Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...
View Single Post
Old 09-19-2013, 05:51 PM   #103
Writing speed: snail
Numinous's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 8,386
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Well, it seems KYF has made progress! Now he went from being stuck in 1915 to being stuck in 1939! Come on, KYF, just 3 more years and you might spout the Y2K is coming to shut all computers!

Sorry, KYF, but the bulk of Freud's work in psychology has been outdated since the 60's, where many of the findings and methods of Freud were challenged and debunked. One of them being:

A 3 year old does not give a shit about anything other then his/herself and their desires. They do not have ANY Morals what so ever, just desires.
This is WRONG. Many studies have shown that toddlers are capable of altruistic and empathic behavior, which are basis for morality. Here's a study explaining that in detail.

Morals are learned over time through family, friends and teachers in their environment as frued recognized developing the last part of the human psyche, the super ego..
Then who taught the family, friends and teachers such morals? Freud was clearly wrong on this one considering morality can't belong to the super ego or else you'd face an infinite regress.

Morality is tricky to place in Freudian terms since it has both subconscious and conscious elements attached to it, but it's ridiculous to think morality isn't intrinsic to humans.

Now to HR:

one thought that I have is "god" may have existed outside of our universe and dimention before he snapped his finger and created the big bang.

MY PERSONAL BELIEF AND UNDERSTANDING is that God existed in his dimention learned shit and evolved or shoudl I say progressed to the level of diety by gaining knowledge and once he aquired said knowledge he gained the ability to create a universe .
... you still haven't addressed the issue with God's causality. At all.

Edit to avoid double post:

How is this any different than the definition I posted? What on earth are you even trying to argue here?
You really can't read for shit. Your definition said that agnostics do not take a stance of BELIEF when agnosticism is about KNOWLEDGE, thus being foolish to use what you used.

yes agnonistics people do not have a definite answer wether god exists or not so they don't bother with the question.
... except that's SOME agnostics, considering both theists and atheists can be agnostic. That's the problem you seem to be having there, you seem to want to put all the eggs in the same basket and pretend you don't.

I pulled a quote you conveniently ignored for the purpose of furthering your own argument.
If the quote is filled with massive amounts of misinformation, why should I bother refer to it when I'm referring to something else?

I explicitly mentioned agnostic atheism
No, you said atheistic agnosticism. Which is something I both never heard until now and that I find idiotic to use when the concept of agnostic atheism already exists.

What I said was that the mans views reflected more that of agnosticism then it does atheism.
Or maybe your tiny head didn't compute that it reflects both equally, considering they're intersecting and do not answer the same metaphysical question.

I'm not here to argue semantics with you, the broad general definition of atheism is someone who doesn't believe god(s). point blank. Afterwards you start categorizing people i,e agnostic atheism, hard atheism, negative atheism, etc..

He refered to himself as an atheist and definied his view point as if it was the only definition of atheism.
Actually, he attempted to clarify that the definition you gave for atheism was more proper for anti-theism and that atheism can and does have an intersection with agnosticism. You, simply ignored and went horns first denying your mistake and started backpedaling when you got cornered.

But you couldn't stop yourself from taking the lowest road possible and attacking people personaly. stupid once again, cause I don't agree with you. Laughable.
Laughable is thinking that I'm calling you stupid just because you disagree and not because you're messing a whole lot with the concept of atheism and agnosticism.

disbelief without evidence is a belief within itself.
Oh for fuck's sake, do I have to fetch the "you can't ask to prove a negative claim" tidbit I used for KYF again? Because that's what you're begging by keeping expecting negative claims to prove themselves.

I believe in God
I believe God doesn't exist.
Funny how you want to pin down atheism as a belief but keep ramming into anti-theism instead. Atheists don't say "I believe God doesn't exist", they say "I don't believe in the existence of God", which is very different even if it sounds the same. Saying the first implied both a positive claim and knowledge, both the latter lacks since it's simply a negative claim. Now anti-theists might say "I don't believe in God because I believe He doesn't exist", which indeed would make it a belief, but yet again, anti-theism =/= atheism.

Morality is tightly related with religiion for religious people. What the hell are you talking about?
Yeah, but not all people are religious, so bringing up morality into a discussion about the existence of deities makes as much sense as bringing homosexuality/homophobia. It's simply a non-sequitur.

Now you're mixing up instincts with morals. Amazing.
Wow, you're stupid. Morality is derived from instinct, so of course instincts are poignant in a discussion about the nature of morality.

Please provide a source for this detailing me that morals are bound by the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest. please.
What a nice strawman. I didn't say that morals are bound by the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest, I said that morals were formed due to said laws. Big difference there. Also, look up Evolutionary Morality.

Progression of philosophical concepts such as morality within civilization and society has nothing to do with Darwinism.
Oh wait, what was the first part of that quote of mine again?

Not now, that humans achieved civilization
Funny how you completely ignored that.

Learning and teaching has nothing to do with your claim that morals are inherent. The fact that we do have to teach morals and basic lessons of right vs wrong to our young is proof that it's not an inherited trait.
Except generations oppose to certain tenets the previous one taught them and those moral teaching had to come from somewhere, they didn't just pop out in Mount Ararat.

Evolution has no god damn relation to that. Can't believe I have to argue the most basic points of Darwinism with you. A person with good morals doesn't necessarily live, and a person with bad ones doesn't necessarily die. Our philosophical views and morality isn't affected by natural selection.
Again you missed that little bit I said about civilization. Oh, the reading comprehension skills you have!
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3

Last edited by Numinous; 09-19-2013 at 06:58 PM.
Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
kael03 (09-19-2013), Miburo (10-07-2013)