assume, you're confused."Also, I don't think you know what a qualifier is. It has to modify an adverb or adjective. Example: I antagonized her [b]a little bit
. You saying "religion" instead of "Christianity" isn't a f*cking qualifier, you dope.If I follow the "flow" of what you were saying? Hahaha, man. You messed up. You were vague where you should have been specific. It's not a big deal. However, don't sit here and blame everyone else for your sh*t communication.
Also, you don't have to take my word for it because I indicated that I knew beforehand. You could gather this by reading, as opposed to merely looking at what I've posted. [/B]
No assumptions were needed. Is English not your first languag? I think this might be the problem.
Qualifier: "a word (such as an adjective or adverb) or phrase that describes another word or group of words." When I used "Christianity", it described my earlier use of "religion" and "religious", which needed no assuming, just basic English comprehension skills. Seems English is indeed your second language. No worries, mate, no need to rage and get personal over it.
See above. I think we discovered the source of your earlier confusion. Being pissy about it still is silly.
You only thought you knew, see above. Hope it's all cleared up now. Cheers.
Originally posted by Robtard
Religious people who dismiss the scientific method generally don't dismiss everything science has proved/given humanity. It's generally just the parts that don't gel with the Bible. Evolution probably being the biggest cause of religious painal.
Originally posted by Robtard
If you follow the flow of what I was saying and the qualifier of "Christianity" I used, you'd see I was referring to Christianity all along.
I don't know if you intended to have "pain" or "denial" or something else entirely when you typed "painal", but, it might be worth pointing out that Christians are not the only religious people who have objections to the teachings of evolution.
Followers of Islam have similar objections, as made explicit in my very first thread in the Religion Forum:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=576376
which features the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAPqwOV8zn8
6 min 39 sec
Originally posted by The RenegadeI understood completely.
No, not at all, which I made clear. This is all a fancy way of saying, "Okay, so I was vague. If you don't assume, you're confused."Also, I don't think you know what a qualifier is. It has to modify an adverb or adjective. Example: I antagonized her [b]a little bit
. You saying "religion" instead of "Christianity" isn't a f*cking qualifier, you dope.If I follow the "flow" of what you were saying? Hahaha, man. You messed up. You were vague where you should have been specific. It's not a big deal. However, don't sit here and blame everyone else for your sh*t communication.
Also, you don't have to take my word for it because I indicated that I knew beforehand. You could gather this by reading, as opposed to merely looking at what I've posted. [/B]
Maybe you're just not very intelligent?
Originally posted by Robtard
No assumptions were needed. Is English not your first languag? I think this might be the problem.Qualifier: "a word (such as an adjective or adverb) or phrase that describes another word or group of words." When I used "Christianity", it described my earlier use of "religion" and "religious", which needed no assuming, just basic English comprehension skills. Seems English is indeed your second language. No worries, mate, no need to rage and get personal over it.
See above. I think we discovered the source of your earlier confusion. Being pissy about it still is silly.
You only thought you knew, see above. Hope it's all cleared up now. Cheers.
That's "language." Nice cliched jab, though.
You didn't use Christianity until after. Here, check it out:
Originally posted by Robtard
Let me ask you this, how do you think the smallpox vaccine can around? By people science'ing it up or praying for a cure?
Originally posted by Robtard
That would be sciencey, you stupid ass.Go take a nap.
Originally posted by Robtard
To be fair, I've seen many a secularist/self-labeled atheist dismiss religion and they've not read a single page of the Bible.Religious people who dismiss the scientific method generally don't dismiss everything science has proved/given humanity. It's generally just the parts that don't gel with the Bible. Evolution probably being the biggest cause of religious painal. While you’d be hard pressed to find many who would argue that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
^ You didn't use "Christianity" here, which was the issue. You're missing the point. You were vague, which was my point. At this point, you're either trolling or just completely nescient.
Also, qualifiers need to come before or after the word, not in separate sentences well after you've posted something. Here's some free education: http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/qualifiers/
Did you mean you tried to clarify or clear up your vague insert, like when you said "religion" as opposed to stating "Christianity?"
When you did that, you either:
A) Made an error and meant religion.
B) Meant Christianity but used religion vaguely.
When you choose B? I believe you but that's not much evidence of anything. It's your word, which isn't proof. Do I accept it as such? I do. However, I don't have to and there's no fact about what you meant. Facts are proven. You telling me isn't evidence, even if YOU said it.
For the most part, linguistically speaking, we tend to take people's word for it (like I am now) but the clarification, on my behalf, was intended to ensure that you meant Christianity, even though I still consider it shoddy communication.
I consider it that due to you wishing to talk about apples specifically but continuously dropping the term "fruit" instead, which applies to a wider selection of entities other than an apple.
Originally posted by NemeBro
I understood completely.Maybe you're just not very intelligent?
You assumed. I didn't.
Also, I thought I made it sooooo clear that I understood but was confirming. Sure, I thought his choices were sh*t but how does this indicate a lack of understanding?
Don't drop rhetorical questions red-dotting my intelligence unless you intend on backing it up. A good start would be not telling me I didn't understand when I showed that I did.
Good job pointing out a typo as a means to avoid the points you can't counter 👆
"Bible" when capitalized effectively refers to the Christian bible. See, you're really coming off as confused still.
I stopped reading after your second line. Really see no point in going for another page when you're simply confused, don't know what a "qualifier" entails and can't comprehend what capitalization of given words confers; yet refuse to listen cos I apparently offended you in trying to explain what should have been known from the start.
Everyone else followed what I said. So have fun arguing against yourself, as I'm done indulging your nonsense. Cheers.
Originally posted by The Renegade
You assumed. I didn't.Also, I thought I made it sooooo clear that I understood but was confirming. Sure, I thought his choices were sh*t but how does this indicate a lack of understanding?
Don't drop rhetorical questions red-dotting my intelligence unless you intend on backing it up. A good start would be not telling me I didn't understand when I showed that I did.
I didn't assume. I knew, both due to my deductive reasoning and prior interactions with Robtard. So, lurk more?
No, you left an escape plan in your post in case you turned out to be wrong. Which you did, so now you're clinging to the hole you left like a coward. Just admit you're being silly.
Well it is a rhetorical question, I grant you. I already know the answer.
Originally posted by Robtard
Good job pointing out a typo as a means to avoid the points you can't counter 👆
Yeah, but then there's the part where I countered them. Fool.
"Bible" when capitalized effectively refers to the Christian bible. See, you're really coming off as confused still.
See, now you're starting to make me feel like you're just full of sh*t. Also, I'm dying at you thinking it "effectively" refers to the Christian bible. In which way would it be ineffective?
Perhaps there's Judaism as well? There's that. I mentioned that. I really did. Earlier. The Tanakh? You recall? No, really. The term is a split. Check it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
I stopped reading after your second line. Really see no point in going for another page when you're simply confused, don't know what a "qualifier" entails and can't comprehend what capitalization of given words confers; yet refuse to listen cos I apparently offended you in trying to explain what should have been known from the start.So have fun arguing against yourself?
Me: *Provides argument*
You: You're confused! Qualifiers can jump sentences! The bible pertains to Christianity, which is what I meant when I said "effectively"! You're still confused! I didn't comprehend that you were merely attempting to avoid a small assumption by asking whether or not I meant Christianity (or Judaism) by what I said or whether I was referencing religion broadly! You're STILL confused! Confused!
Me:
Originally posted by NemeBro
I didn't assume. I knew, both due to my deductive reasoning and prior interactions with Robtard. So, lurk more?
No, you did. You had to because he wasn't clear. It doesn't matter why. That's the way it is.
No, you left an escape plan in your post in case you turned out to be wrong. Which you did, so now you're clinging to the hole you left like a coward. Just admit you're being silly.
Wrong? I wasn't wrong about anything. I asked a question and it wasn't one where I was incorrect so stop pulling nonsense from your ass. An "escape plan?" You're paranoid and in your second post. Sheesh, this stuff usually comes after when in the company of idiocy.
Although, I suppose it's entirely circumstantial.
Well it is a rhetorical question, I grant you. I already know the answer.
You really don't, as much as you'd convince yourself that you do.
Originally posted by Robtard
Imagine that.
Avoidance is key here, which is something I understand you have no choice but to do.
He assumed completely, which is fine. I didn't, which is also fine. I asked you instead. You didn't like it and got your panties in a bunch, trying to worm out of it. I said I didn't prefer the way you communicated it which worsened your level of irritation, which I only express apathy regarding.
He'll respond, saying it's not an assumption again (it is) because it requires him to guess what you mean, even if he knows you. That's irrelevant.
It just means he trusts you but still has to make the assumption. If you own three boxes, which are box A, B, and C... and you tell him daily that there's content in box C, he'll assume that there is because he knows you... but he cannot be sure so he has to assume each time, whether or not he "knows" you.
He'll then probably take another generic swipe at my intellect, which is fine. It changes nothing.
Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
The Renegade is an idiot. This is why I always go Paragon.
Unless you have something to contribute, you should probably be quiet. I've been called this already in this thread. You're literally adding nothing new.
Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
The Renegade is an idiot.
No need to stoop to his level. He's clearly just looking to rage-argue with anyone about anything. I suspect just a sock-troll with a grudge.
As you'll notice, he's responding to post of mine that were not directed at him; he'll probably reply to this one as well.
The Science Myth
Originally posted by Wonder ManWhat do you think about science being societ[y's] answer to everything?
Most people do not fully understand what science is and what its limitations are.
In regards to evolution especially, Greg Koukl explains the confusion of proponents of "scientific method" in one of the best articles I've read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Science Can't Prove
I often hear the comment, "Science has proved there is no God." Don't ever be bullied by such a statement. Science is completely incapable of proving such a thing.
I'm not saying that because I don't like science, but rather because I know a little about how science works. Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.
Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.
For example, can science prove there are no unicorns? Absolutely not. How could science ever prove that unicorns don't exist? All science can do is say that scientists may have been looking for unicorns for a long time and never found any. They might therefore conclude that no one is justified in believing that unicorns exist. They might show how certain facts considered to be evidence for unicorns in the past can be explained adequately by other things. They may invoke Occam's Razor to favor a simpler explanation for the facts than that unicorns exist. But scientists can never prove unicorns themselves don't exist.
Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist. That's a misuse of the discipline. Such a claim would require omniscience. The only way one can say a thing does not exist is not by using the inductive method, but by using a deductive method, by showing that there's something about the concept itself that is contradictory.
I can confidently say for sure that no square circles exist. Why? Not because I've searched the entire universe to make sure that there aren't any square circles hiding behind a star somewhere. No, I don't need to search the world to answer that question.
The concept of square circles entails a contradictory notion, and therefore can't be real. A thing cannot be a square and be circular (i.e., not a square) at the same time. A thing cannot be a circle and squared (i.e., not a circle) at the same time. Therefore, square circles cannot exist. The laws of rationality (specifically, the law of non-contradiction) exclude the possibility of their existence.
This means, by the way, that all inductive knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty.
If you want to know something for certain, with no possibility of error--what's called apodictic certainty in philosophy--you must employ the deductive method ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.str.org/articles/what-science-can-t-prove#.U1cZM1eqTyt
So? Not everything I respond to need be directed at me.
"Guys, next level prediction... He'll respond to something I said, which is what he's, well... it's what he's been doing!"
Good call!
You asked me to calm down after I asked you a simple question. It's no surprise you think there's rage here when there isn't. Was it the length of my posts? Do the words multiply the rage? I'm not familiar.
A sock, yeah. Troll? No. No grudges.
Originally posted by The RenegadeUnless you have something to contribute, you should probably be quiet. I've been called this already in this thread. You're literally adding nothing new.
Well look who's so confident. I'll tell you your first big mistake, you told someone, on the INTERNET to be quiet. When the **** has this ever worked? Expecting it to work or even just asking is the sign of an idiot. Your second mistake is arguing about someone's generalisation of something, in this case religion. We all know he means Christianity because Jesus and Bible were mentioned on the OP. Arguing with someone about how the word religion encompasses more then one religion in this context is just an idiotic thing to do and someone looking for a troll fight.