Zierro

Then yes, if you are going to go by, "You can choke on it," then all solids and liquids can kill you.

Physically? What about a small cotton ball?

Adding onto what the user who posted above me said... Bigfoot can't kill you either. :lol:

"X is (not) real" is a position, not a rebuttal. Although The Easter Bunny comparison may be loaded with unnecessary ridicule, I certainly wouldn't call it a straw man. Here is a better example of the straw man fallacy, using relevant material: Person A takes position X, paraphrased to: "Prayer and other payments to god would be a waste if it was all for nothing [i.e. if god does not exist as assumed]." Person B presents position Y (a distorted view of position X), paraphrased to: "Your life is a waste if you have prayed." Person B then attacks position Y, saying that "Just because you have prayed before does not mean you wasted your one and only life..." EDIT: I misread part of your post and got rid of my other argument. It's not a strawman. Maybe you forgot which post you were defending: What about the possibility that you're wasting the only life you get worrying about what an imaginary man thinks of you? It's not "wasting" your only life. You've said before that both God and the toothfairy are undoubtedly false. It's along the same lines of debating the morale concern for homosexuality and equating it to something bad like murder. "Homosexuality is as bad as murder." You're skipping a step. It's like this: The toothfairy is false because there is no evidence. Therefore, god is false because there is no evidence. (Even though the idea of evidence for god is laughable anyways.) Murder is bad because it is not socially accepted. Therefore, homosexuality is bad because it is not socially accepted. You see, you can make an analogy for nearly anything, but that doesn't mean it holds much weight. See what bad analogies can do? My mistake. I won't capitalize god anymore.

Have you ever felt sick?

The game changes, the community changes, and I change. It feels completely different.

Just wait until the forums get knocked offline temporarily. The withdrawals are lots of fun.

Alright. Call it an analogy. I'm still calling it a strawman. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version You can't say God is "as real as" the toothfairy. It's a total cop-out to equate the thing which is being debated "IS GOD REAL?" to something which we all know is not real. Actually I'm arguing about any conception of God. "God does/can exist." No, I was talking about the Islamic infidels. Just because you have prayed before does not mean you wasted your one and only life which you seem to be arguing.

10394

Huh? It motivates me to actually want to do MTK now.

Which means are they are too different to serve as an analogy here. Which means theism as a whole is not a waste of time. Just that organized religion is. When arguing against the existence of God, you are arguing against all perceptions of him. You can pick and choose if you wish, but then that would mean your arguments don't apply to theism but only to particular religions. I really don't think you can call a theistic life a wasted life - only when it comes to those specific examples you brought up.

Suicidal Tendencies - How Will I Laugh Tomorrow?

David Bowie - Ziggy Stardust

My point was merely directed at the obnoxious group of players who will say, "See! Told you no Sailing!" It would be the same as saying "See! Told you Carpentry wasn't going to be re-released!" While they are technically right, it's still a ridiculous remark to make.

It says something about their differences though. In my opinion there are pretty good justifications for believing ID but as for the Easter Bunny there are none. The justifications for believing God and believing the Easter Bunny are not equal. In other words - the justifications for God do exist while they do not when it comes to the Bunny. When speaking of God, I'm talking in a very general sense. Of course there is a very small chance of a religion's ideals being completely right - but what about if you take the religion out of the equation and just see it as Intelligent Design? It sounds more realistic to believe that our world was made this way for us as opposed to a magic bunny traveling around the world filling up kids' baskets with candy at the speed of light. It goes back to the idea that all religious people sit on their knees and waste their time praying all day. I've said before that your lifestyle can still be the same, atheist or theist. We're talking about the beliefs after all and not the actions behind the beliefs. I think it's a stretch to say having the idea that God exists in the back of your head is a "waste". And what about those who's mentalities of life has changed for the best because they started to believe in God? You don't have to invest a large amount of time to believe in God. You can think about God during your everyday life - taking walks, in class, before you go to bed. I see it as a complement to life - not a drastic change in habit. I see that as quite the contrary of a waste. As for Islamic infidels, you're right. But as you said, it's only an extreme example. My point is that theism as a whole is not a waste. We're all living humans without knowledge about whether there is an afterlife or not - so how can anyone deem theism as a waste? Not all theists do that, just like how all atheists don't spend an enormous amount of time doing research about the existence/non-existence of God.

Yet it's common knowledge to know the skills were based on the same idea.

That's because exploration =/= Sailing Yeah and Construction = Carpentry under a different name. Thanks for playing. Fixed your post. How convenient to try to say they're synonymous when they're not. Carpentry is woodworking while Construction is building things - wood or not. Just like Sailing is venturing on water while Exploration is venturing - water or not. PS: Thanks for the pic.

If you agree that God is a more justified belief then how can you equate them as being "just as real/fake as each other"? Surely, you have some reasoning other than the fact that neither has empirical evidence to back them up? It's an inaccurate analogy because mankind has the knowledge that the Easter Bunny is a fabrication, while there are still plenty of debates about the existence of God and even atheists admit there could be a possibility. Do you actually believe there is a possibility for the Easter Bunny to be real? I don't see how it holds any weight if you don't even know. When we're talking about "wastes" we're talking about what you perceive as useless or profitless activity. If you're dead and you don't know that being a theist was useless or profitless then how can you claim it is a waste? "Useless" and "profitless" are subjective. I only use this phrase seldom when needed - ignorance is bliss. From as far as you know, the activity was profitable and useful. So it's a waste because you could just be an atheist and get the same afterlife rewards? I was mainly getting at the effect that theism has on your life while you're living, which can indeed be beneficial - not a waste. You could live a happy and hopeful life as a theist and then die, losing all consciousness, and you wouldn't know that you were wrong. All that matters is you would have been happy when it mattered. By saying it is a "waste", that would be saying you were punished for having the wrong belief. But wait a second... Isn't it a common argument to say that it's unreasonable to punish people exercising their freewill when it comes to faith? A - You're using a specific theist's argument which I don't even agree with myself. B - That doesn't make it a waste. If B were true, you could just argue that the atheist's life on Earth was a "waste" because he had the wrong beliefs - and he would have the knowledge about it as opposed to a theist who's consciousness just ceases to exist.

Most of us here don't play RuneScape. Even then, I don't understand why you'd generalize yourself into something like that You're looking into it too hard. My point was for him to ignore the posts saying, "You shouldn't do that!" It's just personal preference. I thought you'd know that it was mainly a joke by saying the phrase: one of them. :lol:

So then you're saying he should take fashion advice from Runescapers? Unless you are Napoleon Dynamite, I strongly disagree.

I never excluded myself. I am also... :uhh: one of them. :uhh:

Runescaper/Ex-Runescaper. Tomato/Tamato. Either way you're still one of them. :uhh:

Zierro's Tips: Don't listen to what Runescapers have to say about fashion. :thumbup: But anyhow, I would try listening to them to hear why they don't want you to do it. If they don't hold any valid argument whatsoever, and be a fair judge on that (Always give your parents benefit of the doubt. They're your parents!), then rebel. Not in an immature way, but let them know you're growing up and you're going to have to make personal choices. Parents are there for pushing you in the right direction - not for pulling you along.

I think you're beautiful. OHHHH BURN!!! My FIANCE thinks I'm beautiful, your opinion doesn't count, overly depressed no-namer on the internet that isn't very well liked. OHHH BURN!!! f*cking emo kid <3 If the opinion of others doesn't count then what's the point of calling ugly girls beautiful?