How to mute a retard spamming my mailbox ? :S

[T_rey]

lol how do i stop this guy from spamming mailbox/goes straight to religion talk haha funny how forums work

BTW +1 to religion IM A BELIEVER

[0000000]

what proof do you have? that is what i am asking? even the most basic observational evidence? there is none. believe whatever you want but dont pass it off as proof.

[tolgahan]

Originally posted by Festo
I always liked goin into UR ANUS cy

lets go to Elisha's UR ANUS but i am first :P

[0000000]

Originally posted by Festo
I always liked goin into UR ANUS cy

see thats why i didnt sleep in your house, that and the fact that i wasnt conscious.

[Ali1989]

Originally posted by 0000000+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(0000000)</div>

Originally posted by Ali1989@
<!--QuoteBegin-0000000

tolgahan what does the Quran prove exactly? Most theories are generally discarded once they are disproved at any level, but this isnt the case with religion. It is a case of belief rather than proof.

Man it dosnt proof anything.Look at the sky and think about it.Who made that shit?

lol. What is the sky? it isn't an object it is an atmosphere of gaseous molecules of varying temperatures and pressures, and it is blue due to something called rayleigh scattering. Many other bodies in space have atmospheres, in fact trillions of bodies do. With hindsight you could say we are lucky to have such a nice atmosphere but this logic is flawed, it is the other way around. We exist as species because the conditions just happen to be correct for life on this planet. Its is overwhelmingly likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe, but its doubtful we will ever see it If you dont know what your own sky is and why it is like that then why are you so sure you have proof of everything else?[/b]

ROFL , i would explain that what i mean,but i dont have sooo much time.
btw cool u know something.

[tolgahan]

if u wd know what quran says u wdnt ask me
nvm these are not for us. We are not experts .
This is a game forum.I wont waste time.Even i prove something u wont trust me coz u dont want to do
pff this proxy sux . unban turkish ip :P

[festo]

lol u wasnt conscious! Id drunk a bottle of southern comfort to myself me and my uncle cudnt even stand hahaha

[kingcutter]

i am most definitely a religious person, but that being said there simply isnt undeniable proof for any religion. i think its more accurate to describe it as a matter of faith, simply because faith does not implicate the same amount of proof as belief, at least to people in this forum. so for that matter, while i may not agree with zero's opinions on religion, i think most of us can agree that there isnt any proof for us to say "look here zero, look at this, this is why you must be religious"

its a matter of opinion, so let the chap hold his point of view, and we can hold ours. there's no need to quibble, after all this is forum is for ko and not for evangelism

that being said futile and zero's arguing reminds me of my old philosophy class :wub:
god i wish i had room to take philosophy in uni

[festo]

Id sell my soul for £10

[kingcutter]

i'll offer 9 and cookie

[Ali1989]

Originally posted by Festo
Id sell my soul for £10

lol,i ll give u 5€ for sex

[Greygoose]

southern comfort with coke is good :wub:

md 20/20 and hypnotic make the Incredible Hulk

Greygoose is good vodka, so is absolut

nob creek is good.....patron and 1400 tequila is good :wub:

bacardi 151 with sobe energy drink is very good.

i can go on about liquor... too bad i learned to not exceed my drinking limits




but anyway....everytime i read Zero's post..i feel like im reading a textbook...very interesting.....u sound very intelligent. I'm buddist, and i find christianity very hard to believe.....the bible has so many inconsistencies and flaws...it's hard to believe it. But that is my point of view. I lean more towards the science point of view. The bible was maybe a story, spoken trough orally a long time ago, and therefore expanded and altered and written down to what it is today.


^^^ i have no clue what i just said, but i hope yall can understand my point of view....its hard to explain how i feel about religion. <_<

[T_rey]

Your right bro i dont have anyproof but hey it makes it more easy for me to die and actually think im goin somwhere then dieing and leaving forever, Zero i also thought like you till i listened to peoples stories about death and how they have come back and actually been there with evidence from doctors that they were dead at the time of the incident, but in a way you are completely right i dont believe everything in the bible cause there is 100% proof against it but i do believe when you die your soul will go somewhere and thats why we are on earth, as a little stop in the journy of our whole life. :wub: kk ty just my point of view


ps: if it doesnt make sense plz dont flame me :unsure:

EDIT: haha and i dont hate people who dont have religion its free to do whatever you want

[festo]

Were i had my 21st at they didnt sell shots of anything so was downing shots of vodka ( cy loved them haha) and southern comfort

[Futile Rhetoric]

Originally posted by 0000000
It is abuse since there is no need to quote each sentence individually on a forum. you can quite easily save page space and quote entire posts or large chunks.

There's no reason not to split up paragraphs into individual sub-points, and address each individually. How does this constitute "abuse"?

And most of your points are ridiculous, im not really sure how you think they counteract anything. You ignore most points other people make, and just go off in your own world about points that are irrelevant.

Are you describing yourself now, perchance? It would certainly appear the case. If so -- you have my sincerest gratulations with this newly-found, priceless insight.

Fundamental to the understanding of how science and religion interact, is knowing about PROOF and what it means, which you clearly do not.

I agree, it's of monumental importance. All the sadder then that you exhibit complete lack of understanding in the area.

Let's examine your post on proof, next, shall we?

what you call mathematical proof is what i call proof.

Ah, so we're dealing with your personal definition and concept of proof. Thanks for clearing that up. Why you would want to limit yourself to a definition of such limited application is beyond me of course, but hey, that's up to you. It is mathematical proof, and it's a logical argument (not an empirical one, like you claimed earlier). Trying to apply it to empirics only obfuscates matters even further.

I think its fair to equate some Laws with tautologies. I consider newtons first law of motion to be a tautology. Newton defines force simply as mass times acceleration (f = ma). Notice that Newtonian force is abstract. That is to say, only mass and acceleration exist physically and force is mathematically derived from the two. In this light, Newton's first law is really a tautology and can be paraphrased thus: a massive body cannot be accelerated unless it is accelerated.

This is utter nonsense; the first law of motion is not a tautology -- F=MA is true because the laws of motion hold. It is because we assume that acceleration is caused by a force, that we can measure force by measuring acceleraiton -- not the other way around. F=MA is the conclusion to a logical argument with the three laws of motion its postulates. The three postulates however must still be proven empirically, which is what makes the laws of motion a physical theory, rather than merely a mathematical one.

But like i said, proof is a a tricky spot in science, where theories are only disproved usually.

Proof is only a "tricky spot" because you make the unnecessarily rigid distinction between proof and evidence, removing the concept of proof from natural sciences completely -- limiting it to the realm of absolutes, instead -- that is, reducing proof to mean the outcome of a mathematical or logical argument, i.e. mathematical proof. You are yet to show that something has been proven in physics, using your definition of proof. Here's a hint: you won't. Falsifiability is the norm for scientific methodology for a reason, after all. Such a limited dfinition of proof is useful when talking about scientific methodology, and has led to refinements like Popper's falsifiability, but loses its meaning outside of this discussion.

Of course, if you decide to use this limited definition, then you should do so consistently; for example, you have already invalidated your previous statement of there being only one kind of proof -- i.e. empirical. After all, unless you examine all of existence, a theory cannot possibly be proven.

And i was not a member of any denomination or church. There were many anglican churches in my area, where they gave talks at school. I agree that many denominations regard jesus to be god but its fair to say that a lot of liberal anglicans believe that jesus was not. Does this really bother you? After all it is a non-issue rather like arguing whether the tooth fairy or santa claus is more real.

The Anglican church does not deny the Trinity. Now why exactly is it "fair to say" that a lot of these mythological "liberal Anglicans" believe what you claim they believe?

See, i managed to answer all your points whilst saving most of the space you would have used. Remarkable.

Certainly, but in your case, when you commit your dribble to cyberspace, you can at least rest assured that it'll be read by someone with a certain degree of reading comprehension.