Zierro

Tic tac toe, four strawmans in a row. This is what happens when every sentence starts with "So...?" or "Are you saying...?".

1.00000000-> -0.99999999-> -------------- 0.<-00000001 The infinity goes in the direction of the decimal point forever, but there is still always going to be that 1 on the far right.

Whoa... Madman and Compfreak agree with me on this topic? I wasn't that expecting at all.

I don't think you understand theism then. They don't aim to be 100% convinced, they aim to be 100% committed. And before you say that you need to be convinced in order to be committed, this isn't true. A firefighter is committed to saving as many lives as he can, but this doesn't mean he is completely convinced that his attempts will be successful. In fact, he rarely pays any attention to the proof aspect at all and will still try. It's not a false dichotomy. "I do not believe in god" is the same as "I believe god doesn't exist", atheists just reword it to avoid getting attacked in the same manner that theists are attacked. Just like how they say it isn't a religion. :lol: Now that is what a false dichotomy is. Except Bobby doesn't actually believe in it. It was created to make a point.

You think it exists, but yet you say it can't be proven. This sounds very familiar... :-k Oh yeah! It's the mentality that atheism aims to get rid of. Doesn't look like it's working. Quick question. Do you believe that god exists or do you believe that god doesn't exist? Then why call him that at all? And who says it would be different? There really should be a limit on how rhetorical one can get in a debate. :| The FSM was made four years ago and there is proof. Spaghetti was made centuries ago and there is proof. Chances are, without the invention of spaghetti, Bobby Henderson would've chosen a different name for his made-up entity, correct? Ghandi. Now which is superior in regards to self-sacrifice?

Slayer - In the Name of God

Because I don't choose to cherrypick at the article like what you've done, that means I don't understand it? I'll quote it again: ESA: Is the Universe finite or infinite? Joseph Silk: We don't know. The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite. They did not say "in an infinite future" they said "in the infinite future" meaning they believe in one and they don't consider it hypothetical. Belief that god does not exist is still a belief no matter how you want to slice the cake. God cannot be disproved, therefore there is no evidence for that belief - it is a belief based on faith. I have a good feeling you set me up to go in circles on purpose... Go ahead, reiterate yourself, but I'm warning you I'll do the same. Again, you didn't answer the question. Since I'm a nice guy I'll answer yours though - yes, it would make it different. The only irrelevancy I see here is your bringing up string theory in the first place. Here, let's get back on track. I'm curious to see your response to this paragraph which you must have overlooked: "Trying to make the FSM as plausible as you can is actually counterproductive to your argument. Anyone can babble illogical nonsense and claim that X is like Y. "You believe in ghosts? Ghosts are like triangular uncooked pieces of toast with five sides that can talk. Why? Because neither have proof, therefore should be treated the same." Sorry, but that attitude irritates me." Jesus didn't do anything? He didn't cause a religion to be created in which charities and the likes sprouted out from, making millions and millions of people's lives more hopeful, peaceful, and loving? If you are honestly going to sit here and deny all the good things that Christianity has done then what is the point in arguing?

Damn, another futuristic Final Fantasy. :(

? Your article says that either the universe is infinite right now or is expanding infinitely. Are you trying to discredit the article that you yourself posted? Nobody said that either. What was said was, "You can neither prove nor disprove god, therefore atheists are using faith in their beliefs too." By definition, faith is a belief that is not based on proof. If you have no proof that god does not exist but you still believe that, then you have faith that he doesn't exist. Are you really arguing that mankind didn't invent spaghetti...? http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art73.htm And the FSM not being physical kind of defeats the purpose of him having the ability to fly and being made out of spaghetti. Maybe next time people will come up with names that don't contradict the point they're trying to make. Those strings aren't just something made up for the purpose of crediting a rhetorical argument, unlike your invisible spaghetti strands that exist in outer space. Ooo, you're such a bad boy. :) Their teachings are both good, but when it comes to what they've physically done I think Jesus wins.

What are you hopeful about? Shinjula: Ah, you are right about that. My apologies. I must have interpreted that as you saying that some people have no conscious control.

SirHemen doesn't need to state the obvious. Although it would clear things up a bit, it's not 100% necessary. Jagex has a brain and they can infer that a player saying, "I hate when I only keep items that the game dictates are more valuable than the items I truly find more valuable," means that there should be a way where the player decides what is more valuable in the context of Items Lost on Death as opposed to what the game dictates. It's self-explanatory.

When did I say it was the only part of us. I'm pretty sure bringing up the fact that our brain chemicals (and our environment) compel us to act in a certain way suggests quite the opposite.

Taken from that link itself: ESA: Is the Universe finite or infinite? Joseph Silk: We don't know. The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite. Either time is infinite or volume is infinite, but either way that article seems to suggest that infinity can be found in nature. My argument is that the over-usage of the FSM is stupid. It worked for stopping creationism from being taught in school, but it's not going to work to disprove god as many seem to think. Spaghetti cannot exist without humans. Either you agree or disagree with that statement, which is it? Not only that but god isn't contingent or physical like the FSM is. Trying to make the FSM as plausible as you can is actually counterproductive to your argument. Anyone can babble illogical nonsense and claim that X is like Y. "You believe in ghosts? Ghosts are like triangular uncooked pieces of toast with five sides that can talk. Why? Because neither have proof, therefore should be treated the same." Sorry, but that attitude irritates me. No, it means string theory was made by man. After all, theories aren't found in nature. I'm waiting for you to bring up how god is a psychological comfort. *nudges* :P Same with me. I believe in a god separate from the god who condones homosexuality, speaks of hell, asks to be worshiped, etc. but I like the idea behind Jesus's intentions and think that is probably the best way to live your life. Unless atoms take up 0 volume, they can still technically be divided - not physically but conceptually.

Just in case, I would fill your pocket with as much [puncture]ly stuff as you can get your hands... er, gloves on.

That's why I stopped doing clues. I tend to stick to activities which at least give you something no matter what - and no I don't mean 40k from 2 hours of running around. I'm talking about skilling where you'll always at least get Xp. Besides, I'm not lucky when it comes to RS anyways.

Yeah, I honestly don't see what harm choosing your safe items would cause, especially now that players can't loot what other players were wearing in PVP anymore anyways.

Insanity is a legal concept, not a psychiatric concept of mental illness. Whether a person has a diagnosed mental disorder is not sufficient reason, from the court's point of view, to relieve them from all responsibility for illegal acts they may commit. At the most, defense of insanity implies that their actions were justified and do not deserve punishment - not that the actions were totally inevitable. Unless you're an advocate for determinacy yourself, I don't see how that holds any water. That's like saying, "God is not real because there are atheists." One party will be right - the existence of each other doesn't nullify the other's arguments. And technically speaking, even if you do believe in determinacy, freewill still does disagree with you. :lol: Is that really necessary? Why would they even exist if they knew there was no hope for their patients?

So your argument is that if you believe in one god then you must believe in them all - including the FSM? Mathematics is an invention but that's besides that point. We're talking about the concept of infinity here. I guess my example would have been less vague if I would have said something like gravity - so I retract my statement. Let's use gravity instead. Whether it's physical or not is irrelevant. There is an infinite amount of space in the universe - therefore infinity exists in nature. We're getting pretty sidetracked from the main point though. The FSM is used to show that anyone can make up a ridiculous entity, and it is impossible to disprove. The problem is that, by it's own name (spaghetti), it is already defined as something which is made-up by man. That's why it's a strawman in comparison to belief of a god - because it can be disproved.

I don't belief a specific god - I just believe there is something more than meets the eye in this universe which can be defined as god. And god is just as much an invention of man as infinity - yet infinity exists naturally. Spaghetti is an invention - not a discovery.

They're a bit different. Something like having surgery on your thumb isn't a belief. 1. I was either shy or I was the class clown in school. 2. I promised I'd never do drugs. 3. I was obsessed with Dragon Ball Z, Pokemon, and Zelda. 4. My first few favorite musicians were Red Hot Chili Peppers, Soundgarden, Nirvana, Korn, and Eminem. 5. I was an Honor Roll Student most of my life.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is undeniably an invention by mankind and bringing it up is a strawman. People invented spaghetti and meatballs - they are not found in nature.

That doesn't make sense. You're gonna ask suicidal people if they are hopeless vs hopeful? If they're suicidal they're going to be hopeless. They go hand in hand. Anti-suicide organizations, the court, and freewill disagree with you. Like I said about three times, your brain chemicals compel you to do things - they don't control you. If it were true that you had absolute no control, then people with mental disorders wouldn't go to jail for committing murder - as they had "no control" over what they done. You're right. It isn't an easy task, but it's still possible and worth giving a shot.

Those updates wouldn't be nearly exciting if it was a frequent thing.

Just because there are numbers in the debate doesn't mean it's a debate about numbers. Yes, adults are generally more mature - I agreed to that from the start. Are you forgetting what the argument was? It was you saying children can't be mature... and now you're saying they can be? Statistics can be manipulated too. It occurs quite often, where one party will ignore the numbers the other party brings up, but put so much emphasis on their own numbers. Like I said, nobody's debating what 5+5 is. They're mostly debating the meaning behind the numbers. You didn't answer the question, and did nothing but your normal "I proved you wrong" routine. Again, how does not responding back automatically make someone wrong? Yes it is, because there's very very few ways that people can get a point across to you without you distorting, ignoring, sidetracking, strawmanning, etc. etc.

But your debates aren't exclusively about numerical facts, therefore credibility is important. This debate isn't about numbers, is it? Then you aren't agreeing with the part that Omali and I agreed on. We said that kids can actively think and decide things on their own, which is being mature. Me too. I'm telling you that your credibility keeps going down in order to get you to realize that you should stop making illogical arguments to get it back up again. Getting tired of repeating myself = Being proven wrong? Explain. Mods do make mistakes, but it's quite uncommon and bringing that up is only grabbing desperately at straws.