No problem, I can walk away, it's him who posted this comment:
Awesomo you're the biggest wuss I've ever seen, "Omg @Tinni halp me I c… morean't argue for sihz1!!!" Why the flying fuck are you hiding behind your girlfriend on the internet ... Also you get butthurt by simple insults, "Omg Am I an asshole? someone called me an asshole and im so sad right now!" "Omg someone called me retarted on this thread i am so sad! waaa waaa" " Omg flog succeeded in making me feel shitty today because he said bad too me waaa waaa" Seriously? Man the fuck up.
A day after everything.
-Blinded by the truth -Close-minded -Ignorant -Pathetic and rude -Lack logic in their comments -Stubborn
It is a fact and it doesn't contain any swear words, again you just proved yourself wrong and all of the people who defended you.
Throwing false accusations won't get you any white knight points here. And, from what I've seen, you're doing your best to make it seem like he should be blamed for this.
So far, your actions and your plans don't seem to be related, at all.
Throwing false accusations won't get you any white knight points here. And, from what I've seen, you're doing your best to make it seem like he should be blamed for this.
Yeah because I just insulted him for no reason right? Before you even reply to me read the whole thread and you will see the disrespect he's offered me.
So far, your actions and your plans don't seem to be related, at all.
That rule isn't working in your case, pal.
Throwing false accusations won't get you any white knight points here. And, from what I've see… moren, you're doing your best to make it seem like he should be blamed for this.
So far, your actions and your plans don't seem to be related, at all.
Neglect. Jane was responsible for AJ, as he is unable to look after himself, but failed to provide safety. Do you think Kenny would ever lea… moreve AJ behind, even if it was an accident? He would rather leave, covered in bites than to leave without the baby.
Kenny numerously said he distrusted Jane, he also knew she thought of the baby as dead weight and as far as he was concerned, Jane only cares for herself. He didn't think she murdered the baby, he thought she left it behind to save herself. Which isn't a far stretch considering her track record with people other than Clem.
AJ was Kenny's reason to live. It was his mission to get him to safety. It was also a way for him to redeem himself. In his eyes, Jane was responsible for taking away his hope, directly or indirectly. His reaction is understandable, not justified but understandable. Greater men have lost their shit for much less, Lee killed a man over infidelity.
Did Kenny lay a finger on Clem when he thought she was responsible for Sarita? No, he didn't
Seems like you totally forgot this thread had been on top of the page for days now. Yeah, I totally didn't read it.
I asked you a question. Proof? You had no answer but "It's a rule." I'm sorry, but, what? I proved you were wrong. Therefore, I proved you're throwing false accusations, too. It shouldn't be a surprised, though. It was pretty obvious from the moment you asked him if he was a male.
You also followed him around in other threads. Are you a stalker?
Throwing false accusations won't get you any white knight points here. And, from what I've seen, you're doing your best to make it seem like… more he should be blamed for this.
Yeah because I just insulted him for no reason right? Before you even reply to me read the whole thread and you will see the disrespect he's offered me.
So far, your actions and your plans don't seem to be related, at all.
wat
I asked you a question. Proof? You had no answer but "It's a rule." I'm sorry, but, what? I proved you were wrong. Therefore, I proved you're throwing false accusations, too. It shouldn't be a surprised, though. It was pretty obvious from the moment you asked him if he was a male.
If you are talking about me calling other people his girlfriends... It's a rule, people who defend wussies are usually called his girlfriends. Though this only applies if he is a male, which is why I asked him if he was a male in the first place.
Nope, I just decided to click on his name and I saw that he complains to his girlfriends in the other thread about people on here. Then his girlfriends comfort him and tell him to ignore the people on here, whenever I reply to him on the other thread he acts tough infront of his friends lol. Again, I need not to say more.
Read the whole thread
Seems like you totally forgot this thread had been on top of the page for days now. Yeah, I totally didn't rea… mored it.
I asked you a question. Proof? You had no answer but "It's a rule." I'm sorry, but, what? I proved you were wrong. Therefore, I proved you're throwing false accusations, too. It shouldn't be a surprised, though. It was pretty obvious from the moment you asked him if he was a male.
You also followed him around in other threads. Are you a stalker?
I was going to add something about my innate ability to rek anything you might come up with, but I wanted that comment to be somewhat serious. Also, AWESOMEO doesn't think I can really do it. :^(
Where did the #retk go? kek. Anyways. I enjoy discussion and I'll keep throwing my two cents, I don't expect you to understand but I can certainly refute your points and I think that's what I'll do once I wake up in the morning, corazón. Night!
Read the whole thread
Seems like you totally forgot this thread had been on top of the page for days now. Yeah, I totally didn't rea… mored it.
I asked you a question. Proof? You had no answer but "It's a rule." I'm sorry, but, what? I proved you were wrong. Therefore, I proved you're throwing false accusations, too. It shouldn't be a surprised, though. It was pretty obvious from the moment you asked him if he was a male.
You also followed him around in other threads. Are you a stalker?
I asked you a question. Proof? You had no answer but "It's a rule." I'm sorry, but, what? I proved you were wrong. Therefore, I proved you'r… moree throwing false accusations, too. It shouldn't be a surprised, though. It was pretty obvious from the moment you asked him if he was a male.
If you are talking about me calling other people his girlfriends... It's a rule, people who defend wussies are usually called his girlfriends. Though this only applies if he is a male, which is why I asked him if he was a male in the first place.
Nope, I just decided to click on his name and I saw that he complains to his girlfriends in the other thread about people on here. Then his girlfriends comfort him and tell him to ignore the people on here, whenever I reply to him on the other thread he acts tough infront of his friends lol. Again, I need not to say more.
* Generalize an entire fanbase. Checked.
* Generalize an entire thread. Checked.
Good riddance, Livingston.
I don't have anythin… moreg else to say, either. I proved my point.
You lie, stalk, accuse, and make excuse.
Wow, it actually rhymes. New catchphrase for ya!
You do realize I generalized the PRO-Kenny fans on this thread only.
You obviously are another ignorant fiend defending AWESOMO because he is the victim, right!
You do realize I generalized the PRO-Kenny fans on this thread only.
You obviously are another ignorant fiend defending AWESOMO because he is the victim, right!
Haha, dude, just leave it. It's pointless to argue with irrational people. I know you're having fun, but I bet there are things that are much more worth doing than discussing with retards.
There are scientific theories explaining why were exists, why this planet is here. You dont need supernatural creature to explain it.
Did you read what I said? I was looking for a theory in regards to how a creator does not exist. I don't care about scientific explanations for the formation of the Earth (in regards to this conversation..). They literally do not do anything to disprove the idea that a creator exists.
You seem to lack the understanding what scientific theories and facts are.
Definitely not.
Science doesnt deal with absolutes, like religions does. Every fact science has about the universe is only the most likely right answer. We create a theory, gain evidence/proof for it and facts are based upon observation repeatable experiments.
Great. Doesn't mean anything in regards to a creator existing or not existing. Nothing at all. I'm not trying to debate against scientific theories for the formation of the universe. I'm looking for a theory that actually states that there is no way a creator exists. They are very different discussions.
Gravity is just a theory also, so do you deny its existance?
I'm just going to ignore how fallacious that is.
Depends what you're talking about. I mean, obviously gravity in the terms of what you're probably talking about here can actually be felt all around us. It would just be stupid to deny it's presence. Gravity is just a word for what we feel when climb a long set of stairs or what we feel when we jump off a cliff. Its just a word for a force that obviously effects every second of our every day lives.
Now, if you want to talk about how gravity actually works, that is a different story... which is why gravity is technically a theory.
There are scientific theories explaining why were exists, why this planet is here. You dont need supernatural creature to explain it.
You… more seem to lack the understanding what scientific theories and facts are. Science doesnt deal with absolutes, like religions does. Every fact science has about the universe is only the most likely right answer. We create a theory, gain evidence/proof for it and facts are based upon observation repeatable experiments. Gravity is just a theory also, so do you deny its existance?
There simply isnt no reason to assume such thing(s) would exists. You might as well believe that a unicorn created the universe and i wouldnt have to provide evidence that you are wrong. Burden of proof is on positive claim, since you cant disprove negative.
There are scientific theories explaining why were exists, why this planet is here. You dont need supernatural creature to explain it.
… more Did you read what I said? I was looking for a theory in regards to how a creator does not exist. I don't care about scientific explanations for the formation of the Earth (in regards to this conversation..). They literally do not do anything to disprove the idea that a creator exists.
You seem to lack the understanding what scientific theories and facts are.
Definitely not.
Science doesnt deal with absolutes, like religions does. Every fact science has about the universe is only the most likely right answer. We create a theory, gain evidence/proof for it and facts are based upon observation repeatable experiments.
Great. Doesn't mean anything in regards to a creator existing or not existing. Nothing at all. I'm not trying to debate against scientific theories for the formatio… [view original content]
Debating and explaining your opinions is good for discussion, but please refrain from personal attacks and insults against other users just because they have a different opinion about fictional characters.
its stupid to believe in something we have no evidence of
Wow... if only this line of thinking followed to all of your other arguments..
In regards to your whole post though, there is no evidence pointing to a separate factual answer. Who are you to say what belief is stupid and what belief is not?
And as I said before, some religious individuals have their own kind of evidence for believing in what they do. Based on my life experiences, I personally believe that a God exists. Who are you to tell anyone that their experiences are invalid? Have whatever doubts you want, but there is nothing you can do to do bring merit to your point.
First of all, atheism isnt religion, just like not collecting stamps isnt a hobby.
Im not trying to prove or disprove anything here, im t… morerying to explain why its stupid to believe in something we have no evidence of and that its impossible to disprove negative.
You know, i would have saved a lot time if i knew most of the Kenny fans ive been debating with are religious. You cant listen to reason and you ignore all the facts.
There simply isnt no reason to assume such thing(s) would exists
There is simply no reason to assume such things don't exist
You might as well believe that a unicorn created the universe and i wouldnt have to provide evidence that you are wrong.
Yes, yes you would. Obviously no one is going to have such a specific sort of opinion like though, that would just be silly.
Burden of proof is on positive claim, since you cant disprove negative.
You can't prove anything at all. Stop wasting your time.
I don't know if you understand this at all, but your opinions are actually quite damaging to some people of faith. I personally don't care about what you have to say, but there are others who do not take it well. As long as they aren't hurting anyone with their beliefs, let them believe what they want to believe.
There simply isnt no reason to assume such thing(s) would exists. You might as well believe that a unicorn created the universe and i wouldn… moret have to provide evidence that you are wrong. Burden of proof is on positive claim, since you cant disprove negative.
I thought you were just a bit silly, but now i know you are delusional. Dont bother talking to me anymore. I've seen fair share of people like you over the years.
There simply isnt no reason to assume such thing(s) would exists
There is simply no reason to assume such things don't exist
Y… moreou might as well believe that a unicorn created the universe and i wouldnt have to provide evidence that you are wrong.
Yes, yes you would. Obviously no one is going to have such a specific sort of opinion like though, that would just be silly.
Burden of proof is on positive claim, since you cant disprove negative.
You can't prove anything at all. Stop wasting your time.
I don't know if you understand this at all, but your opinions are actually quite damaging to some people of faith. I personally don't care about what you have to say, but there are others who do not take it well. As long as they aren't hurting anyone with their beliefs, let them believe what they want to believe.
This "too far gone" and "broken" crap, as if it describes perfectly Kenny's behavior and alone merits bringing his death around quicker, nee… moreds to be turned from. I'm not going to use the word that best describes this perverted form of it for fear that it'll spread among the already infected minds like an epidemic. This particular issue isn't even about picking Jane or Kenny. The line of logic you choose for your reasoning is a malfunction and inferior. From one enlightened organism to another, see to reforming it so that you can come up with better reasoning.
This "too far gone" and "broken" crap, as if it describes perfectly Kenny's behavior and alone merits bringing his death around quicker, nee… moreds to be turned from. I'm not going to use the word that best describes this perverted form of it for fear that it'll spread among the already infected minds like an epidemic. This particular issue isn't even about picking Jane or Kenny. The line of logic you choose for your reasoning is a malfunction and inferior. From one enlightened organism to another, see to reforming it so that you can come up with better reasoning.
I ended up shooting Kenny. Didn't really want to, but I did. I literally cried. That's the beauty of these games, they make you emotionally attached to characters. But the thing is, you can always replay it. I can't wait to see what Season 3 holds. I'm excited
(copy and pasting, because this explains it far better and clearly than I can. I also doubt you'll read this and process it without lashing out, so I'm not going to take hours out of my day writing this organically.)
Atheism will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings.
A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The framework set forth by Ninian Smart, known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.
1) Narrative:
Every religion has its stories. Almost all religions have stories explaining where the universe came from and what humanity’s part in it is. Smart calls this Narrative. Narrative is a particularly important aspect of western Atheism. As the prominent Atheist Richard Dawkins said, referring to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution:
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from: the cosmos (came out of nothing at the big bang, nothing exploded and became everything); humans evolved from non-human creatures, hence humanity’s place in the cosmos is being just another species of animal.The testimony of those who after learning about evolution in ‘science’ reject Christianity should alert church leaders to the incompatibility between evolution and the Gospel.
2)Experiential:
There are two aspects to the experiential dimension. The first is the events experienced before someone founded a religion. It is often asserted that Charles Darwin, after observing evidence from around the world during his voyage on HMS Beagle, developed the theory of evolution. (In reality, he had already learned a version of evolution from his grandfather Erasmus’s book Zoonomia and similar ideas were around at the time).
The second aspect of the experiential dimension concerns the experiences of latter adherents. Many people feel certain emotions when they participate in certain religious ceremonies. Atheists often believe that Atheism is freedom from religion, and some Atheists have reported feeling liberated after converting. Karl Marx said that the removal of the illusion of happiness by the removal of religion was a step towards true happiness. Atheistic denial of the divine entails denial of an afterlife. If there is no afterlife, then ultimately there is no higher purpose in life for Atheists than to be happy.
Smart also seems to include ‘faith’ as part of the experiential dimension. The meaning of the word ‘faith’ is often twisted to make it mean things it does not. In Christianity, faith is logical, being defined in Hebrews 11:1 as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This is not blindly believing the impossible (which is how many Atheists define faith), but rather trusting the promises of God, whose past promises have all been fulfilled. I would classify Christian faith as part of the doctrinal dimension rather than experiential. On the other hand, Atheism requires ‘faith’ (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution.
3)Social:
The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion, such the Hindu caste system. In missionary religions, it also includes how people get converted and how missionaries go about their work.
Contemporary Atheism has been fueled largely by authors promoting their Atheistic beliefs. In the preface to The God Delusion, Dawkins says,
“If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”
Dawkins is saying he hopes that his book converts ‘religious’ people to his worldview—exactly what a missionary of any religion hopes to do.
Many scientists are high up on the social hierarchy of Atheism because their research enhances their understanding of the world. Particularly honored are those scientists who write extensively about evolution. Because of this, many scientists include a little about evolution in their research papers, even when there is little or no relevance (one recent example concerns research into the chameleon’s catapult tongue and suction cap; see Created, not evolved)
Atheism is also taught to children in many schools in science classes as evolution. As atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse admits, “evolution is a religion”, and it could be considered the narrative dimension of Atheism. Thus teaching evolution is teaching Atheism. Several Atheists even support teaching lies, as long as the end result is more children believing evolution.
4)Doctrinal:
Doctrines are the beliefs and philosophies that develop out of a religion (not necessarily being specifically stated in the religious narratives, etc). For example, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, while not directly stated in the Bible, is logically derived from it.
Contemporary Atheism gained popularity in the 18th and 19th centuries, after the ‘enlightenment’. In 1933, some prominent Atheist philosophers realised the effects the lack of a belief in a god would have on the morals of society and wrote what they believed would be a suitable set of beliefs and goals for a secular society in the 20th century. In doing so, they formed the branch of Atheism known as Secular Humanism. By and large, Atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they don’t know the specifics of the document. After all, many Atheists do want to do what is good.
5)Ethical:
Atheism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as atheists Dawkins and Provine admit. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one.
Some people have taken a further step by creating ethical systems based on the evolutionary narrative and the principle of “survival of the fittest”. People who have lived by such principles include the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre, the Jokela School Shooting in Finland, and on a much larger scale, the Nazis.
Most people (Atheist or not) inherently know that systems that lead to such atrocities must be wrong, but Atheists cannot give a logical reason for why it is wrong. This contradiction was highlighted by Dawkins when he said “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” It was also graphically shown when two evolutionists wrote a book claiming that rape is an evolutionary mechanism to spread male genes—and see how one of them squirmed to justify why he agreed that rape is objectively wrong under his philosophy.
A world governed purely by Atheistic, evolutionary ethics has been shown by history to be a horrible place to live. Most Atheists recognize this and choose to live by the ethical systems of other religions instead, or at the very least, live by the laws enforced by the government.
6)Ritual:
Ritual is the only dimension which on the surface might appear to be absent from the religion of Atheism. In some religions, rituals have meanings attached to them, such as Passover commemorating the Israelites’ escape from Egypt. Because Atheism is a relatively recent movement, it doesn’t have much of a history to commemorate. In other religions, rituals such as sacrifices and dances are done to appease the gods or the spirits. Because Atheism denies the existence of gods and spirits, it doesn’t have the second type of ritual either. Many Atheists do practice ‘secular rituals’ such as their birthday celebrations, or the ‘ritual holidays’ of other religions such as the Christmas and Easter public holidays of Christianity, but this is usually to simply maintain the tradition of a public holiday, and the original meaning of the celebrations are rejected. It’s noteworthy that in recent years, the atheists’ public commemoration of the anniversary of Darwin’s birth each February (and even of the publication of his Origin of Species in November), along with calls for the general public to do the same, is rapidly becoming something of an annual ritual, even in some ‘churches’. One might even say that this modern Atheistic commemoration is being ‘celebrated’ with greater fervor and passion than many longstanding religious rituals.
7)Material:
The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself.
There are two extremes in the range of ideas held by Atheists on the ‘material’:
natural resources are here to be exploited because of ‘survival of the fittest’ and humans are obviously the fittest species; or
we should respect all of nature, particularly living things because to kill them is tantamount to murdering a cousin. This second view essentially holds that all life is ‘sacred’.
Both ideas can be derived from the evolutionary narrative, but views tending towards the second idea are more prevalent than the views tending towards the first. But as G.K. Chesterton said a century ago:
“Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. … The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.” An Atheist’s view of the material dimension is strongly influenced by their view of the ethical dimension.
Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, Calling Atheism a religion is like "not collecting stamps isn't a hobby". Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
You are trying to disprove it, by "explaining why it's stupid to believe in something". If you weren't trying to disprove it, you wouldn't even be having this argument with people, you wouldn't be so rude and disrespectful.
You can't listen to reason and you ignore all the facts.
First of all, atheism isnt religion, just like not collecting stamps isnt a hobby.
Im not trying to prove or disprove anything here, im t… morerying to explain why its stupid to believe in something we have no evidence of and that its impossible to disprove negative.
You know, i would have saved a lot time if i knew most of the Kenny fans ive been debating with are religious. You cant listen to reason and you ignore all the facts.
(copy and pasting, because this explains it far better and clearly than I can. I also doubt you'll read this and process it without lashing … moreout, so I'm not going to take hours out of my day writing this organically.)
Atheism will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings.
A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The framework set forth by Ninian Smart, known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.
1) Narrative:
Every religion… [view original content]
I thought you were just a bit silly, but now i know you are delusional. Dont bother talking to me anymore. I've seen fair share of people like you over the years.
Comments
I was just replying to you... Yeah I was gone for a day and then I came back and saw your ugly comments so I decided to reply to them with that.
Are you really that stupid or are you trolling?
Again.. are you stupid or is it trolling you pursue?
That rule isn't working in your case, pal.
Throwing false accusations won't get you any white knight points here. And, from what I've seen, you're doing your best to make it seem like he should be blamed for this.
So far, your actions and your plans don't seem to be related, at all.
You're too stupid it actually hurts.
Yeah because I just insulted him for no reason right? Before you even reply to me read the whole thread and you will see the disrespect he's offered me.
wat
Jane failed to provide safety? I somehow missed that AJ died, but I'm sure you have uncovered some unknown plot twist there.
Seems like you totally forgot this thread had been on top of the page for days now. Yeah, I totally didn't read it.
I asked you a question. Proof? You had no answer but "It's a rule." I'm sorry, but, what? I proved you were wrong. Therefore, I proved you're throwing false accusations, too. It shouldn't be a surprised, though. It was pretty obvious from the moment you asked him if he was a male.
You also followed him around in other threads. Are you a stalker?
Remember When this thread was about Kenny And Jane? And* NOT* Religion? So long ago...
If you are talking about me calling other people his girlfriends... It's a rule, people who defend wussies are usually called his girlfriends. Though this only applies if he is a male, which is why I asked him if he was a male in the first place.
Nope, I just decided to click on his name and I saw that he complains to his girlfriends in the other thread about people on here. Then his girlfriends comfort him and tell him to ignore the people on here, whenever I reply to him on the other thread he acts tough infront of his friends lol. Again, I need not to say more.
Nope.
That was like, a lifetime ago.
I was going to add something about my innate ability to rek anything you might come up with, but I wanted that comment to be somewhat serious. Also, AWESOMEO doesn't think I can really do it. :^(
Good, I hope it hurts
Salt, he won't ever understand.
His IQ is lower than The Dead Sea -_-
Generalize an entire fanbase. Checked.
Generalize an entire thread. Checked.
Good riddance, Livingston.
I don't have anything else to say, either. I proved my point.
You lie, stalk, accuse, and make excuse.
Wow, it actually rhymes. New catchphrase for ya!
he "fight" against you both ... he never had a chance ^^
Yea
You do realize I generalized the PRO-Kenny fans on this thread only.
You obviously are another ignorant fiend defending AWESOMO because he is the victim, right!
ikr
You also generalized Tinni and WTW. 2 friends of mine.
Wow, why so salty? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hit a nerve.
It's still generalization, lol.
If I'm the victim, does that mean you are the one to blame?
it's a good time to bring the meme out that i made a few months ago ^^
Please do not call people retards, thank you.
HOLY SHIT!
Remember this? Good times.
Did you read what I said? I was looking for a theory in regards to how a creator does not exist. I don't care about scientific explanations for the formation of the Earth (in regards to this conversation..). They literally do not do anything to disprove the idea that a creator exists.
Definitely not.
Great. Doesn't mean anything in regards to a creator existing or not existing. Nothing at all. I'm not trying to debate against scientific theories for the formation of the universe. I'm looking for a theory that actually states that there is no way a creator exists. They are very different discussions.
I'm just going to ignore how fallacious that is.
Depends what you're talking about. I mean, obviously gravity in the terms of what you're probably talking about here can actually be felt all around us. It would just be stupid to deny it's presence. Gravity is just a word for what we feel when climb a long set of stairs or what we feel when we jump off a cliff. Its just a word for a force that obviously effects every second of our every day lives.
Now, if you want to talk about how gravity actually works, that is a different story... which is why gravity is technically a theory.
There simply isnt no reason to assume such thing(s) would exists. You might as well believe that a unicorn created the universe and i wouldnt have to provide evidence that you are wrong. Burden of proof is on positive claim, since you cant disprove negative.
Debating and explaining your opinions is good for discussion, but please refrain from personal attacks and insults against other users just because they have a different opinion about fictional characters.
Wow... if only this line of thinking followed to all of your other arguments..
In regards to your whole post though, there is no evidence pointing to a separate factual answer. Who are you to say what belief is stupid and what belief is not?
And as I said before, some religious individuals have their own kind of evidence for believing in what they do. Based on my life experiences, I personally believe that a God exists. Who are you to tell anyone that their experiences are invalid? Have whatever doubts you want, but there is nothing you can do to do bring merit to your point.
There is simply no reason to assume such things don't exist
Yes, yes you would. Obviously no one is going to have such a specific sort of opinion like though, that would just be silly.
You can't prove anything at all. Stop wasting your time.
I don't know if you understand this at all, but your opinions are actually quite damaging to some people of faith. I personally don't care about what you have to say, but there are others who do not take it well. As long as they aren't hurting anyone with their beliefs, let them believe what they want to believe.
I thought you were just a bit silly, but now i know you are delusional. Dont bother talking to me anymore. I've seen fair share of people like you over the years.
What is wrong with this reasoning? It describes what's wrong with Kenny in simple, understandable terms.
Has it been proven that Jane tried to make Kenny try to kill her? She does say Leave not kill after you kill Kenny
But Kenny is god. So of course religion has to be brought up.
Kenny: I fucking kill you!
Jane: I knew you would
Yet it's been thrown at Sarah all the time without most people freaking out over it.
Fair enough.
I ended up shooting Kenny. Didn't really want to, but I did. I literally cried. That's the beauty of these games, they make you emotionally attached to characters. But the thing is, you can always replay it. I can't wait to see what Season 3 holds. I'm excited
(copy and pasting, because this explains it far better and clearly than I can. I also doubt you'll read this and process it without lashing out, so I'm not going to take hours out of my day writing this organically.)
Atheism will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings.
A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The framework set forth by Ninian Smart, known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.
1) Narrative:
Every religion has its stories. Almost all religions have stories explaining where the universe came from and what humanity’s part in it is. Smart calls this Narrative. Narrative is a particularly important aspect of western Atheism. As the prominent Atheist Richard Dawkins said, referring to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution:
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from: the cosmos (came out of nothing at the big bang, nothing exploded and became everything); humans evolved from non-human creatures, hence humanity’s place in the cosmos is being just another species of animal.The testimony of those who after learning about evolution in ‘science’ reject Christianity should alert church leaders to the incompatibility between evolution and the Gospel.
2)Experiential:
There are two aspects to the experiential dimension. The first is the events experienced before someone founded a religion. It is often asserted that Charles Darwin, after observing evidence from around the world during his voyage on HMS Beagle, developed the theory of evolution. (In reality, he had already learned a version of evolution from his grandfather Erasmus’s book Zoonomia and similar ideas were around at the time).
The second aspect of the experiential dimension concerns the experiences of latter adherents. Many people feel certain emotions when they participate in certain religious ceremonies. Atheists often believe that Atheism is freedom from religion, and some Atheists have reported feeling liberated after converting. Karl Marx said that the removal of the illusion of happiness by the removal of religion was a step towards true happiness. Atheistic denial of the divine entails denial of an afterlife. If there is no afterlife, then ultimately there is no higher purpose in life for Atheists than to be happy.
Smart also seems to include ‘faith’ as part of the experiential dimension. The meaning of the word ‘faith’ is often twisted to make it mean things it does not. In Christianity, faith is logical, being defined in Hebrews 11:1 as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This is not blindly believing the impossible (which is how many Atheists define faith), but rather trusting the promises of God, whose past promises have all been fulfilled. I would classify Christian faith as part of the doctrinal dimension rather than experiential. On the other hand, Atheism requires ‘faith’ (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution.
3)Social:
The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion, such the Hindu caste system. In missionary religions, it also includes how people get converted and how missionaries go about their work.
Contemporary Atheism has been fueled largely by authors promoting their Atheistic beliefs. In the preface to The God Delusion, Dawkins says,
“If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”
Dawkins is saying he hopes that his book converts ‘religious’ people to his worldview—exactly what a missionary of any religion hopes to do.
Many scientists are high up on the social hierarchy of Atheism because their research enhances their understanding of the world. Particularly honored are those scientists who write extensively about evolution. Because of this, many scientists include a little about evolution in their research papers, even when there is little or no relevance (one recent example concerns research into the chameleon’s catapult tongue and suction cap; see Created, not evolved)
Atheism is also taught to children in many schools in science classes as evolution. As atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse admits, “evolution is a religion”, and it could be considered the narrative dimension of Atheism. Thus teaching evolution is teaching Atheism. Several Atheists even support teaching lies, as long as the end result is more children believing evolution.
4)Doctrinal:
Doctrines are the beliefs and philosophies that develop out of a religion (not necessarily being specifically stated in the religious narratives, etc). For example, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, while not directly stated in the Bible, is logically derived from it.
Contemporary Atheism gained popularity in the 18th and 19th centuries, after the ‘enlightenment’. In 1933, some prominent Atheist philosophers realised the effects the lack of a belief in a god would have on the morals of society and wrote what they believed would be a suitable set of beliefs and goals for a secular society in the 20th century. In doing so, they formed the branch of Atheism known as Secular Humanism. By and large, Atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they don’t know the specifics of the document. After all, many Atheists do want to do what is good.
5)Ethical:
Atheism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as atheists Dawkins and Provine admit. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one.
Some people have taken a further step by creating ethical systems based on the evolutionary narrative and the principle of “survival of the fittest”. People who have lived by such principles include the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre, the Jokela School Shooting in Finland, and on a much larger scale, the Nazis.
Most people (Atheist or not) inherently know that systems that lead to such atrocities must be wrong, but Atheists cannot give a logical reason for why it is wrong. This contradiction was highlighted by Dawkins when he said “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” It was also graphically shown when two evolutionists wrote a book claiming that rape is an evolutionary mechanism to spread male genes—and see how one of them squirmed to justify why he agreed that rape is objectively wrong under his philosophy.
A world governed purely by Atheistic, evolutionary ethics has been shown by history to be a horrible place to live. Most Atheists recognize this and choose to live by the ethical systems of other religions instead, or at the very least, live by the laws enforced by the government.
6)Ritual:
Ritual is the only dimension which on the surface might appear to be absent from the religion of Atheism. In some religions, rituals have meanings attached to them, such as Passover commemorating the Israelites’ escape from Egypt. Because Atheism is a relatively recent movement, it doesn’t have much of a history to commemorate. In other religions, rituals such as sacrifices and dances are done to appease the gods or the spirits. Because Atheism denies the existence of gods and spirits, it doesn’t have the second type of ritual either. Many Atheists do practice ‘secular rituals’ such as their birthday celebrations, or the ‘ritual holidays’ of other religions such as the Christmas and Easter public holidays of Christianity, but this is usually to simply maintain the tradition of a public holiday, and the original meaning of the celebrations are rejected. It’s noteworthy that in recent years, the atheists’ public commemoration of the anniversary of Darwin’s birth each February (and even of the publication of his Origin of Species in November), along with calls for the general public to do the same, is rapidly becoming something of an annual ritual, even in some ‘churches’. One might even say that this modern Atheistic commemoration is being ‘celebrated’ with greater fervor and passion than many longstanding religious rituals.
7)Material:
The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself.
There are two extremes in the range of ideas held by Atheists on the ‘material’:
natural resources are here to be exploited because of ‘survival of the fittest’ and humans are obviously the fittest species; or
we should respect all of nature, particularly living things because to kill them is tantamount to murdering a cousin. This second view essentially holds that all life is ‘sacred’.
Both ideas can be derived from the evolutionary narrative, but views tending towards the second idea are more prevalent than the views tending towards the first. But as G.K. Chesterton said a century ago:
“Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. … The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.” An Atheist’s view of the material dimension is strongly influenced by their view of the ethical dimension.
Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, Calling Atheism a religion is like "not collecting stamps isn't a hobby". Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
You are trying to disprove it, by "explaining why it's stupid to believe in something". If you weren't trying to disprove it, you wouldn't even be having this argument with people, you wouldn't be so rude and disrespectful.
Look who's talking, don't be a hypocrite.
There was so much bs in that copy paste message, that i cant be asked to answer it. Its just not worth it.
No, you just don't have an argument that any makes any sense what so ever, and its really obvious.
Was expecting the typical insult-walk off.