So, I was reading the 'Jesus Saves' thread...

[Mir]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Yeah, I never denied it.
Factual and philosophical backing. I really don't mind bible pushers, except that they're wrong. I most definitely prefer them to the "respect their beliefs" pussies. At least bible pushers know exactly where they stand. The thing is, when directly questioned or confronted, their answers are always lacking and hollow. But so do politically correct people; generally they don't talk about their religion to others fearing they might be wrong.
Fuck, if you discovered the secret of life, would you keep it to yourself just so that other people can believe they already got it right?
Let's take that a step further, and closer to the bible-pusher mentality. If you knew New Guinea would nuke Cincinnati if people in Oregon don't start wearing ADIDAS, would you do nothing about it because "people just might not like wearing ADIDAS?"
Don't use the same questions for people starting at zero. You cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the ones that claim something, not the ones that don't.

To all of that, I will simply respond with the following.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That's impossible. If someone doesn't understand that what someone says is always subjective, then it's not the fault of the speaker to clarify this.

That is why discussing/arguing religion = FAIL. That is why us pussies don't bother.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Yeah, I never denied it.
Factual and philosophical backing. I really don't mind bible pushers, except that they're wrong. I most definitely prefer them to the "respect their beliefs" pussies. At least bible pushers know exactly where they stand. The thing is, when directly questioned or confronted, their answers are always lacking and hollow. But so do politically correct people; generally they don't talk about their religion to others fearing they might be wrong.
Fuck, if you discovered the secret of life, would you keep it to yourself just so that other people can believe they already got it right?
Let's take that a step further, and closer to the bible-pusher mentality. If you knew New Guinea would nuke Cincinnati if people in Oregon don't start wearing ADIDAS, would you do nothing about it because "people just might not like wearing ADIDAS?"
Don't use the same questions for people starting at zero. You cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the ones that claim something, not the ones that don't.

*hugs Jillian* I love you

[Tha Duckman]

Originally Posted by Mir

To all of that, I will simply respond with the following.




That is why discussing/arguing religion = FAIL. That is why us pussies don't bother.

I was gonna do the exact same thing. This is why we fucking rule.

[Mir]

Lets make us some duck babies and take over the world!

[Tha Duckman]

OK, so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Mir

To all of that, I will simply respond with the following.
*insert quote in quote*

You do know something subjective does not mean it is always wrong outside of the individual, right?
What I have said is clearly my opinion. That is self-evident as I said it. Therefore it is a subjective remark.
Whether it is factual or consistent doesn't change the fact that it's still subjective.
Now, if you're going to evaluate what I said, then ask yourself: Do I see it as factual? Do I see it as consistent?
If you're not going to go beyond "It's subjective" it means you haven't read it, and therefore cannot even begin a discussion, or, for that matter, form an opinion about anything that is not yourself, including your experiences, as those are foreign actions happening unto your persona.

[Tha Duckman]

Facts are generally consistent.

[Godslayer Jillian]

But consistency is not necessarily factual, it's just logical. Something can be valid if the premises are accepted, but it doesn't mean the premises are indeed true.

[Mir]

I abhor organized religion. However, I'd like to see someone prove/disprove the existence of a higher power, call it God if you must. Factually. Then try to convert others to your way of thinking.

Good luck with that. I'll be over here making babies with Duckie.

[Tha Duckman]

"Consistency is not necessarily factual"?

Way to make no sense.

And no, something is not valid if the premises are accepted. There are variables in life.

And stop trying to confuse people by using big words, it just makes you look like a pompous douche, not smart.

[Tha Duckman]

[Makes sweet love to Mir].

referhesrher

[Mir]

My fucking head is killing me. I need to stop binge drinking.

[Tha Duckman]

You need some bum love.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Tha Duckman

And no, something is not valid if the premises are accepted.

Yes it is. It's Logic 101. There's validity and there's soundness.
If you accept my premise that every time a thunder strikes a clown gets a blowjob, and a thunder strikes at that moment, it is perfectly valid to assume that a clown is getting a blowjob.
The issue is on the soundness of the premise, not in the validity of the statement.
And this is not using big words, and is not hard at all; it's as easy as it gets.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Mir

I'd like to see someone prove/disprove the existence of a higher power

And where will you stand meanwhile? A point in between where God both exists and doesn't? A position skeptical of skepticism?

[Tha Duckman]

No, it's not. If I say that every time a fairy plays "Red Red Wine" by UB40 that the average size of the male cock gets smaller, that does not make it fact.

[Mir]

I don't care about God. I don't care if he exists or doesn't. I don't spend a single waking moment pondering his existence. I do not care to be a part of this conversation. He does not pay my bills. I do. I'll worry about that. Thank you for playing.

[Mir]

Originally Posted by Tha Duckman

You need some bum love.

*gets ready to be penetrated*

Make it hurt! So much so that I'll be in too much pain to think about my throbbing headache, as all of my attention will be directed towards yer throbbing cock!

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Tha Duckman

No, it's not. If I say that every time a fairy plays "Red Red Wine" by UB40 that the average size of the male cock gets smaller, that does not make it fact.

And I didn't say it made it a fact, did I?

[Tha Duckman]

Pretty much, but you like to word things in such a way that it can be seen as one thing or another, hence Mir's post.

[Tha Duckman]

Originally Posted by Mir

*gets ready to be penetrated*

Make it hurt! So much so that I'll be in too much pain to think about my throbbing headache, as all of my attention will be directed towards yer throbbing cock!

SQUEAL AT THE PLEASURE OF MY MIGHTY PORK SWORD!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know you loves it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Duck:
Validity
Soundness
If you don't believe me just look it up.

I say "I'll always like unicorns" and someone asks me if I like unicorns and I say "No", that's not consistent.
I say "I'll always like unicorns" and someone asks me if I like unicorns and I say "Yes", and that is consistent.
The fact that there's no such thing as a unicorn changes nothing.

[Tha Duckman]

And what's your point?

[Mir]

*squeals with pleasure*

*Ponders the validity of the following statement.*

"Does Duck have a mighty pork?!"

*Considers all claims consistent with the said claim.*

Yes, Duck thy pork is indeed mighty! Now PORK ME!

[Godslayer Jillian]

That there was no contradiction in anything I said. There's no error.
I don't know what you're trying to fight, because I've been, appropriately, consistent all through my arguments.
I have to go to bed. If you do see an error in my logic, then tell me, but there's no error in the fact that consistency doesn't need facts.
I am not a proud person. I admit to being wrong when I am. But there's nothing to correct in here, nothing to apologize, except maybe for making some people feel offended by my anthitheism, but I won't apologize for that.