A STUPID video that I found -- a quiz that supposedly measures how deluded by religion you are. I'm glad this hateful moron won't be spending the next trillion years in heaven with Jesus and me!
A STUPID video that I found -- a quiz that supposedly measures how deluded by religion you are. I'm glad this hateful moron won't be spending the next trillion years in heaven with Jesus and me!
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Haha, I got 40 points despite being a strong atheist (I say there are no such things as gods), due to the first three questions being extremely vague, saying 'may' and referring to 'a higher consciousness', which to me sounds like 'really smart thing'. As for the creation of this universe, since we know nothing about that, sure, I'll go with a finite, super-smart being haveing 'may'-be done something there. Fun times. 4*
A lot of these questions use the word "may" though...and as any reasonable person has to recognise....we havent DISPROVED any of these claims..so we have to admit they "may" if outrageously unlikely have happened.
If they did that, they would have fallen into the trap :)
I could deal directly with their manifestation claims and examine their epistomology.
However I was arguing specifically against the kind of wishy washy cowardly way that people will say "oh I believe in god" to a believer, knowing full well what that means to them, but when questioned by a skeptic like myself they say "Oh I just mean the characteristic of objects to peform mechanical work, not that silly deity" its dishones no?
Fantasy is anything outside the realm called reality. It is that sense in which I use the word. This is correct usage.
I did not arbitrarily change its meaning between two states. Which is the position you are defending. Of course by defending I mean fucking a goat over, I just arbitrarily changed the meaning of the word.
However if the very best argument you can produce against me is that I didn't put a question mark in place while commenting that arbitrary redefining of words is dishonest, then I think I am doing pretty well.
I was just referring that you said people need to use proper proper english words, if they are gonna use english. In that case proper english punctuation should also be used if your gonna use english.
You said fantasy was "assume things without evidence and things which we cannot sense manifesting". Now your saying its anything that is outside the realm of reality. So just just did word play.
No, I pointed out that you cannot arbitrarily redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean as a method of argument. That it is dishonest and inhibits communication.
I did not say you have to use "proper english words"
No, I did not. The primary definition of fantasy supported by the major dictionaries is "Imagination unrestricted by reality" which fits with what I said.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Fun times. 4*
I could deal directly with their manifestation claims and examine their epistomology.
However I was arguing specifically against the kind of wishy washy cowardly way that people will say "oh I believe in god" to a believer, knowing full well what that means to them, but when questioned by a skeptic like myself they say "Oh I just mean the characteristic of objects to peform mechanical work, not that silly deity" its dishones no?
I did not arbitrarily change its meaning between two states. Which is the position you are defending. Of course by defending I mean fucking a goat over, I just arbitrarily changed the meaning of the word.
Why not stick to one account?
However if the very best argument you can produce against me is that I didn't put a question mark in place while commenting that arbitrary redefining of words is dishonest, then I think I am doing pretty well.
I was just referring that you said people need to use proper proper english words, if they are gonna use english. In that case proper english punctuation should also be used if your gonna use english.
You said fantasy was "assume things without evidence and things which we cannot sense manifesting". Now your saying its anything that is outside the realm of reality. So just just did word play.
Again no offense, just wanted to point that out.
I did not say you have to use "proper english words"
No, I did not. The primary definition of fantasy supported by the major dictionaries is "Imagination unrestricted by reality" which fits with what I said.
Try again.