Rayman Pirate-Community

Johnny, if you "won" the debate, I assume your work here is done?

Johnny wrote:

RayFan9876 wrote:Johnny. You didn't win the debate. Noone agrees with you. That automatically means that you haven't won. Winning a debate means us agreeing with you

Hahaha so now you're saying "you can't win this debate unless WE all agree with you!". That's precious. Winning a debate doesn't always mean persuading the other side to your own point of view. http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein ... kills.html It doesnt' take a genius to know that there are other aspects as well, such as logic, rationality, staying on track, consistency... all things you, Tobbe and Spiraldoor seem to lack from what I've seen.

You actually can't win a debate, unless your opinion from the beginning remains un-wavered. Winning a debate means everyone coming to an agreement on an answer. Rationality and consistency have nothing to do with the end result; unfortunately those are things that you lack from what I've seen.

RayFan9876 wrote:Xenon said he apologized about accidentally calling it religious spam. Now you're going off and acting like he and Stacey meant it, which is morphing the truth.

How cunning. Accusing me to try change the subject of how Stacey lied about me behind my back. No, Stacey told a moderator I spammed her inbox, when in reality she brought an argument from a thread into a personal message to flame me because I proved her wrong. That won't change no matter how much you try to cover up for her; and it's also curious that Xenon disappeared ever since I pointed out that she should be at least temporarily banned. Interesting.

Johnny wrote:

RayFan9876 wrote:Well that's a brilliant form of innocence there. Claiming innocence and blaming someone else. That's the worst excuse I have ever heard when the PMs are right in front of us. THERE'S A REASON WHY THEY'RE CALLED PERSONAL MESSAGES. Stacey may not speak with as much professional grammar, just because she doesn't, but that has nothing to do with her intentions, wwhich weren't any less valid than yours.

Claiming innocence? I never claimed innocence, I merely presented the PMs for all to look at from an unbiased point of view. It's the PMs that claim my innocence, not me. And it's also the PMs that blame Stacey, not me. You're just trying to contort them to suit your own purposes, as you've done with most/all my posts. Secondly, I didn't say she didn't have professional grammar,(although she really doesn't) YOU did. Well done. That, however, is beside the point: I never mentioned Stacey's grammar at all in regards to personal messaging, yet once again you're talking as though I accused her of "bad grammar" and used that to try and justify some point or other I had. As always, you misinterpret to suit your own means, namely, falsely representing me. No... I wouldn't even call it "misinterpretation" anymore- *slander* is probably a better word. You're right in Stacey's boat.

Johnny wrote:your PMs are flames while mine are honest enquiries

You're a fucking idiot.

Johnny wrote:You sound extremely arrogant, ignorant, and clueless about how debates even work.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what any of us just said.

Johnny wrote:You constantly contort, misinterpret and twist what's being said to "disprove" your own imaginary points that others are apparently bringing up to make yourself look intelligent in front of everyone else

Points can't be imaginary. If I made a point, it's not imaginary. That's like saying "Hey, your opinions are fake!!1!1!"

Johnny wrote:when the truth is you're just acting like a silly girl with a grudge against differing points of view. I don't see anymore point in even talking to you.

Grudge against other points of view? I think you'd just love to meet me in person to prove how wrong you are on that. Also: me "being a silly girl with a grudge against other points of view": what have I said exactly to make you come up with that? I haven't disapproved of any religion or status or identity. However, you have said Atheism is a hate group over and over again then saying you meant something else. Now THAT'S what I call a cup of royal grudge!

Joshua822 wrote: True. But why exactly is this an important thing? Stop wasting my time, man.

Then stop wasting my time with useless information like "not all people who don't believe in higher powers are atheist", probably just a technique you're using to avoid the subject.

Joshua822 wrote:
Scientists don't believe in life on other planets, they only suspect that it exists. This is because scientists have studied life and the things organisms need to develop and live and are researching as we speak on which planets these criteria are met.

However, being an atheist, you're not even permitted to *suspect* existence of life on other planets until it's 100% proven. Prove to me evolution.

spiraldoor wrote:

ParadoxJuice wrote:Can some one explain to me spiraldoors post with the evil clown?

Johnny is an evil clown, so I posted a picture. Of an evil clown. But It’s not really a clown... It’s more like a Spider, though that’s not quite right either...

So instead of contributing anything to discussion all you can do is flame. Figures.

Xenon wrote:Johnny, I don't want to argue with you and I don't want to answer a chain of quotes.

I'm not asking you to. Please don't imply I'm argumentative. It's actually pretty pathetic to try and imply things like that when the argument was brought into my own PMs by a moderator of all people.

Xenon wrote:I withdrew myself from this debate because I had already addressed the key points to you and there was nothing to respond to once you acknowledged them.

I'm pretty sure I answered every post that was posited to me, including yours, which would make withdrawal a cowardly "hit and run" kind of thing, but... oh, sorry I forgot. Someone *else* continued your arguments for you so I should ask *them* to answer my points, not you.

Xenon wrote:If you still want to think atheism is a malicious hate group that's composed of narrow-minded, irrational people that's entirely up to you, although I rather hope you've since questioned your definition.

After I pretty much disproved everyone here, won the debate, and had to cope with nothing but ad hominems, contradictory posts, flames and even slander? Oh, my definition's changed all right: no I know atheism is hateful, irrational *and* bigoted.

Xenon wrote:As for Stacey, she is a moderator here.

I never implied otherwise.

Xenon wrote:I found out about your PM exchanges during a private discussion that concerned you and this topic and made an inaccurate assumption; I've already apologised for that.

So now people are talking behind my back? Well that's a grand welcome to a new member of the site.

Xenon wrote:I can't comprehend why you're still pursuing these pathetic ban requests when the issue at hand has already been resolved. Nobody's getting banned, live with it

... How was it resolved again? Oh right, with me showing everyone how Stacey was liar. Don't worry, I won't request any more bans: the truth being proven to everyone is enough for me, whether it's acknowledged or not.

El Dango wrote:Johnny, if you "won" the debate, I assume your work here is done?

It will be when people stop dragging me back into arguments, such as Joshua, Xenon and others.

RayFan9876 wrote:You actually can't win a debate (lots of BS) Rationality and consistency have nothing to do with the end result;

So rationality and consistency have nothing to do with debating in your book eh? Well then I rest my case. Oh, but then you add:

RayFan9876 wrote:unfortunately those are things that you lack from what I've seen.

Implying that they *do* have a place in a debate... so which is it?

RayFan9876 wrote:Xenon said he apologized about accidentally calling it religious spam. Now you're going off and acting like he and Stacey meant it, which is morphing the truth.

RayFan9876 wrote:You're a fucking idiot.

Ahh, so we've descended to the stage of ignore the argument and just flame the arguer as much as possible until they go away? It's unsurprising, considering my points were probably the first you ever heard that actually forced you to confront some logical evidence.

RayFan9876 wrote:That has absolutely nothing to do with what any of us just said.

Really? Do these?

RayFan9876 wrote: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT ONE PLUS ONE IS!!!!!!!!! SO THERE! POINT DISPROVEN!!!

RayFan9876 wrote:ARE YOU A FUCKING IDIOT!!!!!!????

RayFan9876 wrote:I like cake. What? I'M JUST BEING ALL IRRELEVANT COZ THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOIN'!!!

RayFan9876 wrote:Points can't be imaginary. If I made a point, it's not imaginary. That's like saying "Hey, your opinions are fake!!1!1!"

Are you playing dumb or that way naturally? It's getting increasingly hard to tell. I hope you're playing dumb because I said you argue against points you *imagine* to be there, but in reality they're points you put into my own mouth by twisting my words. That way you can have the appearance of "disproving" others' arguments, but Johnny sees right through you

RayFan9876 wrote:Grudge against other points of view? I think you'd just love to meet me in person to prove how wrong you are on that.

RayFan9876 wrote:Also: me "being a silly girl with a grudge against other points of view": what have I said exactly to make you come up with that? I haven't disapproved of any religion or status or identity. However, you have said Atheism is a hate group over and over again then saying you meant something else. Now THAT'S what I call a cup of royal grudge!

Well by your use of ad hominems dealt against me because you don't like it that I can confront you with actual logical points, instead of dancing around spouting out random bull and pretending to know something about it like you have: I think actual evidence is something so shocking and direct to you that you haven't been able to cope and have psychologically resorted to just taking offence and have to flame as a result.

Johnny wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:

ParadoxJuice wrote:Can some one explain to me spiraldoors post with the evil clown?

Johnny is an evil clown, so I posted a picture. Of an evil clown. But It’s not really a clown... It’s more like a Spider, though that’s not quite right either...

So instead of contributing anything to discussion all you can do is flame. Figures.

I’ve had enough of your reign of terror. You think you’re so cool with your deadlights, don’t you? Demon clown. Go and sleep for another twenty-seven years or whatever it is you do in your spare time when not feeding on our fear. By the way: Turtle > Spider.

Johnny, I finally understand your logic. It all shines through to me now.

In b4 another "Typical Atheist" chain.

Then stop wasting my time with useless information like "not all people who don't believe in higher powers are atheist", probably just a technique you're using to avoid the subject.

Who's wasting who's time? The information I provided was completely relevant to my own post, and it takes a person maybe half a second to read. You on the other hand have to waste our time by responding to a clarification together with a post without any actual criticism that is relevant to the continuation of the debate and demanding we respond to this, because if we don't you will be attacking us for not addressing all your points.

However, being an atheist, you're not even permitted to *suspect* existence of life on other planets until it's 100% proven. Prove to me evolution.

I advice you to open up a dictionary and compare the meanings of "to suspect" and "to believe". If you're too lazy to do this, I suggest you leave debating about such difficult questions as these to those who are actually willing to spend time on searching for answers.

Since your counterpoint are really far-fetched and you never argument your posts at all, I hereby declare us the victorious party in this debate.

Have a nice evening :-)

All previous posts in this discussion can be found in the 'Which of the 7 Deadly Sins are you?' - pages three through seven.

Rsandee wrote: A quick bang from nowhere seems illogical to me, even more illogical than a God.

Aside from the fact that that was an extremely inaccurate description of the Big Bang (which was neither an explosion nor the beginning of the Universe (although the term 'beginning' may wrong to apply to the Universe because time may not have existed before the Big Bang (which in turn would make this usage of the word 'before' meaningless, but I digress))), it is to me an extremely poor reason to believe in a god. Are you seriously saying that you believe in god partly because there are some things science can't explain? Is that something you do every time you come across a phenomenon that can't be explained? Assume that god is behind it? Learn the lesson of history here: Up until the 19th century it was common to believe that god had created all the animal and plant species individually, for the large part because nobody had come up with a plausible mechanism that could explain the diversity of life without a divine designer. Then Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace came along and established the Theory of Evolution. People have attributed all sorts of things - sickness, the rainbow, the motion of the Sun and the planets etc. - to god, and one by one, science has found natural explanations for them. The fact that there are still gaps in our knowledge, says nothing more than that there are still things we don't know. There's no reason to believe that god hides in any of the gaps. And just because you find the Big Bang Theory to be illogical (whatever that means) doesn't make it wrong. Science and logic don't always coincide. For example: Most people would find it illogical that a feather and an elephant fall at the same rate in a vacuum, but it's still true. Similarily, finding the Big Bang Theory to be illogical is a poor reason to reject it and explain the formation of the universe with 'god', which explains everything by explaining nothing.

Rsandee wrote:If I don't believe, I die.
If I believe, and God exists, I go to heaven.
If I believe, and God doesn't exist, I die.

So you only believe in god because you think you have nothing to lose by doing so? Do you have any real reason for believing in god, then (by that I mean evidence), or have you just forced yourself to believe because you think you might go to heaven because of it? Do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that yahweh actually physically exists? I suspect that you really don't believe it, but that you are afraid to admit this to yourself.

''Funny how god always needs your money''

Doesn't that give enough information that the church is shit?

RayTunes wrote:''Funny how god always needs your money''

Doesn't that give enough information that the church is shit?

Again, only the catholics really did this.

And actually, I began believing in God because I had nothing to lose.
I also think he really exists, but I also think he's not alone.
The bible only says that he is the only one we should ''worship'', yet there are countless more religions.
I know that my version of the big bang is extremely inaccurate, but I seriously doubt the big bang is real.

What RPC members here don't seem to understand, is that you need faith for both Atheism and Christianity.
There is no proof of Christianity being real, but there's also no proof of the Big Bang and evolution being real.
Also, God doesn't need money, only greedy people do, like the pope.

Also:

spiraldoor wrote:

Joshua822 wrote:

if humans would actually use their überbrains, would unite into one race and one country, and wouldn't be so goddamn selfish, the world wouldn't be a wreck

FTFY.

I think I’d rather live in this wreck than in the communist world you describe.

Anti racist is a codeword for anti white.
Just needed to say that, since I'm against this whole Hitleristic idea of ''one world, one race''.

Rsandee wrote:Also, God doesn't need money, only greedy people do, like the pope.

Rsandee wrote: I know that my version of the big bang is extremely inaccurate, but I seriously doubt the big bang is real.

Why?

Rsandee wrote:What RPC members here don't seem to understand, is that you need faith for both Atheism and Christianity.

What you don't seem to understand is that Atheism isn't dependant on any scientific theories. If the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis, Atomic Theory and Germ Theory were proven impossible tomorrow it wouldn't have any effect on Atheism. The only thing that can weaken the position of Atheism is positive proof of god's existance. Since there is no evidence of god's existance the rational position is Atheism, or by there very least Agnosticism.

Rsandee wrote:There is no proof of Christianity being real, but there's also no proof of the Big Bang and evolution being real.

'nough said

This guy wants to join the discussion.

What?
A simple evolutionist theory doesn't count as ''evidence'' that atheism in the one and only real theory.
You need just as much faith in atheism as you would need to believe in God, you weren't there when there was a bang OR when God made the world.
We only make tests to see if there COULD be a big bang, and believe me, it will take alot of years before we're getting even a tiny result of that.
Atheism is not dependant on scientific theories, such as evolution?
Indeed, but you still need faith to not believe in something.

Let's pretend there's proof that the big bang and evolution is indeed real, show it to me.

Nobody likes Mr.Bean here?

Rsandee wrote:A quick bang from nowhere seems illogical to me

Time didn't exist before it. Therefore, our temporal logic can't grasp it, as we're trapped inside the timeline.

Rsandee wrote:What?
A simple evolutionist theory doesn't count as ''evidence'' that atheism in the one and only real theory.
You need just as much faith in atheism as you would need to believe in God, you weren't there when there was a bang OR when God made the world.
We only make tests to see if there COULD be a big bang, and believe me, it will take alot of years before we're getting even a tiny result of that.
Atheism is not dependant on scientific theories, such as evolution?
Indeed, but you still need faith to not believe in something.

Let's pretend there's proof that the big bang and evolution is indeed real, show it to me.

Atheism is not a theory. Theories belong in the field of science. And I think you misunderstood my last post. What I was trying to say is that the rejection of god's existance (atheism) does not depend on evolution or any other scientific theory. The fact that organisms evolve (and yes, it is a demonstrable fact) does not serve as an argument neither for nor against god's existance. Neither does the fact that the Universe has expanded from what evidently was a singularity for the last 14 or so billion years.

If you want to be pedantic about it, then you need a certain degree of faith to believe anything. But in my eyes it takes about as much faith to be an atheist as it takes to believe in gravity. That's why I think it is a pointless word to use here, because faith implies that you hold a view when there's no reason to do so. Therefore it takes true faith to be religious, while the only thing you need to do in order to be an atheist, is to recognise that there's no real evidence whatsover that any gods exist. In order words, the only thing needed to be an atheist, is reason.

As for evidence for evolution and the big bang: I have no clue where you got the idea that there isn't any, because there's mountains upon mountains of evidence for evolution, and the General Theory of Relativity predicts that the Universe was once compacted to a singularity, and many observations made by Cosmologists support the Big Bang Theory also.

I'll see if I can find something similar for the Big Bang, but this should keep you occupied for now: http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.com ... mmies.html

Organisms evolve, yes, in a way.
But with ''evolution'' I mean the Charles' evolution, where 1 sort of animal ''evolves'' in an entirely different animal.

I'm now going to stop this discussion.
Mainly because I can't discuss in a foreign language, people seem to misunderstand me, and I misunderstand them.

Also, I hate the fact that everyone thinks that Christianity, is bad.
These attention whores can just gtfo.

Personally I don't have anything against Religion or "God" in general, but Rsandee, when you say there's nothing to lose you're partially right, but I'll continue with that after. I believe Religion is fine because it, if done properly, just teaches you how to be a good, moral person. The part I don't like about it is that it shows you don't have the patience or will to want to know the truth, which in my view isn't a good thing.

Another thing Rsandee you said that I highly don't agree with would be that Atheism requires" faith" to 'not' believe in something. The dictionary definition of Atheism is to not to have faith/believe in a higher power. It doesn't require faith to not believe in something unless there really is a lack of evidence, and it is neither a cult nor a group. It is merely a term for those that don't believe in Mr. Imma Take Credit For Nature up there. There are too many contradictions with today's proof and what the Bible says to actually believe that the Bible is God's word, such as the world being created 4000 years ago. What about the dinosaur bones? What about gender variance being a foetal malfunction that has nothing to do with Satan and your mind? What about the carbon phosphorus sediment that proves almost everything biological the bible ("God's word") wrong? What about the law of thermodynamics that proves that spirits, souls, and paranormals don't exist? What about the spectroscopes used to prove the universe is expanding in all directions via a red signal? There must have been some sort of massive force or big bang to cause that movement.

This contains multiple clips that actually, even though written by Sethy, still illustrate a very good point:




This and the reasons above pretty much contradict that God exists as we know him, and if he does, he either didn't have anything to do with the bible, or he's a liar, and that would leave you with not one scrap of potential evidence, not even a "scripture" to show that he can exist. It's like creating an imaginary friend and pretending that he's real and not admitting that there isn't such a thing.

Remember, I don't have a problem with learning useful morale from Religion (although some of it is too old fashion to be proper), but faith in a God that has no proof of existence other than a book that could have been written by any well-meaning nut is nothing but blind faith which leads nowhere and to no source of true knowledge.

What annoys me more are the even more hard-core religious folk that, after explaining to my youth group (that takes place in a church) pastor that I'm transgendered and list to him all the evidence that proves it's a hormone based brain occurrence before birth and that the structure is actually different, his response was that "science lies to us."

RayFan9876 wrote:faith in a God that has no proof of existence other than a book that could have been written by any well-meaning nut is nothing but blind faith which leads nowhere and to no source of true knowledge.

No proof, you say. Lack of words here, but if my life would just follow scientifc probability, I believe some chains of events happening to me would be actually impossible. There are two standpoints here, you would say my understanding of science is imperfect, I would say that there is some possibility of external stuff happening. Wait, I would actually say both standpoints are true.