WatchNon-threaded

Forums » The Lounge » Read Message

A place to sit back, hang out, and talk about anything you'd like.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/video/23Jwx9

How can this guy be wrong ... Lol

Just hear him out... Give it 4 minutes at least

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Its called Faith not Logic. Lets not go into that whole Can of worms.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

that actually reminded of a picture that made me chuckle. (more of pictures with a caption instead of actual pictures)

"Science is the use of logic and reasoning to find your answers. Faith is the ignoring of logic and reasoning to keep your current answers."

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

I'm not even going to get into it again at this point.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

*Sigh*

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

I'm going to refer to what I said on another thread.

"At this point, I extremely dislike you. I really don't care what you're beliefs are but I have no respect for someone who thinks they're superior to others for their beliefs."

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Haven't you already posted a bashing thread before?

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

http://chooseyourstory.com/forums/message.aspx?MessageId=7145

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Sarcasm, Playa

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Well this is the internet, how the hell am I supposed to tell? :p

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Telepathy, obviously. Some people just don't get it...

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

If that guy's a comedian, he's really not that funny.

Either way - yes I'm an agnostic atheist and find I respect people less if they are religious, but there's no need to be so in-your-face about it.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Funny how you're still trying so hard after the asswhoopin' you got last time. I remember you running away with your tail between your legs after you got pounded by so many people more intelligent and openminded than you are. Having a masochistic day, Brad?

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
I seriously don't recall an ass whopping as you call it. I just find this kind of thing dam right hilarious. I think I have struck a nerve JJJ, you seem to be offended with the stuff I am posting? Why are you insulting me?

Can't take the truth lol? I bet you didn't even give it the 4 minutes I said ...

I'm sure some atheists will find this funny, its just a question as if they will post it. If you notice, the guy in the video has quite a crowd. But then I guess that doesn't mean much because so do churches ...

Anyway, like I said. Enjoy.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

"I'm getting rather sick of religious people who are always going on about god"

That's your very first sentence on the thread Playa posted above. The ass-whooping you don't recall is when everyone pointed out that an atheist always going on about him being intellectually superior to the religious is exactly as obnoxious.

I'm an atheist, and I find what you post, both on this thread and the other thread somewhat funny, but you sort of give me the feeling that you're not just posting these pictures for a laugh, and I suspect the other people are asking you not to post these threads because they feel the same way.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
I'm trying to make people open up there brain. Keep them open minded, which is exactly what JJJ accused me of not doing ironically. In the process, I'm deliberately picking out the funny ones. I don't see a problem with that?

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

"I'm trying to make people open up there brain. Keep them open minded"

Yeah...so are the people that try to force their religion down your throats (from their perspective anyway).

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
But is it funny?

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

You being as bad as the people you say you really hate? Yes, it is hilarious.

Oh, and what you posted is rather funny too.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
I don't HATE anybody. Jeez, when did I say that? Assumptions people assumptions ...

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Sorry. Replace hate with "getting really sick of".

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

The links I found funny:

http://www.mixedmotive.com/quotes/faith-does-not-prove-anything.php
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/free_expression_cartoons/3-AMA-Lopez-Bible.jpg

I found the fact that lobsters worship pickles funny, but not the actual jokes. Those were pretty dry to me.

The Links I found true:

http://lolclicks.net/?p=7595

http://www.atheistsoup.com/2011/09/good-and-bad-people.html

 

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Thanks. At least somebody admits it was funny ...

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Sindri already did. What, did you forget that just like your asswhoopin' ;)

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

You don't recall? I guess so many people slammed you without a single person trying to support you you just blocked it out.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Actually, we got a fair few opinions on that topic. Have you ever thought the people that maybe did support me didn't bother replying to the topic?

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Have you ever thought that "No, I have tons of supporters, you just can't see them" is a stupid argument?

Basic logic states that if nobody supported you, then nobody - or at least very few - supports you.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
In religion basic logic doesn't exist. I choose this too also be a time where basic logic doesn't exist. Am I making my point clear yet?

You have to prove that my supporters DON'T exist or otherwise my argument that they exist still stands ... ;)

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Doesn't the same go for religion though?

God you're fucking retarded...

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
No actually you are. In case you didn't get it, I was taking the piss out of religious logic!! by being sarcasic I deliberately used the same argument, so you could see how silly it is. Jeez some people ...

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Excuse me, I get a little angry when people act hostile and call my beliefs idiotic. Therefore, I'm going to do the same in return.

Back to the point though, you think you come across as sarcastic, but all you come across as is a arrogant d-bag who contradicts himself too often. I do see your point though nonetheless.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Why do you need to get angry if I call your beliefs idiotic. (didn't use those exact words) . If you are so sure of your beliefs you can easily dismiss my opinion. Unless of course ... mines more logical ? So you get angry? Please don't call me rude names we are in a debate here and its not very professional...

Still at least you get the idea, I was trying to make.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

I'm not angry that you call my ideas idiotic, I already have easily dismissed you as a closeminded bigot. What I'm angry about is the fact that you're acting superior to ME, not what I believe in, ME personally.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

"In religion basic logic doesn't exist. I choose this too also be a time where basic logic doesn't exist. Am I making my point clear yet? "

Is you're point "yes, I may be stupid, but so is somebody else"? Yes, then you're making that perfectly clear

"You have to prove that my supporters DON'T exist or otherwise my argument that they exist still stands ... ;)"

You have no evidence people support you. Nobody has said anything about supporting you. Nobody has hinted at supporting you. You can't prove it without idle skepticism and a good dose of denial, so it isnt' true. I'm actually quite surprised, as you're the one trying to say all Christians are stupid, yet you take up the same argument that they use.

And yes, I see that you're trying to turn it around on me, the only problem with that is I know you didn't plan on that from the beginning. That's pretty obvious.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
In case you didn't get it, I was taking the piss out of religious logic!! by being sarcasic I deliberately used the same argument, so you could see how silly it is. Jeez some people ... Obviously my plan worked .... because you didn't believe it.

My work here is done ;)

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

I think Bo has already stated that he's an atheist (or agnostic, won't bother going through both of the threads again).

No one here is saying anything about whether religion is incorrect or not. The only thing we're saying is that you're being as annoying as the people you have stated that you're getting sick of.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
True. But the religious people do it without humour!! They are totally serious about it!! I could post a ricky gervais version, which might be more to your taste, but somehow I have a feeling the reception to a post like that would be equally hostile. Still I may decide to do it, to give people who want a good laugh. But I most likely will not.

"No one here is saying anything about whether religion is incorrect or not"

And actually the post above the guy(sorry I forgot your username, the guy with the phone to the mirror, in the white t shirt.) says that he was annoyed that I called his beliefs idiotic(Didn't use those exact words though ...) . Well he has said his religion is correct (in a indirect way)

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

I never once said my ideas were correct, I am very open to the idea that my religion could be incorrect and consider the options daily. What I'm mad about is that you're acting like a total asshole about it.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Can you point out where someone said that their religious views are correct? I can't seem to find it.

Also, he has every right to be annoyed when his beliefs are called idiotic.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
I did, 2 posts above ...

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

You said someone somewhere indirectly said something, and then I replied that I went through the entire thing and didn't see it, and the person you claimed to have indirectly said something claims not to have said it.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

That is by far, the dumbest excuse I have ever heard.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

I have thousands of ninjas working for me, ready to do my bidding and help me take over the world. You'll just never see them and I'll never call upon them.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Believable .. very believable. I know somebody else who has thousands of angles working for him, with priests ready to do his bidding and has created the world. You won't see him either, and he hasn't really been called upon and done anything.

Huge difference then huh? Actually I seriously do believe that your ninjas are more likely .... that's not to say that they are very probable though.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Alright, so you are comparing my statement, which I was comparing to your statement, to what you are constantly saying has no chance of being correct?

See my point? By this, you have already disqualified your sentence of "I might have supporters that just never said anything".

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Yes but I don't agree with your logic. How in any way shape or form does the believability of ninjas got to do with people who can't be bothered to click the post a reply button?? We know there are 'lurkers' as somebody on the site called them. People who read forum posts but don't necessarily reply or have anything else to add. I myself am one sometimes. Also people don't have time all the time to make reply myself included. So its very believable. However ninjas .... read my post above.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

But if I posted a religion-bashing thread, where I said nothing other than religion is stupid and repeatedly told everyone who said otherwise that they were idiots, I am confident you would be right at my side, even though you had never posted on the site before. If someone agrees with you, but doesn't say anything, then he clearly doesn't agree with you enough, does he?

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Also whats stopping them from posting, fear of retribution, there are no consequences from arguing with people on the internet.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Well, there's always the fear that others might shun you.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Brad clearly doesn't care lol

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
I think it needs to be said once in a while. If everybody shut up about everything women wouldn't have equal rights. Darwin wouldn't have got his point across against the church, and blah blah blah I could continue but I can't be bothered. I'm coming of the site for a bit guys, I will return in about 12 hours lol. Nice debating with you, and keep it coming ...

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

The key difference between those facts is that EVERYONE WASN'T ACTING SUPERIOR TO THOSE THEY WERE DEBATING!

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

How many atheist-bashing posts have you seen on this site? Do you think those belong on this site? I am very cool with everyone just sort not thinking about everyone else's religious views. Not everything has to be brought up, you know.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
But if I posted a religion-bashing thread, where I said nothing other than religion is stupid and repeatedly told everyone who said otherwise that they were idiots, I am confident you would be right at my side, even though you had never posted on the site before.

But I have posted on the site before ... This is really irrelavant ...

If someone agrees with you, but doesn't say anything, then he clearly doesn't agree with you enough, does he?

Possibly .. but like I said : not enough time, nothing more to add, unwilling to enter a debate, doesn't want to side with the big mean nasty atheist (Lol)


This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Still adding up what everyone has said your amount of potential supporters is very small.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

It's extremely relevant, just because it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it doesn't apply to others.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
He used an example where I haven't posted on the site before, but I have, so I didn't understand his example. That's what I was saying.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

You think the part where I used you as an analogy was actually to describe that you would come and support you? Wow...that's...really? Obviously, I meant someone else (whoever it is you seem to think is secretly supporting you, and you are far from secretly supporting you, in case you somehow managed to make a different deduction).

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

I think you have the wrong idea, here Bradhal. We're not commenting on this thread to tell you that your previous thread wasn't funny (In fact, Sindri and I have told you that we liked some of the links), that your video isn't funny (actually, I busted out laughing for a good couple of seconds at that point right after the one minute mark where he looks up and says "But he loves you"), or that you're wrong to be an athiest, or that religion is the only true answer to anything. We're tell you one thing, and one thing only.

We don't appreciate the fact that you've been bashing Religion repeatedly, nor the fact that you have this self-rightousness about you to rival that of the Puritans. Nobody here has supported you, nobody here has condoned you, nobody here has respected you, and nobody here is inferior to you.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
I'm assuming it's the George Carlin video, which is funny.

You're still insanely repugnant.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

"I think it needs to be said once in a while. If everybody shut up about everything women wouldn't have equal rights..."

I'm pretty sure equal rights for women isn't the same as taking away the right for people to follow religion. Just saying.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

I enjoyed it and thought it was pretty funny throughout, despite the misconceptions.  But hey, it's comedy, not a philosophical essay.

Nevertheless, JJJ was right, you got your ass handed to you before.  You fail to recognize that you have no ground on which to stand for the position "there is no god."  Consider the following:

"I'm not sure if 3 exists.  Have you ever seen 3?"

"Sure, I have.  3 apples, 3 pencils, 3..."

"No, I mean 'The 3.'  3 in its purest form.  Apples and pencils, those definitely represent 3.  You can 'see' 3 in groups of things, you can see the curvy little figure '3,' and you can add 3 to 3 and somehow get 6, the existence of which I'm also skeptical of, but does a wholly pure '3' really exist in the universe?  Have you ever sensed or experienced it?"

"Well, perhaps I've imagined it... I've certainly utilized it!  Yeah, I can square it and cube it; of course it exists!"

"But you're describing functions and properties.  Sure, I can do those things too, but is three just the name we give to things that qualify under certain properties... or doesn't it exist somewhere, somehow, in the universe?  Perhaps not physically, but could it be out there?  It has its rules and its properties, and some mathematicians will tell you 'we invented them,' whereas others will argue that 'we discovered them.'"

"Arg, now you've just confused me!"

"You see, if we invented it, then it doesn't necessarily exist in the universe.  It's just the name we give to that which qualifies under the rules we created for 'it.'  But if we discovered it, and '3' was somehow a part of nature before we came to be, then our rules and qualities for '3' are our attempts to describe, not create... What do you think?"

"I guess I don't know.  It can be one or the other, but not both.  I have reasons for believing both, and I want to say we invented it... no, discovered it..... ahhh, damn it!  I guess I just can't be sure one way or the other."

"Yahh, me neither."

My point?  Gods are like numbers.  Some people see "God" in the universe, or even as the universe, and we merely describe it and its rules the same way we describe nature.  Others say that "God" is a fabrication of man, an illusion, simply the name we give to the phenomena that occur in life and nature.  Thus, one's perception of what a "God" really is is subjective.  It's according to one's own understanding of the universe.  So, it's one thing to make the case "I don't believe there is a god" or "I don't believe there is no god," both of which are entirely defensible.  However, it's another thing entirely to take an affirmative position and make the case that "There is no god" or "There is a god."

And this is why you're so damn detestable. haha  You're blinded by your own misguided dogmatism.  It's not because you don't believe in a god, it's because you believe there is no god and you want to push your annoying and underdeveloped ideas onto other people.  At the end of the day, believe whatever the hell you want, but if you want to not be seen as closed-minded simpleton, unless you have something of substance to say, I suggest you keep it to yourself.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
3 is man made and 3 did not make us. We know for a fact that we made 3, and the rules that go with it, evidence for this consists that animals don't use 3 or get affected by 3. Sure there may be 3 horses but again

"No, I mean 'The 3.' 3 in its purest form. Apples and pencils, those definitely represent 3

There are things in the universe which may follow the rules of 3 that we made. The problem with your analogy, is 3 is man made. If god is man made that would be impossible if he made us.So it has to one or the other. God made us or we made god.

Considering we can see us, I'm going with we made god. So therefore we made god not the other way around. But again my opinion is just from a simpleton. Due to there being a 50/50 chance of me being right or wrong, people who believe in god are also a simpleton.

Also how do you define substance? Quality or quantity? I'm sure the topic about how old you really are, really lives up to expectations of substance doesn't it. Sure it may have lots of posts but its not really substance as you put it is it?

It hardly challenges logical thinking, interesting conversation, or intellectual debate. (Unless by pure chance) It certainly isn't long winded or puzzling or entertaining. It's entirely pointless as a conversation, unless somebody is trying identity fraud lol. Or for other malicious reasons. Go on tell the maker of that topic that it has no "substance". I think your just peeved because I could be upsetting or offending theists. Well they shouldn't be if they believe it so well.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Any rational and logical creature would inevitably come up with a method of counting and "invent" numbers. They are by no means a human invention, it's just that humans are the only creatures we know of smart enough to utilize them. If humans didn't exist, numbers would still exist, they would just be unknown.

Dunno where you're arbitrarily getting that you have a 50% change of being right from. Just because something has two possible outcomes doesn't make the chance of each outcome 50%.

Curious though, which God are you referring to? I would assume you're meaning the Christian God, but you could be meaning any of them. Or are you just referring to the idea of a God in general?

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Well the idea of any god is illogical to me. But I guess the 'god' I am more familiar with is the Christian one. God either exists or it doesn't. True or false. It can't half exist. Or 1/4 of god exists. (Or not that I can think of that makes sense. Maybe half the bible is true or whatever but not the idea of god itself.)

So that's where I got the 50/50 from. However obviously in my opinion its 100/0.

Ok more specifically the bare minimum is 50%. It can't go over 50%, because at the moment there isn't any evidence that god exists/doesn't. Well there is but theists have a way of wriggling around evidence even if its bloody obvious.

So lets say you flip a coin. Heads or tails? 50/50. I have no evidence either way that the head or tails will come up. I can't prove that he exists and I can't prove that he doesn't. Based on evidence/fact only, I can't say either way. I can get evidence about other things, like the factory that made the coin tended to use heavy materials, but I don't know where this coin came from (scientists opinon that the coin is heavy, but can't prove that this particular coin is from that factory)

I think thats a good level of where we are at with evidence to do with god. We have evidence about this and that, (like evolution, fossils) . But nobody can say, he doesn't exist. (because if he doesn't exist how can you prove it? you can't test it)

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Forgot to mention that the factory made half the coin heavier, e.g. the head side. So portability of it landing on head is larger. All hypothetical of course, I'm pretty sure they don't make half the coin heavier lol.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Yeah, a situation based only on random chance, with two outcomes is 50/50. However, when you drop an object from a building on Earth, is there a 50% chance that it won't obey gravity?

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Only without any evidence at all is it 50/50. There is evidence for gravity.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
So wait, you're saying there's a 50% chance your wrong and because of that, there's a 50% chance you're right, so everyone is a simpleton?

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
If there's a 50% chance i'm wrong and therefore a simpleton. But the problem with that is that there is a 50% chance i'm right so not a simpleton. If i'm right however then the people who were wrong are a simpleton, if zero accuses me of it.

I never said everyone was a simpleton and never accused anybody, the blame for that my friend lies with zero. I think this is getting rather off topic don't you think???

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Interestingly enough, while you're acting like a hostile atheist, what you just said coincides more with an agnostics point of view, in that you say you can't prove God one way or the other. You know that in either way you can't prove anything, yet you insult those who do believe he exists, despite the fact that you acknowledge that there's no way to know you're right in saying he doesn't exist.

Maybe you really are a simpleton lol.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
I can't prove it. But there is a very very very strong probability. Prove that this imaginary friend I have next to me is unreal. Only I can see him. You can't prove that he doesn't exist, yet your probability is very very high that he doesn't.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

How can you think there's a very very strong probability if you can't prove it one way or the other? That's just your belief, which is just as valid as any theists belief.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
yes IMO. very very very strong probability IMO. Do you not agree that if I had an imaginary friend you would think the provability that it doesn't exist is very very high?

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Not really. It's possible that to you your imaginary friend is quite real. Is physically existing the only way something can exist?

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Depends on what your definition of real is. If I believe it is real, does it automatically become real? I think not.

So you think an imaginary friend is real ............. ok.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

I said it's real for you, never said it was real for me.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Real Defined :
Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

An imaginary friend wouldn't cut it i'm afraid. And that's what god is for most people IMO.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Defenitions are not as concrete as you may think they are...unless Pizza is a vegetable.

But what you didn't get about Zero's analogy of '3' was that, even though it has no physical substance, it is used, it has value, and you don't really think not having numbers would leave no impact on society, do you? As such, it exists, even though it does not apply to your definition of real. It exists as an idea, and ideas can be more impactful and even more real than you think they can.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
1. How do you know that we made 3 and didn't discover it?
2. How does pointing out other bad threads make yours any better?

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
1. We made the rules for 3. 3 doesn't really exist does it? Go on show me a picture of 3. Not not 3 something, actually 3. Not the graphical representation of the number 3. We made letters and numbers remember.

2. I was merely questioning what he meant my substance. He said I should only say something if it has substance, or keep it to myself. I was merely implying that substance is very subjective and I think mine has more substance as he puts it.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

"And this is why you're so damn detestable. haha  You're blinded by your own misguided dogmatism.  It's not because you don't believe in a god, it's because you believe there is no god and you want to push your annoying and underdeveloped ideas onto other people.  At the end of the day, believe whatever the hell you want, but if you want to not be seen as closed-minded simpleton, unless you have something of substance to say, I suggest you keep it to yourself."

It was in the context of dogmatism.  If you're so sure about it, then have reasons for it; otherwise, people will see you as a "closed-minded simpleton."

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Defined dogmatism:
The tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.

I'm not because I have considered the evidence - there is none. I have considered the opinions, i'm doing it right now, as we debate, consitantly considering people opinions in this topic.

Defined simpleton:
A foolish or gullible person

On the contrary i'm not being gullible because I think things through first. I have come to my own conclusion rather then randomly believing what my parents may/might not have told me.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

My argument is that you have no case.  I've explained why.  Your dogmatism stems from your inability to recognize the illogicality of your position, despite the evidence presented against you.  (A)"Here's why you're wrong" + (B)"I don't care, I'm still right" = dogmatism.

Yah, foolish sounds about right.  I was going to say "idiot" or "jackass," but anything along those line, really, works to carry my message along.

Also, you have a very flawed understanding of statistical probability.  We don't say "Umm, in my opinion, 24% chance."  Where did you pull your numbers from?  Where's this statistic coming from?  Nowhere.  So, when you mention probability, all you're really doing is reiterating your belief that you are correct.  "In my opinion" is no different from "high probability, in my opinion," because of course you're going to think you're right, and it lends no credibility to your position.  But that's just for future reference

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

The problem isn't with the analogy, it's with your understanding.  First, the question is not who created whom.  The role of 3 as a creator of man and the universe was never a question; I don't know why you ever thought it was.

We do not "know for a fact that we made 3."  Again, the question is of discovery or invention.  We know of three, its understood by men to have certain properties and rules, irrefutable by definition.  We look at the group { x x x } and know it can't be 2 and it can't be 4.  Again, I'm not talking about the curvy little symbol, I'm talking about the concept of 3 and the properties required to achieve 3-hood.  If we made 3 and its rules, then it would lend itself to reason that we could have created a 3 that is both { x x x } and { x x x x } simultaneously.  However, 3 apples = 4 apples is clearly and utterly beyond the realm of possibility (at least as far as logicism is concerned).  Ergo, there must be some law or force of nature that requires 3 to be fundamentally different from 4.

As it pertains to invention, 3 is just a word that we give to these groups.  3 doesn't not equal 4, because that's how we decided to define it; however, what this argument fails to provide is a definition for { x x x } when we decide that 3 does equal 4... and 5, and 12, and 4.65.  You could get into higher mathematics, no question, and that would lead us down a rabbit hole we'd never get ourselves out of (which would be okay, I guess. haha).  But no matter the situation, there necessarily must be a logical definition for { x x x } and only { x x x }.  Based on that necessity, it's is argued that numbers were in fact discovered and not invented.

And there are counter arguments to this, and counters for those counters, for a pretty long stretch, still being debated today. 

Now, to the crux of your argument: "Considering we can see us, I'm going with we made god.  So therefore we made god not the other way around."  You wanna know what I mean by "of substance?"  The opposite of what you did right here. haha  You're so sure that man created 3, and you gave your reasons for it.  You see, we can have a conversation about that, because I feel like I'm not talking to someone who blindly believes something is the case.  But when it came to the subject of a god and you reached the fork in the road "God made us or we made God," you dropped your sense of reason, and went with "we can see us..." which is just ridiculous.  If we couldn't see us, would that mean that the opposite it true and there is a god?  I don't even have to try at all to show you why it's so... dumb.

Yes, people who are sure that there absolutely is a god are equally unreasonable.  However, there are those who keep their beliefs to themselves, and there are those who think themselves superior and attempt to belittle others for not believing what they believe out of their own stupidity.  It's the latter I have a problem with, not because I think they hurt people's feelings, hahah, (like I said, I enjoyed the video) but because they're annoying people.  Very annoying.  And I take a purely hedonistic pleasure in pointing why no one likes them. haha

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
But when it came to the subject of a god and you reached the fork in the road "God made us or we made God," you dropped your sense of reason, and went with "we can see us..." which is just ridiculous. If we couldn't see us, would that mean that the opposite it true and there is a god? I don't even have to try at all to show you why it's so... dumb.

If you have to believe one or the other. We made god or god made us. We know that we exist because we can see us. So therefore its more likely that we made god, we could not easily make it so god could be seen, as a living moving creature. Considering we made god, in our imagination. Too me the positive correlation between us not seeing god and god being imaginary, is too strong to ignore. If you can't see something the likely hood of it being imaginary is true. There isn't one imaginary object which you can see. So if you can't see it, it automatically raises the portability of it being imaginary, and false. If you really wanted me to go into detail. (Of course there are exception like bacteria, but that's just because the human eye, or any eye? can't see it.)

I'm going to ignore what you said about 3, because you brought it up and brought it back down lol.

"You could get into higher mathematics, no question, and that would lead us down a rabbit hole we'd never get ourselves out of"

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy?s=t

Here. This should be useful for you in future debates.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

No.  You certainly do not have to believe one or the other.  You can do what reasonable people do and recognize that you can't and don't know everything.  Yes, it's necessarily the case that one is true (he exists or he does not exist); however, if you don't know, and you clearly do not, then you can withhold judgement, and that's what we call being open-minded.  Could be one, could be the other.  Must be one, can't be both.  Do I know?  Nope.  Can I try to reason and come to understand both positions?  Absolutely.  And, would you look at that, we return to our analogy of 3.  So, you can accept that we don't know whether 3 exists, but not that we don't know whether a god exists? 

Another problem with your argument.  "We know we exist, therefore there is no god" is, like I said, dumb.  If we exist, and we do, then it is still the case that there may be a god or may not be a god.  Nothing has changed.  A god and our existence are independent of one another.

Again, have you ever seen 3?  Obviously not.  But do you say it doesn't exist, because you've never seen it?  Gravity?  Momentum?  No.  Does the fact that you've never seen them make you question their existence?  Probably not.  If we can accept that gravity and 3 are real things, despite our never having seen them, then it follows that the existence of a god is no less likely to be a falsehood simply because it remains unseen.  Does it cast doubt on the existence of one?  Absolutely.  Does it prove its nonexistence?  By no means.

You're ignoring what I said, because I showed you why your position that we definitely invented 3 was wrong.  Again, I'm not arguing that we invented it or we discovered it; I'm just showing why you have no grounds for your position (it just so happens that I did that by presenting a case for the opposite conclusion).  I certainly can't be sure one way or the other, but I can understand why each position is legitimate (until proven otherwise).  I maintained my position throughout - I brought it up to lend evidence to the idea that we simply cannot know, because there are reasoned arguments from both positions.  We cannot know about 3.  We cannot know about god.  That is, given our current intellectual faculties and grounding in logic.  Maybe some day we will know about moral and metaphysical truths, numbers and shapes, forms and so on... but until then, let's not go pretending we do. ;)

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

"then it follows that the existence of a god is no less likely to be a falsehood simply because it remains unseen"

Should be "no more likely"

Lulz :p

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Professor : You are a Catholic, aren’t you, son ?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Professor : Is GOD good ?

Student : Sure.

Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?

Student : Yes.

Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?

(Student was silent.)

Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Is satan good ?

Student : No.

Professor: Where does satan come from ?

Student : From … GOD …

Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?

Student : Yes.

Professor: So who created evil ?

(Student did not answer.)

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, who created them ?

(Student had no answer.)

Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?

Student : No, sir.

Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?

Student : No , sir.

Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?

Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.

Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Professor: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Professor: Yes.

Student : No, sir. There isn’t.

(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?

Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?

Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class was in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?

(The class broke out into laughter. )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.

Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and movin

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Haha, I like this.  Although, I've gotta say it makes a couple mistakes.  First, it mischaracterizes the theory of evolution (which, in essence, is not detrimental to the argument).  Then, it goes one to say that evolution isn't an observed phenomenon, and that's flat out false.  Evolution is recognized by the scientific community because we've observed it and continue to do so.  Same goes with the dude's brain.  Though it hasn't been seen, we know it's there because humans can't function without one.  Once the brain stops firing, the person's done and we know that.  So, if he's alive, we're pretty sure he's got a brain. haha  And lastly, it attacks a strawman - "science says if you can't sense it, it doesn't exist."  Take theoretical physics, for example.  Also, you could easily make the case that "death" is a thing... in that, there is a distinction between the state of being that is "dead" and one that is simply "not alive."  While a corpse and a rock are both "not alive," only one is necessarily dead; therefore, dead is much more to the tune of "the end result of life" or something like that.  But, I don't really think that's relevant to the crux of your post either. haha

But anyway, none of that is really damaging to the main point.  It tries to solve the philosophical "problem of evil" by saying that even though there's evil, one can still have faith... or something like that.  It's really not too clear to me what's being said.  Nevertheless, I don't see how the student solves the problem (if you do and can point it out to me, I'd be sincerely grateful) :0  It looks like starts off telling the prof that he simply doesn't know his shit, haha, which seems pretty spot on, but then I guess he takes a turn to try and take jabs at science, calling it opinion and all that, and I think that's where the dialogue dropped the ball.  Whoever wrote it should've just stuck with something like the following: "Our understanding of morality and good in the universe is fundamentally flawed.  All God does is inherently good.  Therefore, we only percieve things as evil because we do not understand the underlying good."  I mean, it's a shit argument on its own, haha, but it does technically stand to solve the problem of evil, considering that God is a cheater and can do whatever he wants while still being considered "good." haha

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

This is how the story actually would have gone (taken from http://depressingfacts.tumblr.com/post/6490229024/what-the-real-dialogue-with-a-theist-aka-the-albert):

* * *

A philosophy professor challenged his students with a form of the Euthyphro dilema: Did ‘God’ create everything that exists?” A student replied, “Yes, he did!” (The ‘bravely’ part is removed: civil disagreement is the very point of philosophy courses, no bravery is required for dissent! Civil dissent is rewarded! Agreement is the death of philosophy, disagreement is its life’s blood.)

“God created everything?” the professor asked. “Yes,” the student replied. (The ‘sir’ part is removed: no college student in the 21st century addresses a college professor as ‘sir’ - which demonstrates that whoever it was that made up the original story never went to college. In addition, the use of ‘sir’ is just a pretense of ‘respect’ - it comes off as passive aggressive anger more than anything else.)

The professor answered, “Well then, here’s a logical puzzle for you: If God created everything, then God created evil; Therefore, according to the principal that ‘our works define who we are’, ‘God’ is evil.”

The student became silently enraged over his worldview being ‘attacked’. He began to project out his feelings of inadequacy as smugness coming from the professor.

The student then said: “Can I ask you a question professor?”

“Of course,” replied the professor. That’s the point of philosophical discourse. (The writer of the original story clearly has little experience with a real college classroom. The whole point of a philosophy or theology course is to foster discussion.)

Student: Is there such thing as heat?” 
Professor: Yes, the professor replies. 
Student: “Is there such a thing as
cold?” 
Professor: “Yes, there’s cold too.” 
Student: “No, there isn’t”

The professor doesn’t grin or frown or react with any emotion other than curiosity. After all, he’s heard bad arguments like this for more years than the student has been alive. (The desire to see the professors ‘smug smile wiped off his face’ is just another projection of the feelings of inadequacy found in theists who aren’t able to argue their own points well…)

The student continues. You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, just the absence of it”

Professor: (Nodding his head in dismay, and working out how many times he’s heard this bad logic by now. 100 times?). Do you remember the section in your workbook on semantic fallacies?

Student: ( gives a confused look a dog might make)

Professor: Let me give you a quick review. Both ‘heat’ and ‘cold’ are subjective terms… They are what the philosopher John Locke properly called “secondary qualities”. The secondary qualities refer to how we humans experience a very real phenomena: the movement of atomic particles. The terms ‘heat’ and ‘cold’ refer to an interaction between human nervous systems and various speeds of atomic particles in their environment. So what we ‘really’ have is temperature…. the terms ‘heat’ and “cold’ are merely subjective terms we use to denote our relative experience of temperature.

So your entire argument is specious. You have not ‘proven’ that ‘cold’ does not exist, or that ‘cold’ somehow exists without any ontological status, what you have done is shown that ‘cold’ is a subjective term. Take away the subjective concept, and the ‘thing in itself’, the temperature we are denoting as ‘cold’, still exists. Removing the term we use to reference the phenomena does not eradicate the phenomena.

Student: (a bit stunned) “Uh… Ok…. Well, is there such a thing as darkness, professor?”

Professor: You are still employing the same logical fallacy. Just with a different set of of secondary qualities.

Student: “So you say there is such a thing as darkness?”

Professor: “What I am telling you is that you are repeating the very same error. “Darkness” exists as a secondary quality.

Student: “You’re wrong again. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you give me a jar of darkness, professor?

Professor: Sure, right after you give me a jar of light. Seriously, “light and dark’ are subjective terms we use to describe how we humans measure measure photons visually. The photons actually exist, the terms ‘light’ and ‘dark’ are just subjective evaluations, relative terms… having to do, again, with an interaction between our nervous systems and another phenomenon of nature - this time, photons. So again, doing away with a subjective term does not eradicate the actual phenomena itself - the photons. Nothing actually changes. If we humans tend to call ‘x number of photons’ ‘dark’ those number of photons we denote as ‘dark’ exist, and they continue to exist even if we do away with the term ‘dark.’

Do you get it now?

Student: (gives a look not unlike a 3 year old trying to work out quantum physics)

Professor: I see your still struggling with the fallacy hidden in your argument. But let’s continue, perhaps you’ll see it.

Student: Well, you are working on the premise of duality, the christian explains.

Professor: Actually, I’ve debunked that claim two times now. But carry on.

Student: “Well, you assume, for example, that there is a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure.

Professor: Be careful. If you want to place your god beyond the grasps of reason, logic, and science and make him ‘unmeasurable’, then you are left with nothing but a mystery of your own devising. So if you use this special plead your god beyond reason to solve the problem, you can’t call your god moral either. You can’t call ‘him’ anything. You can’t say anything else about something that you yourself have defined as beyond reason other than that the term you’ve created is incoherent. So your solution is akin to treating dandruf by decapitation.

Student: (Gulps. Continues on, oblivious to what was just said) Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them.

Professor: You just said that science cannot explain a thought. I’m not even sure what you mean by that. I think what you mean to say is this: there remains many mysteries in neuroscience. Would you agree?

Student: Yes.

Professor: And, along the same line of thought, we accept that there are things like thoughts, or electricity or magnetism even though we have never seen them?

Student: Yes!

Professor: Recall the section in your textbook concerning fallacies of false presumption. Turn to the entry on ‘Category error’. You’ll recall that a category error occurs when an inappropriate measure is used in regards to an entity, such as asking someone what the color of a sound is… Asking someone to ‘see’ magnetism directly (and not just its effects) commits such an error. However, there is yet another error in your argument: your assumption that empircism or even science is based on ‘real time observation’ alone. This is false. Sight is not the sole means of knowing the world, nor is science merely the study of whatever we are currently looking at. We can use other senses to detect phenomena. And we can also examine their effects upon the world.

Furthermore, you are importing yet another erroneous presumption into the discussion: you are conflating the fact that science is incomplete with the implication that a lack of an answer from naturalism automatically means that your theistic assertion is correct. So you’ll also want to review the section on ‘arguing form ignorance.’

Do you have more to say?

Student: (The student, continues, mainly unfazed, due to the protection his shield of ignorance affords him.) …. Um……. to view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it”

Professor: You are really in love with this secondary quality fallacy, aren’t you? You are again confusing a secondary quality with the phenomena in of itself. “Death” and “life” are subjective terms we use to describe a more fundamental phenomena - biology. The phenomena in question, however, does exist. Biological forms in various states exist. Doing away with the subjective term does not eradicate the existence of death.

Nonplussed, the young man continues: “Is there such a thing as immorality?”

Professor: (Reaches for an asprin in his desk) You’re not going to again confuse a secondary quality for an atttribute, are you? Please… what can I do to help you see this problem?

Student: (Continues on, fueled by ideology and oblivious to reality) You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?” The christian pauses. “Isn’t evil the absence of good?”

Professor: So, if someone murders your mother tonight, nothing happened? There was just an absence of morality in your house? Wait, I forgot… she’s not dead… she’s just experiencing an absence of life, right?

Student: Uh…..

Professor: You’re beginning to see that something is missing in your argument, aren’t you? Here’s what you’re missing. You are confusing a secondary quality… a subjective term that we can use to describe a phenomena, for the phenomena itself. Perhaps you heard me mention this before? (The class erupts in laughter, the professor motions for them to stop laughing.) ‘Immorality’ is a descrptive term for a behavior. The terms are secondary, but the behaviors exist. So if you remove the secondary qualities, you do nothing to eradicate the real behavior that the terms only exist to describe in the first place. So by saying that ‘immorality’ is a lack of morality, you are not removing immoral intentions and behaviors, or the problem of immoral intentions and behaviors from existence, you are just removing the secondary attribute, the subjective term.

And notice how dishonest your argument is on yet another level… in that it speaks of morality and immorality devoid of behavior, but ‘evil’ exists as a behavior, evil is an intent to do harm and an act commited with such an intent.

By the way, are you really trying to imply that immorality or evil are merely subjective qualities?

Student: Gulp! (Reeling from the psychological blows to his corrupt worldview….) Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, professor?”

The professor soothes his aching forehead, and prepares for the 1 millionth time that he will be subjected to the ‘can you see the wind’ argument.

Professor: What an interesting turn this conversation has taken. Can I advise you to read Brofenbrenner’s suggestion against arguing over subjects over which you are uninformed? It’s in your textbook. Page 1.

Student: “Professor, since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?

Professor: Interesting indirect comment on the priesthood. But let’s leave that aside… We do observe the process of evolution at work, for the process works at this very moment. As for the implication in your argument that one must ‘be there’ to observe a process at it occurs, surely you realize that we can infer the process through examining the evidence that these processes leave behind? In a sense, we are there when we observe artifacts.

Consider for example the science of astronomy. How do we know about super novas? Because we can observe diferrent supernovas in different stages of super nova, by observing their ‘artifacts’ in the night sky. The same stands for any historical science. Your mistake here is that you think science is merely ‘real-time-observation’. This is a strawman of science. By your logic trees can’t grow - after all, who’s actually witnessed a tree growing?

Science is both direct and indirect observation… it also allows for inference. If, for the sake of consistency you were asked to follow your own rule, you’d have to concede that we have no evidence tree growth, or mountain formation - after all, I’ve never actually seen a seed grow into a tree, I’ve only seen it in stages.

Student: “But professor! You stated that science is the study of observed phenomena.

Professor: No, this is a strawman of what science is… Science is more than just real time observation, we also observe artifacts and make inferences. But continue….

Student: (Responds to this as a goat might respond to a book on calculus) May I give you an example of what I mean?”

Professor: Certainly.

Student: “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, oxygen, molecules, atoms, the professor’s brain?”

The class breaks out in laughter. The christian points towards professor, “Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain… felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain?” “No one appears to have done so”, The christian shakes his head sadly. “It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor’s brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I declare that the professor has no brain!”

(So much for the student’s pretense of respect, clearly his goal is to ridicule).

Professor: You mean, according to your strawman view of science. I am glad that you are here in my class so that I can help you better understand what you criticize. Science is not merely ‘looking’ at things. Science is empirical, but also rational. We can make inferences from evidence of things that we do see, back to phenonema that we might not be able to directly see. Such as a functioning brain.

And one inference I can make from observing your behaviors here today is that you’ve wasted the money you’ve spent on your logic textbook so far this year. I strongly advise, for your own sake, that you crack open that book today, and start reading. From page 1.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Im happy most religious people realize religion if fundamentally flawed and wont try to argue it or force it on others, keeps other believers from looking like idiots. Also learned a lot about arguing from it and the links and now decided that a arguments are annoying because people will instead of trying to argue there point will try to trip there opponent up, which should not be the point of arguing.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
is*

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Haha, I call bullshit. Arguing is just as much disproving someone else's ideas as proving your own.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

The point of debating is to stat your point, why it's right, then go on to saying why your opponent is wrong. Trying to show you why you're wrong isn't "tripping" you.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

state* your point, lol

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
O sry should of been clearer I mean throwing in bullshit arguments instead of sticking to the facts and logic or at least giving a clearly stated and thought out argument. Like in this linkhttp://editthis.info/logic/Informal_Fallacies#Strawman_Fallacy.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Or maybe just not doing anything "cloak and dagger"

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

I only do somethign like that in actual debates. when I write my speech and I run out of stuff to write, I throw in an unimportant oncention with an obvious fallacy in it. When they attack it, they use up their time, and I barely spend time on it. Then at the end they will say "See! I disproved his contention, I win!!!" and so I say "Cool story bro, that contention had nothing to do with my argument so you just wasted all your time."

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
Wow. Tactical debating at its finest.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
I was wondering who was going to be the one to strip my post down. I am actually surprised it was Oct. I would have thought JJJ or Zero would have beaten him to the punch.

This is just too true ....

6 years ago

Hahah, ahh man, I lovvvveed that!  It was so wonderfully written, the beauty of it almost brings a tear to my eye. haha

Cov, yah... it happens wayy too often and it's pretty unfortunate, especially because I love debates and discussions so much. haha 

An argument is, in its most basic form, presenting a questionable statement with reasons for believing it true.  Premises and a conclusion.  It can be anything ranging from "Eating babies is good" to "It just rained." haha

But anyway.. Cool, haha, I did take a stab at it.  Since it wasn't necessarily your writing or your argument or anything, I didn't feel too compelled to spent the kinda time I normally might, if it had been.  Nevertheless... I will be totally honest, I had no idea what the hell the student in the dialogue was trying to say. haha  It felt like he bounced around and never really made a case. haha  I didn't wanna say there absolutely wasn't one, 'cause I wasn't sure if I was just totally missing it :p

This is just too true ....

6 years ago
I just thought it was clever. Apparently, I was completely and utterly wrong on that account.