Zierro

Queens of the Stone Age - No One Knows

I think you misunderstand him. By "representation" he doesn't mean they are two things with the same value with different ways of saying them. He's saying they don't have the same value but they both say pretty much the same thing on a calculator (a limited devise), much like how 3.14159265 represents Pi on the calculator but is not Pi precisely.

I feel your pain. The worst part is that like every girl loves them so if you are around a girl there is a big risk of hearing this band. Popular crappy bands are the worst.

I did not meant to come off as that personal. Sorry if I'm making too many generalizations for you, but I think it's clear that I'm arguing against atheism as a whole - not really at you personally. But you think of the naturalistic answer as the final answer because you 1. Accept something when there is a scientific explanation based on observational proof and 2. Consider something unanswered when the only available explanation is supernatural. That's not skeptical if you ask me - that's being geared towards seeking an answer which is not supernatural. And what do you mean by it's a cop-out, because I can say the same thing about naturalistic explanations. Any rational thinker should acknowledge the limitations to the human mind - we can't possibly be able to explain everything. You're telling me that you think you know everything though. Surely you've believed something and were wrong about it - everyone has done that. If the weather channel tells you it will rain so you bring your umbrella but yet it doesn't rain then you were using faith. You didn't have evidence that it would rain - you had what you thought was evidence. What evidence do you have that the sun will rise tomorrow? Can you possibly prove that to me without saying, "because it did yesterday". I had chicken for dinner today. Does that suggest that I will have chicken tomorrow? As we've established that theists are the ones who say atheists have faith as well, yes naturally. Atheists are the ones who've made the word "faith" into a taboo. That's why they use it as an argument against theism and try to avoid it being used against themselves, as if it's a bad thing or something.

How do you think life should be? I think it should be more like our dreams where limits are unheard of and everything seems like an adventure. In real life it seems like you're just a piece of clay molded by your environment but in dreams you are what gets to determine everything. I also think it would be better if people learned lessons permanently and didn't forget so much. This is a very open discussion so don't be scared to share your thoughts.

Is that saying supposed to be ironic on purpose?

Pantera - Clash With Reality

You seem way to energetic to be considered a pothead if you ask me.

Metallica - Hero of the Day

Why do people continue to plug and chug infinity in an equation and think it is just as legit as a normal equation? That being said, can anyone tell me what infinity plus 1 is?

Cringe is a bit harsh, but I think it's fair to say that some music downright sucks (in your opinion). I see music as generally good, but when it comes to some bands I'd much rather prefer silence or the sound of nature instead.

It is possible with fractions but not with decimals.

Precision is important when we're dealing with the smallest possible thing in existence. :)

Too bad their worldview is not consistent because everyone has beliefs without hardcore proof attached to them. I take you as a "skeptic" who thinks that every phenomenon has a naturalistic cause. In other words, you believe that supernatural events never occur - a belief that is not proven. Let's apply this to god's existence now. Science states that every effect must have a cause - so the universe has to have a cause. Is observational evidence available let alone even possible when it comes to determining what caused the universe? Not at all. There are two possibilities. God created the universe or something that is not god created the universe - neither possibility has any empirical proof yet you incline yourself to choose the latter - without any evidence whatsoever. You're picking and choosing. No matter how you want to slice the cake, everyone has faith. Theists don't make the claim that "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe in god" are completely separate ideas. :lol: Perhaps you need me to show you the definition of belief? Oh and get your own jabs, that's totally unoriginal. :P

I see where you're coming from, but that's the wrong way of showing that number because it implies that the 0's aren't infinite - they stop before the 1. 0.<--0001 is the same concept but it is mathematically possible, because the 0's run into the decimal point instead of an actual number.

The piece of the Dragon Plate that you get from that quest. Although it wasn't really an accident until I found out how much it was worth afterward.

Any unhealthy obsession over something can make you fit. Being addicted to playing chess can make you fat if you never leave the playing board. Plus, my total is 2100+ and I'm 6'2'' and 140 lbs (BMI of 18.0 which is underweight). So yeah, so much for a strong correlation.

I think having the players be able to have the option to choose what items are saved on death is the best possible system. There can be an option in the Items Lost on Death screen where you rank your items based on how valuable you conceive them to be.

While I agree with your point, stuff like this is inevitable in the legal system. It's important to be consistent, because if they let this guy slide, then they'd have to let the next guy slide who said something just a little worse. For example, if you are someone who is 47.5 inches tall, you try to go on a ride with a 48 inch requirement, and the employee let's you on because "half an inch is nothing" then the person behind you who is 47 inches tall can use the same argument and be allowed to ride... and the person behind them who is 46.5 can say the same... and so on. It's a slippery slope so lines must be drawn and enforced.

No, I love my parents. They try to keep me away from any unnecessary danger without running my life. They instill good judgment into me and then let me go on my own. I was allowed to walk around neighborhoods at a very young age but they made sure I knew about the dangers of strangers, drugs, gangs, traffic, etc. I'm 18 now so it doesn't matter anymore though. : Edit: What the hell? I hate that face... Why'd I do that?

Anything by Jason Mraz.

Apparently you don't when you say that, if you believe in god, then you should also believe in the FSM. Like I said, theists don't care to be 100% convinced they care to be 100% committed. When the analogy doesn't apply then it is a strawman. You are saying that X = Y, where X is my real argument and Y is a ridiculous one you made up yourself in which you are telling me X is similar to, therefore X is just as ridiculous. X is not Y and treating it as such is the same as attacking an argument that is not mine. Personally, I have no opinion on whether it is a religion or not, as that would just be a debate purely about semantics, and while I do enjoy most of them, this one would be boring because I'd much rather debate other topics in regards to god's existence. However, I do notice that atheists vigorously try to push themselves as far away from theists as possible to evade their own arguments being used against them. If you do not believe in atheism then you are a theist. If you do believe in atheism then you are condoning the usage of faith. He still felt the pain and humility. It would be completely pointless if a god was crucified because like you said, it wouldn't be a sacrifice. That's why god chose a human form - one which experiences human experiences such as pain. So it was a sacrifice. Much much much more improbable than the fact that a god exists. That's where the FSM fails. It attempts to make god seem just as improbable as it is, but as I pointed out, Bobby purposely tried making it sound as improbable as possible. You only give what you get. I'd probably take your arguments a little more seriously if you did so yourself.

Why should I be expected to defend arguments that aren't mine? My point was that proof is almost always irrelevant to most theists. Therefore, "skeptical" shouldn't be applied. You're right - no strawman here. Unfortunately for you, you've made one with your last sentence defending your viewpoint though. The having a point/being pointless isn't the dichotomy here. Dictating what has a point and what is pointless and then using them for your argument was the dichotomy. No, but making it as ridiculous as possible and the fact that he made it for a specific reason makes it extremely improbable. Like I said, supporting the FSM isn't doing you any good.

Good point. It's just that the last time this thread was up I seemed to be the only one arguing that these "proofs" aren't legit and saying 0.999.... =/= 1 because it would be saying 1/infinity = 0. Everyone was calling me a troll for it and things got pretty ugly. Good to see people on the same debating level as me agree. :P

Eye for an eye.