|
crazy christian quote page (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Acid Junkie |
| quote: | Originally posted by davinox
that's a terrible and pointless argument. if you want to truely think philosophically, nothing can be proven except for each of our own existances.
however, there are still debates and theories that are more logical than others, i see no reason why religion cannot be debated. It is an idea that can and should be analyzed. Just because of the personal attachments people have towards religion doesn't make it an untouchable subject. |
no, u didn't understand. analyze whatever u want. i'm just saying don't act like your opinion is superior to all others. it's just an OPINION, in the first place. u can't really prove the existence/nonexistence of god, so no need to feign that u are the one who can. (and i don't mean u specifically) |
|
|
| davinox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acid Junkie
no, u didn't understand. analyze whatever u want. i'm just saying don't act like your opinion is superior to all others. it's just an OPINION, in the first place. u can't really prove the existence/nonexistence of god, so no need to feign that u are the one who can. (and i don't mean u specifically) |
oppinions can be more logical than others. i'm sure everyone in the political forum would say so. |
|
|
| Acid Junkie |
| quote: | Originally posted by davinox
oppinions can be more logical than others. i'm sure everyone in the political forum would say so. |
i'm talking about this particular argument only. when it comes to religion, all sentiments seem somewhat shaky. |
|
|
| Orbax |
besides wondering how sentiments become shaky with religion or how it applies to logic
Religion is basically the epitome of philosophy because it non-falsifiable. People dont sit around and debate what 2+2 is unless they are really drunk. The whole point of philosophy is that you use logic constructs to support your opinion. The one that lays the best path down towards a conclusion wins. physical evidences and rhetor define our world in philosophy.
and if you are going to get into semantics about what an opinion is, i would call "fact" merely a proven opinion. How does one prove an opinion? (rhetorical, i already answered it).
food for thought
cheers |
|
|
| Abject Silver |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
besides wondering how sentiments become shaky with religion or how it applies to logic
Religion is basically the epitome of philosophy because it non-falsifiable. People dont sit around and debate what 2+2 is unless they are really drunk. The whole point of philosophy is that you use logic constructs to support your opinion. The one that lays the best path down towards a conclusion wins. physical evidences and rhetor define our world in philosophy.
and if you are going to get into semantics about what an opinion is, i would call "fact" merely a proven opinion. How does one prove an opinion? (rhetorical, i already answered it).
food for thought
cheers |
haha, you're probably the first person i've met on TA that i could safely say would absolutely LOVE the writings of arthur schöpenhauer and richard mitchell. |
|
|
| Acid Junkie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
and if you are going to get into semantics about what an opinion is, i would call "fact" merely a proven opinion. How does one prove an opinion? (rhetorical, i already answered it).
|
then go ahead, prove your opinion so others would recognize it as factual. and u will be the first person to ever solve the greatest and the oldest dilemma of the entire world. is that what u are saying? your opinion is more valid because u have laid a better path to a conclusion? is your opinion a *proven* one? or is it as far away from actuality as possible? prove it to be a fact because at the moment, it appears to be but a consequence of u having an . |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acid Junkie
it appears to be but a consequence of u having an . |
hehe that was a really adorable attempt to throw my words back into my teeth. But no, you apparently missed the entire point of my post. Instead of rewording it, I will tell you to read over, and if you still dont get it, you are, what we call in philosophical circles, an idiot.
| quote: | | haha, you're probably the first person i've met on TA that i could safely say would absolutely LOVE the writings of arthur schöpenhauer and richard mitchell. |
who are they? and how am I different hehe. |
|
|
| Acid Junkie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
hehe that was a really adorable attempt to throw my words back into my teeth. But no, you apparently missed the entire point of my post. Instead of rewording it, I will tell you to read over, and if you still dont get it, you are, what we call in philosophical circles, an idiot.
|
orbax, u obviously don't understand my main point either. i didn't say anything in my last post that would contradict what u set out in your post above mine, which makes me think your reference to "philosophical circles" was a poor attempt to show your elitism. i can just as well call u an idiot for your endeavors to look supercilious. u are not pre-eminent on this board  in fact, no one is. |
|
|
| Orbax |
me saying "in philosophical circles" and then using the term "idiot" was a joke.
and the that reason nothing in your post contradicted mine was that it had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. So, yeah, I guess I was missing the point hehe.
Cheers |
|
|
| Acid Junkie |
| i have nothing to add. i'll stop here before this thread turns into the usual source of mutual insults and aversion. |
|
|
| Orbax |
I guess that makes me puerile. AND it proves me wrong. Amazing. Ive never been defeated so utterly...ever.
ah well. good times.
Cheers |
|
|
| Acid Junkie |
| my whole point was about not trying to defeat anyone, but u seem to have missed its very essence and thus arrived at that false conclusion. this discussion goes nowhere and in my opinion is not worth being prolonged. |
|
|
|
|
