Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength... - Page 8 - Fandom Forums
Fandom Forums



Go Back   Fandom Forums > Anime & Manga > Naruto Series > Naruto Manga

Naruto Manga Talk about the manga series Naruto here! Remember, this is manga only. No anime!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-19-2013, 09:32 PM   #106
jekyl_hyde
Hunter-Nin
 
jekyl_hyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,362
Thanks: 763
Thanked 1,248 Times in 521 Posts
jekyl_hyde is on a distinguished roadjekyl_hyde is on a distinguished road
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

I'll just say this, and this has happened to everyone at least once in their life... every person has at least once exclaimed, "Oh God," whether in pain or enjoyment.

That said, HR and Mr. Big... you guys are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to atheism, agnosticism, and theism when it comes to guys like Num, kael, AOTK, and so forth. There once was a thread completely dedicated to the topic (did it survive the site crash???). If any of the guys have a "change of heart", they'll look for that answer or support of it. Otherwise, if your goal is to "open their minds/hearts", you're actually hurting your cause by the course you are pursuing.
jekyl_hyde is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 09-19-2013, 10:24 PM   #107
Human Rasengan
S-Ranked Shinobi
 
Human Rasengan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: inside your mom
Posts: 3,343
Thanks: 2,949
Thanked 1,152 Times in 787 Posts
Human Rasengan has a spectacular aura aboutHuman Rasengan has a spectacular aura aboutHuman Rasengan has a spectacular aura aboutHuman Rasengan has a spectacular aura aboutHuman Rasengan has a spectacular aura about
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
@ bolded: You nailed the core problem with your whole explanation. If you don't have anything to back that up, why should anyone but your find worth in it? Not only that, what is the satisfaction of such explanation (other than comfort) if you have no way to make it even plausible?
At bolded.. personal beliefs only benifit the person that holds them. You may recall me saying this before but I'll say it again. no-one needs any cosigners whe it comes to beliefs.

At the basis of any religious beliefs is COMFORT and thats all it is. No matter how much science says there is no God I CHOOSE to believe in spite of the fact.. I am fully aware that this is irrational. But that belief gives me comfort. becaue once I remove God and the after-life out of the equasion life gets a lil bleek in my opinion.

Lets say I loose my job and my bills mount up. I would kill myself with worry if it wouldnt be for a belief in God that gives me hpe that things will turn out Ok. FAITH WITHOUT WORKS is dead. that glimmer of hope motivates me and keeps me pushing on and not falling into despair at the circumstances. Knowing that once I die thats it.. all my experiences were all moot is dismal in itself. So to answer your question of why peopel believe in spite of not being able to proove the existance of god is for Hope and comfort.

Because looking at the same scenario and thinking logically about not having a job and being behind in bills means no lights which means no way to eat , rent not getting paid means homelessness and no source of income means no way to get out of that situation.. which means one might as well give up. But Faith gives hope to endure.

So because there is no way to prove god exists ther would be no way to prove where he came from or where whatever or who ever made him came from.. so I explain it away with my religotheory. (hey I'm copyrighting that term)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jekyl_hyde View Post
I'll just say this, and this has happened to everyone at least once in their life... every person has at least once exclaimed, "Oh God," whether in pain or enjoyment.

That said, HR and Mr. Big... you guys are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to atheism, agnosticism, and theism when it comes to guys like Num, kael, AOTK, and so forth. There once was a thread completely dedicated to the topic (did it survive the site crash???). If any of the guys have a "change of heart", they'll look for that answer or support of it. Otherwise, if your goal is to "open their minds/hearts", you're actually hurting your cause by the course you are pursuing.
I am at no time trying to convert anyone.. especially our resident athiests/ agnostics. I cant prove god exists and they demand proof so trying to convert them is moot. I can only tell them why I believe what I believe for everything can be asked why of it.

Why do I believe- because it gives me comfort

why when there is no evidence because it gives me hope

why. because without that said faith and belief I might have fallen prey to my circumstances; given up and died!
__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE
Human Rasengan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2013, 11:33 PM   #108
MrBIG
Genin
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 163
Thanks: 122
Thanked 90 Times in 50 Posts
MrBIG is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jekyl_hyde View Post
That said, HR and Mr. Big... you guys are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to atheism, agnosticism, and theism when it comes to guys like Num, kael, AOTK, and so forth. There once was a thread completely dedicated to the topic (did it survive the site crash???). If any of the guys have a "change of heart", they'll look for that answer or support of it. Otherwise, if your goal is to "open their minds/hearts", you're actually hurting your cause by the course you are pursuing.

I don't even remember what the main point of the argument was. Num jumped in and now it has become some hybrid of what atheism is and a discussion on morals with evolution.

What num or whoever else believes in is really trivial in the sense that fighting about religion and atheism never brings about anything good. If you look at my argument with num it has become more of an argument about definitions of words. zzz.

anyways for num:

Quote:
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.
My word, it looks like you don't even know what you're trying to argue here.
I'm agreeing with that definition. Really, how is the definition I posted any different?

It explained that agnostic people do not take a stance on the belief of god(s):

Quote:
a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not"


You then posted definition explaining WHY agnostic people didn't believe nor disbelieve in god(s). (lack of exact knowledge to claim either):

Quote:
1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

I sincerely have no idea why you continue to try bumping heads with me on this one thing. We are basically agreeing on this definition. Yet I'm "stupid", this is ridiculous.

Quote:
... 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.
So this is the problem? Of course when I talk about Agnostics im not referring to hybridize schools of thoughts (theism + agnosticism, or atheism + agnosticism)

Quote:
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.
Way to go, arguing trivial semantics again. If you honestly weren't capable of making the logical leap that atheistic agnosticism is the same as agnostic atheism then there's no point of furthering this discussion any longer.

Cause if that's the case, your goal isn't conversation but simply to bump heads with me.


atheistic agnosticism = agnostic atheism , they are synonyms.
read the definition here.


but you already knew that I bet.


Quote:
If the quote is filled with massive amounts of misinformation, why should I bother refer to it when I'm referring to something else?
How convenient for you, cherry pick to further your argumentative points while ignoring the finer details of my own. This is just another one of your typical underhanded insults adding nothing to the discussion at hand.

Quote:
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.
Wrong.
I was the first to brought up agnostic atheism in this discussion, in my reply to him. I even asked him if he was an agnostic atheist:

Quote:
What you're looking for is Agnosticism not atheism.
If you don't reject the notion that a god or gods may possibly exist, you are not an atheist but fall into weak agnosticism or strong agnosticism.

Maybe you even fall into atheistic agnosticism.

Quote:
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.
What on earth? "I dont believe in an existence of a God" is the exact same as saying "I don't believe God exists".

You can keep trying to force this negative versus positive claim crap but that is grammatical syntax and nothing more. Nonetheless they have the same meaning. Semantically there is no difference.

In fact any sentence can be spun to have a negative or positive connotation and hold the same sense.

Quote:
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.
As society as a whole gains knowledge certain morals the people have change proportionally. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Quote:
Not now, that humans achieved civilization
When I say "societies", I encompass more than modern civilization.

Quote:
...Yeah, but not all people are religious, so bringing up morality into a discussion about the existence of deities...
Moral behavior is an important factor in religion and it's all based around faith/belief in a god. Which is why I brought it up.

Something logical that stemmed from an "illogical" thought as a belief in a deity.

Quote:
also, look up Evolutionary Morality.
I already know of this field and I also know that it's continuously criticized over its initial assumptions.

The more accepted school of thought in the scientific community is that morals are based on environment and education not on genes. Evolutionary morality fails to explain the very much differing morals found in different cultures.

Last edited by MrBIG; 09-19-2013 at 11:36 PM.
MrBIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2013, 04:31 AM   #109
Numinous
Writing speed: snail
 
Numinous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,782
Thanks: 8,384
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...

It's funny how MrBig complains about debating definitions and semantics when he flunks at them hard. MrBig, there's a good reason for debating such things, it's clarity. You seem to not understand how clarity is crucial for the understand of atheism and other metaphysical points of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBIG View Post

My word, it looks like you don't even know what you're trying to argue here.
I'm agreeing with that definition. Really, how is the definition I posted any different?

It explained that agnostic people do not take a stance on the belief of god(s):

Quote:
a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not"
You then posted definition explaining WHY agnostic people didn't believe nor disbelieve in god(s). (lack of exact knowledge to claim either):

Quote:
1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
I sincerely have no idea why you continue to try bumping heads with me on this one thing. We are basically agreeing on this definition. Yet I'm "stupid", this is ridiculous.
It's ridiculous because you either are too blind or too stubborn to notice the huge difference between the definitions. Let me accentuate it so you can notice:

Quote:
a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not"
Quote:
1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
Like I posted before, the root of the word "agnostic" is gnosis, knowledge, not belief, so saying that the definition of agnosticism is based on belief is misguided. The whole reason why your definition exists is, like I said before, misuse due to either fear of the atheist label or ignorance of the proper definition.

And I really do hope you know the difference between knowledge and belief.

Quote:
So this is the problem? Of course when I talk about Agnostics im not referring to hybridize schools of thoughts (theism + agnosticism, or atheism + agnosticism)
Then you're doing it wrong, use the proper term: apathetic agnosticism. Because when you talk about Agnosticism without specification, you ARE referring also to agnostic atheism and agnostic theism.

Quote:
Way to go, arguing trivial semantics again. If you honestly weren't capable of making the logical leap that atheistic agnosticism is the same as agnostic atheism then there's no point of furthering this discussion any longer.

Cause if that's the case, your goal isn't conversation but simply to bump heads with me.

atheistic agnosticism = agnostic atheism , they are synonyms.
read the definition here.

but you already knew that I bet.
"Quick, let me cherry-pick a link that supports my usage of words and completely ignore the overwhelming majority of links that use agnostic atheism!"

What a load of crock. I didn't call on your shit because somehow I didn't made the connection of atheistic agnosticism and agnostic atheism, I called because your usage of words looked like you were still considering atheism and anti-theism to be synonymous and that somehow agnosticism was something apart from it. In other words, you looked like you didn't know what the hell you were talking about, which is blatant now when you still get many definitions and semantics wrong and start to backpedal like a sir.

Quote:
Wrong.
I was the first to brought up agnostic atheism in this discussion, in my reply to him. I even asked him if he was an agnostic atheist:
And you put the same quote when you say that his agnostic atheism isn't atheism, is agnosticism, pretty much contradicting when you bolded and redded. Jesus, you can't proofread for shit.

Quote:
What on earth? "I dont believe in an existence of a God" is the exact same as saying "I don't believe God exists".
Funny how that last thing wasn't what you said. "I don't believe God exists" ISN'T the same as "I believe God doesn't exist" like you were trying to say atheism was claiming.

Quote:
You can keep trying to force this negative versus positive claim crap but that is grammatical syntax and nothing more. Nonetheless they have the same meaning. Semantically there is no difference.

In fact any sentence can be spun to have a negative or positive connotation and hold the same sense.
Then, my friend, you really suck at English. Hard.

In a matter of fact, almost every language has cases where the different placement of words can change entirely the meaning of a phrase. For example, in Portuguese "uma filha rica" means "a rich daughter", but "uma rica filha" means "a good/beautiful daughter" and all that was done was swapping the placement of the noun and the adjective.

Likewise, "I don't believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist" have different meanings.
  • The first is the negation of a positive claim ("I believe God exists"), thus a negative claim. It also doesn't postulate anything on the existence of God, only on the disbelief of the claim.
  • The latter makes a claim of God's non-existence as if the person saying that knew of said non-existence (much like gnostic theists say they know God exists), thus it being a positive claim.
That said, the first claim is atheistic and the latter is anti-theistic and they are capable of intersection, but they're not synonymous as you're trying to say they are. Get it now or do I really have to draw a picture for you?


I'll skip most of the morality bit, since you still are ramming on and on and still didn't said a thing about where do morals come from to even make it plausible to be discussing them anyway, I'll just address this point:

Quote:
Moral behavior is an important factor in religion and it's all based around faith/belief in a god. Which is why I brought it up.

Something logical that stemmed from an "illogical" thought as a belief in a deity.
Err, no, not even in the context of religion is that true. In religion, morals aren't based on the belief of the existence of a god, they are based on the doctrine postulated by said God, thus already assuming God exists. If you are somehow confused, we're discussing the existence of God, not what said God thinks or expects from His believers. So yeah, morals are still a non-sequitur to the whole discussion.
__________________
My writings and ramblings:

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








Last edited by Numinous; 09-20-2013 at 04:35 AM.
Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
kael03 (09-20-2013), Miburo (10-07-2013)
Old 09-20-2013, 11:09 AM   #110
Konnaha_yellow_flash
Kage
 
Konnaha_yellow_flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 7,810
Thanks: 853
Thanked 2,439 Times in 1,577 Posts
Konnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to all
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
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:
LMAO, Yea, because small children have such morals ONLY caring about themselves and thier desires... LMAO... Freud was so wrong... ANyone who has a small child or has been around them long enough knows exactly how litel morals they are born with lol... You really are retarded to keep arguing this...

Quote:
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.

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.
LMAO, did you even read the fucking paper?? The BASIS of this Empathic and altruistic behavior is a child handing something to an adult when they ask for it or are acting like they are a apparently internal negative state and getting handed something to apparently help alleviate that lol...

It is the stupidest thing I have ever read... My child handed me my coke when I asked him, thus he is a good person inside and knows the difference between right and wrong... LMFAO!!!
They do not actually confirm the motivation of the act, just try to argue that such Prosocial acts can equal altruistic without ANY evidence to show it...

You actually used this for evidence just shows even further how little straws you are willing to draw at to tyr and support a fallacious argument based on absolute bewildering nonsense

Quote:
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.
Morality is learned not hardwired like instincts... Apparently you have not been around very young children form the age of 1 month to 48, have you... Nor do you understand the difference between instincts and morals obviously...
__________________
KNOWLEDGE TO LIVE BY...

No matter how POWERFUL/STRONG you are. If you cannot CATCH your Enemy, all you POWER/STRENGTH is no more USEFUL then a squirt gun....
And if You cannot possibly TRACK/REACT to your enemies attacks to Defend yourself, then how can you possibly stop him from DEFEATING you at WILL...


MINATO "KYF" NAMIKAZE.

People live relying on they're Knowledge and Perception, and thus are bound to them.....
Those Boundaries are what they tend to accept as "Reality".....
However..... Knowledge and Perception are both ambiguous....
so "Reality" could be nothing more....
then an illusion....


ITACHI UCHIHA

Last edited by Konnaha_yellow_flash; 09-20-2013 at 11:10 AM.
Konnaha_yellow_flash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2013, 04:00 PM   #111
ninjalostboy95
Moe game on point
 
ninjalostboy95's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NY, Far Rockaway(currently)
Age: 18
Posts: 5,947
Thanks: 8,416
Thanked 4,704 Times in 2,856 Posts
ninjalostboy95 is just really niceninjalostboy95 is just really niceninjalostboy95 is just really niceninjalostboy95 is just really niceninjalostboy95 is just really niceninjalostboy95 is just really niceninjalostboy95 is just really nice
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

"disbelief without evidence is a belief within itself."- MrBig

Have you ever heard of burden of proof? This is the same concept. Say Numi claimed there were invisible turtles with machine guns on their backs. Now I told him I don't believe it, because naturally burden of proof is on him, I don't need to provide evidence since I'm not the one claiming there are invisible creatures and shit. Same stuff with atheists and agnostics, you have these hardcore theists claiming god exists and agnostics and atheists are pretty much saying "how do you know?" Because logically you don't believe claims without proof. with that thought in mind, there would most likely never be evidence as long as we live. For all we know, the concept of God may have just been a set up to a general consensus of morality(you know since there is no absolute morality, society took it upon themselves to create one close to it) and mass control of the population not to go haywire pretty much and people started taking it literally(because people do that all the time.) I'll stop right here, I really don't want to join this convo was just clearing shit up.
ninjalostboy95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2013, 04:39 PM   #112
jekyl_hyde
Hunter-Nin
 
jekyl_hyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,362
Thanks: 763
Thanked 1,248 Times in 521 Posts
jekyl_hyde is on a distinguished roadjekyl_hyde is on a distinguished road
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjalostboy95 View Post
Say Numi claimed there were invisible turtles with machine guns on their backs. Now I told him I don't believe it, because naturally burden of proof is on him, I don't need to provide evidence since I'm not the one claiming there are invisible creatures and shit.
But what about the pink elephants when I'm drunk?!

And hey, the evil monkey was real on Family Guy.
jekyl_hyde is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jekyl_hyde For This Useful Post:
ninjalostboy95 (09-20-2013)
Old 09-21-2013, 12:04 AM   #113
MrBIG
Genin
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 163
Thanks: 122
Thanked 90 Times in 50 Posts
MrBIG is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
It's funny how MrBig complains about debating definitions and semantics
Where have I complained?

Quote:
when he flunks at them hard. MrBig,
In your eyes maybe.If it makes you feel any better, you;ve shown little to no comprehension of gramatical syntax nor semantics.

Quote:
It's ridiculous because you either are too blind or too stubborn to notice the huge difference between the definitions. Let me accentuate it so you can notice:
Agnostic people do not have a definite belief in god(s) (they neither believe nor disbelief) because the required knowledge/evidence/facts to make such a decision is unavailable.



Quote:
Like I posted before, the root of the word "agnostic" is gnosis, knowledge, not belief, so saying that the definition of agnosticism is based on belief is misguided.
Im saying that agnosticism is based on the lack of belief and disbelief without evidence and the required knowledge to make such a decision.

Quote:
Then you're doing it wrong, use the proper term: apathetic agnosticism.
Apatheism has nothing to do with what im discussing here.
An Apthetic agnostic doesn't CARE about the question of wether God exsits or not, because it's "impossible" to know.

While a pure agnostic does question himself about the existence of god and came to the conclusion that he has no definite answer.

Quote:
Because when you talk about Agnosticism without specification, you ARE referring also to agnostic atheism and agnostic theism.
When I talk aout Agnosticism I talk about it's pure sense not a hybridize form.

Agnostic: God himself is an entity that may or may not exist so I do not believe nor disbelief in him without proper evidence to supprot either claim.

source 1, source 2, source 3

Agnostic atheism: God is an entity that may or may not exist so i disbelieve in his existence until evidence proves the contrary. (null hypothesis for them is thus atheism)

source 1, source 2, source 3.

Agnostic theist: God is an entity that may or may not exist, however I believe in his existence until evidence is shown proving the contrary.

source 1, source 2


Quote:
"Quick, let me cherry-pick a link that supports my usage of words and completely ignore the overwhelming majority of links that use agnostic atheism!"
Pathetic really, I picked a source backing my argument. If you believe it to be wrong provide evidence proving the contrary, it's simple. Learn how to properly formulate an argument.

Atheistic agnosticism = Agnostic atheism

the same as

Narcissistic perfectionism = Perfectionistic narcissism.

inversion of the two words does not change the meaning. You're arguing now about a trivial technicality, it's pathetic. Its a keen to basing your argument on a typo while knowing what your "opponent" meant.

Quote:
And you put the same quote when you say that his agnostic atheism isn't atheism, is agnosticism, pretty much contradicting when you bolded and redded. Jesus, you can't proofread for shit.
Once again, you further prove your lack of reading comprehension.

I said the man wasn't an atheist but possibly an agnostic or agnostic atheist.

I've provided sources earlier that prove that the they are not mutually exclusive but however are different in their purest form.


Quote:
Funny how that last thing wasn't what you said. "I don't believe God exists" ISN'T the same as "I believe God doesn't exist" like you were trying to say atheism was claiming.

Then, my friend, you really suck at English. Hard.

In a matter of fact, almost every language has cases where the different placement of words can change entirely the meaning of a phrase. For example, in Portuguese "uma filha rica" means "a rich daughter", but "uma rica filha" means "a good/beautiful daughter" and all that was done was swapping the placement of the noun and the adjective.
What a failure of an analogy/example. Im not swapping words, I'm changing the connotation of declarative sentences from positive to negative without changing it's meaning.

Quote:

Likewise, "I don't believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist" have different meanings.
  • The first is the negation of a positive claim ("I believe God exists"), thus a negative claim. It also doesn't postulate anything on the existence of God, only on the disbelief of the claim.
  • The latter makes a claim of God's non-existence as if the person saying that knew of said non-existence (much like gnostic theists say they know God exists), thus it being a positive claim.
That said, the first claim is atheistic and the latter is anti-theistic and they are capable of intersection, but they're not synonymous as you're trying to say they are. Get it now or do I really have to draw a picture for you?
My word, it doesn't matter how hard you try to jam this positive vs negative claim theory you have down my throat. It doesn't make it true.

They are simply grammatical syntaxes and it's a fact that EVERY DECLARATIVE SENTENCE CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE FORM WITHOUT CHANGING ITS MEANING.

So your attempts at using this same grammatical rule to somehow prove a difference between atheism and anti-theism is bogus.

This is some god damn Junior high level shit right here (or even maybe lower on the education scale), I can't believe I have to argue such simple grammatical rules with you.

example:
All dinosaurs are dead - Positive claim
There are no living dinosaurs - Negative claim

Meaning remains the same.

HOWEVER THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATHEISM and ANTI-THEISM, I do not claim that they are the same.

an atheism simply believes that God doesn't exist.

An anti-thesis not only does not believe in an existence of God, but believe religion itself is evil/bad/terrible etc. He is against the entire concept of faith/religion/Gods and their doctrines. An atheist that actively opposes religion.

source 1, source 2, source 3.


Quote:
I'll skip most of the morality bit, since you still are ramming on and on and still didn't said a thing about where do morals come from to even make it plausible to be discussing them anyway
smh.

if you're actually oblivious as to how moral development works then I wonder why you even bothered arguing about it with me.

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
(his work on morality is one of the most quoted and accepted in the psychology field.)

Morals are a learnt behavior


Cultural importance in development of morals.
,

What these ideas all have in common is that morals is bred from community and the environment one is raised in. It's not a genetic trait as you tried so hard to claim.

Quote:
Err, no, not even in the context of religion is that true. In religion, morals aren't based on the belief of the existence of a god, they are based on the doctrine postulated by said God, thus already assuming God exists. If you are somehow confused, we're discussing the existence of God, not what said God thinks or expects from His believers. So yeah, morals are still a non-sequitur to the whole discussion.
Let me make it clearer for you

-> Belief in the christian/jewish God
-> Belief in the 10 commandments
-> thus also direct moral laws created by God
-> believers in said religion have now based their moral behavior on their belief that their God is real.

If god is real and heaven is real, I should do good.

A logical moral standard "doing good" born from an illogical belief/assumption that God is real.

Last edited by MrBIG; 09-21-2013 at 12:15 AM.
MrBIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 03:04 AM   #114
Human Rasengan
S-Ranked Shinobi
 
Human Rasengan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: inside your mom
Posts: 3,343
Thanks: 2,949
Thanked 1,152 Times in 787 Posts
Human Rasengan has a spectacular aura aboutHuman Rasengan has a spectacular aura aboutHuman Rasengan has a spectacular aura aboutHuman Rasengan has a spectacular aura aboutHuman Rasengan has a spectacular aura about
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

A simple yes or know answer will suffice to this question to our resident non believers in any God/gods whatsoever. please quote my post and then supply your answer

** regardless of proof to back it up( for our non physic majors) do you believe or is it withing your scope of knowledge to say that humans can influence reality by thought alone as to what I mean this video conveys the general idea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJxx0BNyFM **

To further clarify as Num stated earlier as well as myself in different words " make sure we're on the same page" then would a collective thought cause a certain "harmonic resonance" to influence human action... can we create our own Gods as many claim we already have.

That "spirit" of comfort and positive events in my life even through the bad... being able to endure.. to learn to grow to experience joy , understanding, contentment, these are "gifts from god" is Belief enough for a mass of mental energy to affect billions of people. whether you're Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist the core of most of those these religions is a harmony a lot of "southern Christians take it like this. I think therefore I am, I am because I have survived. when faced with an obstacle I could not see my own strength and I doubted about the outcome.. but I am still here. If it were for me ( the individual) and my power I wouldn't have made it. so there must be some force greater than myself that made it possible.


I love this song because the emotion and energy of it conveys my thoughts on God and spirituality and what it truly means to have faith http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t ( the definition) and the song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80Dpek7qK08

If no-one makes a post after this I'll edit later for a commentary on the debate above itself.

One thing I find interesting about the above is the so called semantics.. especially on a forum originated with Naruto content... Why Naruto.... because he said "BELIEVE IT" you all knew when he said it that he ment that whatever the fuck he just said. You could know it to be true so belief and knowledge are intertwined.. not interchangeable but intertwined
__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

Last edited by Human Rasengan; 09-21-2013 at 03:46 AM.
Human Rasengan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 05:48 AM   #115
liondemon
Missing Kage
 
liondemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South Central Cloud
Posts: 3,196
Thanks: 344
Thanked 722 Times in 458 Posts
liondemon is a glorious beacon of lightliondemon is a glorious beacon of lightliondemon is a glorious beacon of lightliondemon is a glorious beacon of lightliondemon is a glorious beacon of lightliondemon is a glorious beacon of lightliondemon is a glorious beacon of lightliondemon is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Rasengan View Post
A simple yes or know answer will suffice to this question to our resident non believers in any God/gods whatsoever. please quote my post and then supply your answer

** regardless of proof to back it up( for our non physic majors) do you believe or is it withing your scope of knowledge to say that humans can influence reality by thought alone as to what I mean this video conveys the general idea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJxx0BNyFM **

To further clarify as Num stated earlier as well as myself in different words " make sure we're on the same page" then would a collective thought cause a certain "harmonic resonance" to influence human action... can we create our own Gods as many claim we already have.

That "spirit" of comfort and positive events in my life even through the bad... being able to endure.. to learn to grow to experience joy , understanding, contentment, these are "gifts from god" is Belief enough for a mass of mental energy to affect billions of people. whether you're Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist the core of most of those these religions is a harmony a lot of "southern Christians take it like this. I think therefore I am, I am because I have survived. when faced with an obstacle I could not see my own strength and I doubted about the outcome.. but I am still here. If it were for me ( the individual) and my power I wouldn't have made it. so there must be some force greater than myself that made it possible.


I love this song because the emotion and energy of it conveys my thoughts on God and spirituality and what it truly means to have faith http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t ( the definition) and the song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80Dpek7qK08

If no-one makes a post after this I'll edit later for a commentary on the debate above itself.

One thing I find interesting about the above is the so called semantics.. especially on a forum originated with Naruto content... Why Naruto.... because he said "BELIEVE IT" you all knew when he said it that he ment that whatever the fuck he just said. You could know it to be true so belief and knowledge are intertwined.. not interchangeable but intertwined
Know, or as I like to say, no.
__________________
Ninja Assassin


Wisdom, compassion, and courage are the three universally recognized moral qualities of men.
Confucius

There is a wisdom of the head and a wisdom of the heart.
Charles Dickens

To be satisfied with a little is the greatest wisdom; and he that increaseth his riches, increaseth his cares; but a contented mind is a hidden treasure, and trouble findeth it not.
Akhenaton

It is the nature of the wise to resist pleasures, but the foolish to be a slave to them.
Epictetus

It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf.
Walter Lippmann

Knowing others is wisdom; knowing yourself is Enlightenment.
Lao Tzu

It's better to be a lion for a day than a sheep all your life.
Elizabeth Kenny
liondemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 10:36 AM   #116
AOTKorby
Leaf on the Wind
 
AOTKorby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Denison U, Ohio
Posts: 4,135
Thanks: 539
Thanked 5,579 Times in 2,260 Posts
AOTKorby is a jewel in the roughAOTKorby is a jewel in the roughAOTKorby is a jewel in the roughAOTKorby is a jewel in the roughAOTKorby is a jewel in the roughAOTKorby is a jewel in the rough
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Fun fact: if one subscribes to full-on relativist morality, morality doesn't actually exist.

There's your fun fact for the day.
__________________
Quote:
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
AOTKorby is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to AOTKorby For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (09-21-2013), kael03 (09-21-2013), ninjalostboy95 (09-21-2013), Numinous (09-21-2013)
Old 09-21-2013, 10:42 AM   #117
Numinous
Writing speed: snail
 
Numinous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,782
Thanks: 8,384
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...

Here are three people without opinions I disagree with, but I honestly hold HR in higher consideration. He as the most outrageous statements, the less versed arguments and several leaps of logic, but he has what the other two don't have: self-awareness and honesty. He's the first to admit his case is faulty and that is what makes him comfortable, not what is right because he's right. On the other hand, we have KYF and MrBig, who continue to be two clueless boobs that pretend to have a clue and project towards and mock those who actually have a clue.



Let's start with KYF: you know what I find it funny? The fact that you say "oh if you were around children, you'd know how little morals they have!" while still holding Freudian considerations as still true. Actually, KYF, I spend at least an afternoon a week with my nephew, who is 4 as we speak, and I know he isn't as selfish as Freud made toddlers out to be. Sure, he only developed most of his current morals with parenting, but he was capable of acts of selflessness and altruism even before fully understanding spoken language.

Not only that, I have read many papers and seen a few documentaries on the issue, and toddlers are capable of basic morality even when they're among other toddlers with minimal parental influence (like in a playground). So yeah, I do say Freud is wrong on that department and he has been wrong since the 90's (and since the 60's in female psychology and other issues).

But what really gets me are two things it's not the first time you do:
  • When you're confronted with scientific research that contradicts your opinion, suddenly they don't know shit and are just arguing from ignorance. You already that with the gravitational wave and I have to ask: what fucking credentials do you have to infer that scientists that specialized in the field are bullshitting their way through and you know what is true?
  • When you start using a concept, you parrot it like there's no tomorrow, even if you don't what the fuck you're talking about. It's like you're in high school and learning for the first time psychology and spouting what you learn everywhere so you can pretend do be smart. Didn't your teacher say that Freud is taught for historicity's sake, NOT veracity's? Didn't you teacher say that conditioning requires repetition and that various stimuli of the same kind still count as the repetition of the same stimulus? Seriously, what the hell, KYF, didn't you pay any attention in school to fail so fucking hard at psychology, chemistry, biology, physics, etc?




Now, finally, to MrBig who pretends to be better than KYF but that's really it, pretense: I can't really count how many red flags you raise with your argumentation. And by red flags I mean "acts that suggest that the person talking doesn't know what s/he's talking about and is just trying to save face". The biggest of them all was saying someone lacks the belief and disbelief in a concept and not being apathetic towards the concept, which is a flagrant logical paradox. Belief and disbelief are diametric opposites, so lacking both would mean apathy, but since you said "pure agnostics" aren't apatheists (which I referred to because that was the only logical stance left), you're pretty much arguing an impossible stance to be had.



This is why I insisted agnosticism was about knowledge, not belief, because agnostics simply don't know whether God exists or not. They can believe it, disbelieve it or present apathy (or even say that the concept of God lacks proper definition to be discussed, which is ignosticism), but somehow sitting on a fence that doesn't logically exist, that they surely can't. So, in my opinion, you bickering about how you're strictly talking about agnosticism is just backpedaling when you got caught with your pants down.


Another thing that really irks me is when you complain about me not knowing my terminology when you only acknowledge concepts after I said them and just putting links that in no way, shape or form contradict what I said before. That tells me that you have a general (misguided) idea about the subject and when people go specific you just have to run to Google to attempt to save face and pretend you knew all along and don't even bother to read if it actually contradicts what I said. Kind of funny you share the trait of not bothering to read all the way through and pretend you did with KYF. That and your cereal box psychology.


Speaking of not reading all the way through, Zombie Jesus on a Stick, MrBig seems to be small on reading comprehension and argumentation. You're still harping like a moron about me not knowing that atheistic agnosticism=agnostic atheism when I said with all letters that I simply pointed out because you were pretty much tripping all over yourself with the terminology and came up with a concept salad that only denoted your ignorance on the matter. And funny how you simply ignored that portion of my post and only quoted the satire I made. Cherry-picking at its finest.



Then you say "I said the man wasn't an atheist but possibly an agnostic or agnostic atheist" with a straight face like it isn't stupid at all! For the love of Cthulhu, your argument of "purest form" is both unnecessarily pedantic and one more sign of your backpedalling. He is an atheist AND an agnostic, because you seem to still haven't computed that they intersect. And the worse part is that you pretend to know they aren't mutually exclusive but argue like they are.


Oh, and thanks for letting me know that your level of argumentation is below junior high school, considering that you completely ignore that positive and negative claims have opposite implications even if are similar in phrasing. Ignoring the fact that are extant dinosaurs, saying "All dinosaurs are dead" and "There are no living dinosaurs" have two fundamental differences: burden of proof and claim of knowledge, which are derived from their positive and negative nature as claims:
  • Saying "All dinosaurs are dead" is a positive claim that implies the person saying it knows that all dinosaurs are dead, thus being a claim of knowledge that has the burden of proof and can be falsified.
  • On the other hand, saying "There are no living dinosaurs" is in refutation of the claim "There are living dinosaurs", which is a claim of knowledge like the example in the point above. The refutation of a claim of knowledge is necessarily a claim of ignorance, and in this example it implies the person doesn't know of any living dinosaurs, thus choses to state there aren't any. By the virtue of that, the negative claim can't be falsified (since the positive claim is the one that requires confirmation) nor has the burden of proof.
See the difference? That's why I said what I said, because anti-theism does claim positively (thus being a belief) while atheism doesn't. Anti-theism pretty much overrides atheism in that aspect (and the reason why you see anti-theism being linked to direct opposition to religion and theism is because it somehow knows of God's nonexistence and deem theists wrong and even toxic to society for claiming knowledge that is opposite to it) but atheism is in no way, shape or form a belief. Hell, even atheists joke with that saying that atheism is as much of a belief as baldness is an hair color. And, I'll be honest, so far the people I've seen erroneously claiming that atheism is a belief are those who want to falsify it in order to prove theism (which is a false dichotomy, but they insist anyway) and, knowing that negative claims can't be falsified, somehow twist it into being the positive claim it isn't. In other words, your arguments about it are not only untrue but actively hurting your reasoning in the process by making you fall into unnecessary fallacies.



Moving on, what a filthy strawman you created all over the morality talk. I've said that evolutionary process matter in morality, not that they're all they matter, and I even pointed out that I do know that society has a prime role, thus not saying that society hasn't anything to do with morality. But you just went "fuck that, I'll pretend you never said that and attack an argument you never made!". You just made yourself look stupid by saying things I'm well aware of.



Finally, no, I'll make it clearer for you why your whole point of morality being linked to the existence of God in religion is misguided. What you pointed out wasn't about God's existence, was about God's AGENCY. Because somehow you forgot that there are people who believe in the existence of God but not in its agency (namely deists and pantheists) and, guess what, most of them do not follow religious doctrine, so yeah, doctrine is derived from divine agency, not divine existence.
__________________
My writings and ramblings:

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







Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (09-21-2013), Human Rasengan (09-24-2013), kael03 (09-21-2013), Miburo (10-07-2013)
Old 09-21-2013, 11:07 AM   #118
emachina
Jounin
 
emachina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 894
Thanks: 477
Thanked 811 Times in 249 Posts
emachina has a spectacular aura aboutemachina has a spectacular aura aboutemachina has a spectacular aura aboutemachina has a spectacular aura about
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

I just gotta say this, after reading through some of these posts. As I said before, I am a Christian. Also I respect and acknowledge science, you won't hear me claim young Earth theory in any argument I have when discussing science and/or religion. With that being said, this fucking thread makes me want to visit the creationist museum so bad just for the fucking endless comedy it would provide.
__________________
One Piece! Hell Yeah!
One Piece! Hell Yeah!
emachina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2013, 12:15 PM   #119
jekyl_hyde
Hunter-Nin
 
jekyl_hyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,362
Thanks: 763
Thanked 1,248 Times in 521 Posts
jekyl_hyde is on a distinguished roadjekyl_hyde is on a distinguished road
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

@Num
Hades must have froze over because of your acknowledgment of HR (jk).

@emachina
When it comes to how the Earth was created, as well as the entire universe, I don't look for the cold, hard facts. Mainly, because as believers in God (the God of Abraham, otherwise known as Yahweh, Jehovah, and/or Allah), we are taught/led to believe that our perception of time is different than his. All three religious books (which all three give the same story in Genesis 1) teach that the entire universe was created in 7 days, according to God's perception of time... not ours. That being said, who's to say that the BBT isn't how he created everything. As a fundamentalist believer, I do not delve into topics as these with such severity, because not everything is meant to be known by man... at least that is what I believe.
jekyl_hyde is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jekyl_hyde For This Useful Post:
emachina (09-21-2013), Human Rasengan (09-21-2013)
Old 09-21-2013, 01:13 PM   #120
Konnaha_yellow_flash
Kage
 
Konnaha_yellow_flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 7,810
Thanks: 853
Thanked 2,439 Times in 1,577 Posts
Konnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to allKonnaha_yellow_flash is a name known to all
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

[QUOTE=Numinous;2138632]
Quote:
Here are three people without opinions I disagree with, but I honestly hold HR in higher consideration. He as the most outrageous statements, the less versed arguments and several leaps of logic, but he has what the other two don't have: self-awareness and honesty. He's the first to admit his case is faulty and that is what makes him comfortable, not what is right because he's right. On the other hand, we have KYF and MrBig, who continue to be two clueless boobs that pretend to have a clue and project towards and mock those who actually have a clue.



Let's start with KYF: you know what I find it funny? The fact that you say "oh if you were around children, you'd know how little morals they have!" while still holding Freudian considerations as still true. Actually, KYF, I spend at least an afternoon a week with my nephew, who is 4 as we speak, and I know he isn't as selfish as Freud made toddlers out to be. Sure, he only developed most of his current morals with parenting, but he was capable of acts of selflessness and altruism even before fully understanding spoken language.
1). I seriously doubt you have ever been around a child 1 month to 48 more then a couple moments with your stupid belief that morality is hard wired like INSTINCTS In humans at birth... And literally the oNLY supporting evidence you have for this notion is some paper pertaining to small children handing things to an adult to show altruistic behavior LMAO, without actually proving the motivation of the action...

2). you have a fucking super child, sale it to science because it is the first to ever not be selfish and just considering of it's own desires and actually capable of altruistic and selfless acts... DO you know how stupid you sound to actually say such a thing...
You are trying to argue that your nephew is unlike any other child ever born and is capable of selfless and altruistic acts before it even learns speech...
Thus, either you are full of shit as usual or you know the first child to ever be born with morals and is not just be about the fulfillment of it's own desires as every other baby in history...

I and Occam's razor are willing to bet the farm that you are full of shit as ususal!

Quote:
Not only that, I have read many papers and seen a few documentaries on the issue, and toddlers are capable of basic morality even when they're among other toddlers with minimal parental influence (like in a playground). So yeah, I do say Freud is wrong on that department and he has been wrong since the 90's (and since the 60's in female psychology and other issues).
WHere are these papers, and documentaries, PROOF!!! ALL you ever do is make random claims coupled with abusive fallacies... Just to hide your unbelievably inadequate ability to argue...

Quote:
But what really gets me are two things it's not the first time you do:
  • When you're confronted with scientific research that contradicts your opinion, suddenly they don't know shit and are just arguing from ignorance. You already that with the gravitational wave and I have to ask: what fucking credentials do you have to infer that scientists that specialized in the field are bullshitting their way through and you know what is true?
  • 1). LMAO, you are just trying to hide the FACT you did not even read the fucking paper and thus did not evne know that the basis of paper pertaining to this argument was "Toddlers show altruistic behavior by handing an adult something when they ask for it" without even delving into the actual motivation of the toddlers act Lol!

    2). I never said the writers of the paper were "arguing from ignorance", thus you have clearly made a Freudian slip!!! Even you think the writers are stupid unconsciously LMAO...

    3). I do not need credentials to use COMMON SENSE to know, arguing an action without motivation to actually prove what kind of behavior it was is not a reasonable argument... You are just trying to defend the abortion of a paper you posted to try and support your argument which is based in pure fantasy...

    Quote:
  • When you start using a concept, you parrot it like there's no tomorrow, even if you don't what the fuck you're talking about. It's like you're in high school and learning for the first time psychology and spouting what you learn everywhere so you can pretend do be smart. Didn't your teacher say that Freud is taught for historicity's sake, NOT veracity's? Didn't you teacher say that conditioning requires repetition and that various stimuli of the same kind still count as the repetition of the same stimulus? Seriously, what the hell, KYF, didn't you pay any attention in school to fail so fucking hard at psychology, chemistry, biology, physics, etc?
1. LMFAOROFL!!!
You are projecting your little heart out, telling me I PARROT concepts when I START () using them... Yet I am not the one who ignorantly tries to act like I know something I clearly do not...
Fallacies for INSTANCE:
You still have no idea how to properly use an argument from ignorance... It has nothing to do with someone being stupid or ignorant. It is the conclusion of true or false based on the LACK of evidence... Example: SOmeone trying to argue god does not exist simply becuase there is no evidence he does... AN argument from ignorance.
Conditioning for another:
You sit here and tell me "Repetition is required" yet you ignore the repetition of seeing edo after edo does not condition a suppressed reaction of surprise over time for the Conditioned Response... and "Various stimuli of the same kind, count as repetition of the same stimulus" No shit shirlock!!! And yet you keep arguing there has to be two different kinds of stimuli, not the same repeated to condition a certain response just proving further how little you know about conditioning and likely how pathetic you reading comp is to even use wiki to understand conditioning...

: Thinks morals are Hardwired at BIRTH just like INSTINCTS... Not learned as they grow from parents, friends in their environment...
: Thinks an argument from ignorance is literal and the arguer is arguing something stupid or ignorant... Completely not able to understand an argument from ignorance is the basing of a conclusion true or false on the absence of evidence...
: Cannot even understand the conditioning in the suppression of surprise from shinobi having the repeated stimulus of seeing dead edos walking around, over and over for days... Thus over time reacting less and less with each edo, thus once they see orochimaru walking around, they are not really that surprised at all...

CONCLUSION:
Numious, you are one of kind Bro'migo... I seriously doubt you are this stupid, but instead are suffering from obvious BIAS, Preconceived Ideas/expectation coupled with prejudice of me to filter out any info that does not conform to the reality created by those 3 filters to guide your arguments. Making Conditioning, fallacies and even Morals capable of completely different things then what they really are in reality...
__________________
KNOWLEDGE TO LIVE BY...

No matter how POWERFUL/STRONG you are. If you cannot CATCH your Enemy, all you POWER/STRENGTH is no more USEFUL then a squirt gun....
And if You cannot possibly TRACK/REACT to your enemies attacks to Defend yourself, then how can you possibly stop him from DEFEATING you at WILL...


MINATO "KYF" NAMIKAZE.

People live relying on they're Knowledge and Perception, and thus are bound to them.....
Those Boundaries are what they tend to accept as "Reality".....
However..... Knowledge and Perception are both ambiguous....
so "Reality" could be nothing more....
then an illusion....


ITACHI UCHIHA
Konnaha_yellow_flash is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need for Speed The Run Limited Edition . B.A.H Gaming 0 11-12-2011 06:22 AM
[WU] Need for Speed Most Wanted [PC/2005/Full iso] huongco23 Gaming 0 09-22-2011 09:56 AM
Need for Speed World v.1.8.1.53 (2010/ENG) | 819 MB NEW!!! iwantcools90 Gaming 0 09-01-2010 12:51 PM
The Naruto Debating FC MikeyM1979 Official Fanclubs 1734 07-09-2009 08:59 PM
naruto's speed & hearing power phyomin Naruto Manga 10 01-05-2009 03:40 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.