namelesstavern.net

Not to interject into the argument of the existence of any sort of deific beings, but:

Feel free to offer proof of the nonexistence of said invisible man?

is such retarded logic that I had to comment.

So, Harrison, feel free to offer proof of the nonexistence of the Flying Spaghetti monster? After all, you're a fucking arrogant moron for disbelieving in something without PROOF of its nonexistence.

How about the Great Green Arklesiezure? Sure, it's only mentioned in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the book at least), but do you have PROOF that it doesn't exist?

Claiming you believe something exists because there's no proof it does NOT exist is one of the singularly most retarded lines of argument I have ever encoutnered on NT.

I can't prove that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist, but I don't believe in it, either. If someone wants you to believe in something, shouldn't there be SOME evidence to provide as to WHY you should? "Because I believe it" is a lousy reason, by the way. Some people firmly believe that the earth is flat. Should the rest of us suddenly start believing that just because they do? Ridiculous.

If you're going to argue on subjects like this, at least use some actual thought in the matter, rather than spouting off such imbecility.

-Arlos

Flying Spaghetti monster

I love spaghetti.

arlos wrote:Not to interject into the argument of the existence of any sort of deific beings, but:

Feel free to offer proof of the nonexistence of said invisible man?

is such retarded logic that I had to comment.

So, Harrison, feel free to offer proof of the nonexistence of the Flying Spaghetti monster? After all, you're a fucking arrogant moron for disbelieving in something without PROOF of its nonexistence.

How about the Great Green Arklesiezure? Sure, it's only mentioned in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the book at least), but do you have PROOF that it doesn't exist?

Claiming you believe something exists because there's no proof it does NOT exist is one of the singularly most retarded lines of argument I have ever encoutnered on NT.

I can't prove that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist, but I don't believe in it, either. If someone wants you to believe in something, shouldn't there be SOME evidence to provide as to WHY you should? "Because I believe it" is a lousy reason, by the way. Some people firmly believe that the earth is flat. Should the rest of us suddenly start believing that just because they do? Ridiculous.

If you're going to argue on subjects like this, at least use some actual thought in the matter, rather than spouting off such imbecility.

-Arlos

This is not retarded or imbecillic logic, Arlos. What Harrison said with "Feel free to offer proof of the non-existence of said invisible man" is just as logical as someone saying "feel free to prove the existence of God." Neither can be "proved" per say. They are exact opposite statements.

I get what you're saying Harrison so let me be a little more clear about it. There is no scientist who will debate how the world was created. They all seem to agree on how things work and they also seem to validate each other scientists' theories. Everything they do can be explained. Maybe I won't understand it without proper study, but explainable nonetheless. Every theory or scientific fact bears the burden of experimentation, which then turns it into a theory or fact which scientists deliver time and time again.

Narrock wrote:
This is not retarded or imbecillic logic, Arlos. What Harrison said with "Feel free to offer proof of the non-existence of said invisible man" is just as logical as someone saying "feel free to prove the existence of God." Neither can be "proved" per say. They are exact opposite statements.

here's proof then


If god exists, he can feel free to kill me now (or mindia, or harrison, whichever is more convenient)

if I can't post 30 seconds from now, I guess you get to win the arguement!

I win, you lose

Tikker wrote:I win, you lose

I waited for like 2 minutes and started to fear for the worst. I'm now relieved.

I thought if i posted exactly at 30 seconds that people would claim he was busy or something, even though he's sposed to have that whole omniscient/omnipotent thing going on

/shrug. Earth took him 7 days. Technology has advanced since then though. Maybe he has more RAM now.

Tikker wrote:I win, you lose

You certainly win at being retarded.

Your wit knows absolutely no bounds Mindia

This is not retarded or imbecillic logic, Arlos. What Harrison said with "Feel free to offer proof of the non-existence of said invisible man" is just as logical as someone saying "feel free to prove the existence of God." Neither can be "proved" per say. They are exact opposite statements.

Actually, they're very different types of assertions, assuming a baseline of no belief. I can see your argument if a fervent believer in God (or some other diety, etc) says "OK, I'll stop believing if you can prove that He (or whatever euphemism you choose) does NOT exist." In that case, yes, that would be something of an opposition.

However, that's not the basis under which Harrison made that statement.

The way he put it was that with a starting belief in nothing, that unless you could PROVE that you shouldn't believe in something, you should start.

ie, take an athiest. He doesnt' believe in God, and says he would like some sort of evidence to change his belief position from non-belief to belief. By Harrison's argument, he should change his belief no matter what, unless one can PROVE God's non-existence.

The problem with that, though, is that there's an infinity of things that do not exist, or that only exist in the beliefs of some. Should he then adopt the belief of ALL of those other concepts, merely because it cannot be proved that they do not exist? I say that's ludicrous.

That's why Harrison's argument is laughable and utterly unsupportable, because it was predicated on the starting condition of not believing.

-Arlos

exactly

Tikker wrote:

Harrison wrote:
Tikker thinks he's better than someone for believing x.

what I believe or don't believe(or what you believe) has nothing to do with why I think I'm better than you~

Yes, he is better for Believing in X (me)

Xaiveir wrote:

Tikker wrote:

Harrison wrote:
Tikker thinks he's better than someone for believing x.

what I believe or don't believe(or what you believe) has nothing to do with why I think I'm better than you~

Yes, he is better for Believing in X (me)

Claiming you believe something exists because there's no proof it does NOT exist is one of the singularly most retarded lines of argument I have ever encoutnered on NT.

Hey, not that you flew off the handle or anything but you might want to slow the fuck down chief.

I do not believe in anything simply because there's no proof of its nonexistence.

I just don't sit around claiming it doesn't because I lack proof it DOES exist, like a moron would.

Did everyone suddenly forgot difrence between "believe" and "know". This is most retarded argument ever

Ganzo wrote:Did everyone suddenly forgot difrence between "believe" and "know". This is most retarded argument ever

Tikker loves to ignore the "belief" part.

arlos wrote:Actually, they're very different types of assertions, assuming a baseline of no belief. I can see your argument if a fervent believer in God (or some other diety, etc) says "OK, I'll stop believing if you can prove that He (or whatever euphemism you choose) does NOT exist." In that case, yes, that would be something of an opposition.

If you stop believing, your God will no longer exist as right now your belief causes them to exist in your subconciousness.

Thus, king me. I'm better at checkers than you.