[Optimism]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

For you King. Watch with an open-mind .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

And, read up .

[Xrow]

Where do you find all this crap o.O

I watched and listened.
That man used multiple tangents that created a confusing.. Story?
I get what he means, but that was an odd way of explaining it.

And just because you found some old man that agrees with you and gave an absurd ghost-lamp example doesn't mean hes correct or your correct, sir.


And although I forgot why I thought you were being close-minded, its quite possible that you were.

[Optimism]

Where do you find all this crap o.O

I watched and listened.
That man used multiple tangents that created a confusing.. Story?
I get what he means, but that was an odd way of explaining it.

And just because you found some old man that agrees with you and gave an absurd ghost-lamp example doesn't mean hes correct or your correct, sir.


And although I forgot why I thought you were being close-minded, its quite possible that you were.

Tangents? Specifically what? I'll explain it to you. There were no "tangents."

[Xrow]

He just keeps giving random and odd examples such as the ghost "tangent" and the witch doctor "tangent," among others.

...You didn't notice these odd tangents?
Ghosts? Witch doctors? Magical power? These are terrible examples as they are unrealistic. I agree that at times, those who believe they are open-minded may indeed be the opposite, and visa versa. I am fine with admitting I am wrong.

The problem with this video and the point you are trying to prove is that he is explaining open-mindedness in the presence of facts or absolute evidence. We were having a discussion about the mass of the universe and whether it is finite or infinite.
As far as I know, neither of these things have been absolutely proven, nor is there evidence.



MY point about open-mindedness was that you said there was an edge, and I said there may not be.

If I were to go to the edge of the universe and throw a rock

I suppose I must reassert that no man has been to the edge of the universe to throw a rock, nor in any equal environment

...And as far as I know, neither can be proven, therefore technically neither of us were being completely close-minded. I at least considered your way of thinking before refuting it; you did not consider mine. Therefore you were being more close-minded.


BTW, I'm feeling stupid today, so don't quote me D=

[Optimism]

He just keeps giving random and odd examples such as the ghost "tangent" and the witch doctor "tangent," among others.

...You didn't notice these odd tangents?
Ghosts? Witch doctors? Magical power? These are terrible examples as they are unrealistic. I agree that at times, those who believe they are open-minded may indeed be the opposite, and visa versa. I am fine with admitting I am wrong.

The problem with this video and the point you are trying to prove is that he is explaining open-mindedness in the presence of facts or absolute evidence. We were having a discussion about the mass of the universe and whether it is finite or infinite.
As far as I know, neither of these things have been absolutely proven, nor is there evidence.



MY point about open-mindedness was that you said there was an edge, and I said there may not be....And as far as I know, neither can be proven, therefore technically neither of us were being completely close-minded. I at least considered your way of thinking before refuting it; you did not consider mine. Therefore you were being more close-minded.


BTW, I'm feeling stupid today, so don't quote me D=

Well, you missed the point of his video. I have never claimed absolute truth nor anything regarding an edge (lol?). Quite the contrary -- I am always the one that puts events in perspective for yourself. You claim religious veracity; I give examples of several other religions and ask the question, why are these not of equal veracity? You would give some menial difference and claim this is why Christianity is correct. I would then give another isolated event found in another religion (not in your own) and for "what if" purposes, make the claim, because of this event within this specific religion, it is the correct way-of-life. I have objectivity -- you lack objectivity (are subjective). True objectivity doesn't exist; however, objectivity and subjectivity lye on a sliding scale -- I am less subjective than yourself and more objective. I refute your beliefs because you give no substantial accreditation towards those beliefs. I was you at one time (similar mindset). Simple. If you claim something phenomenal, then the burden of proof always lies with the individual making this claim. Always. I could not prove (or at least give SOME substantive explanation towards what I was claiming that made logical, coherent sense) this when I was a believer in Christ; therefore, I left this way-of-life. What is logic? Logic is many things to many people; however, logic provides benefit. I define logic as a thought transitioning to an action, that ultimately derives a tangible benefit for humanity. Religion isn't this. Prayer isn't this. This tangible benefit is reproducible through repetition of this thought process through "stand alone complexes" throughout the world. Prayer for example, is statistically, a failure. Let us take a sample population of 1000 individuals and have them pray for random things. It is highly unlikely that even one individual will gain through prayer. Moreover, one can simply look at the disparity between nations. Does god choose to benefit one over the other? What about amputees regarding miracles? God heals; however, is he bias towards amputees? The answer: no god (at least a god that cares of the human race on planet earth) exists. Life is cruel. No omnipotent, omniscient god would allow such cruelty. Belief? What god, being all powerful and all knowing, require belief? It is a human tenant. Yaweh is a malicious, hateful god. Moses had to stop him from slaughtering (through begging) all of his fellow travelers upon his return from Mount Sinai. Again, ungodly, petty, human tenants. If this world is to ever improve, we must surpass the "morality" of the christian god and, in a sense, become the true gods of this world. Intolerance is unacceptable. Religion inherently instills this quality within all of its followers. Always. The bible is full of contradiction and fallacy. Because of this, Christianity can never be taken seriously by a logical/critical thinker. Unless taught as a literary tool, it holds no information that I can't obtain by myself (internal moral compass). "Believe in me or go to Hell." If "god" wants to send me to hell for thinking critically and logically, then by all means, send me. I'll see him on the battle field with Lucifer the light bringer. The old saying goes -- history is written by the victor. God has his book. Where is Lucifer's?

[zomniethe4]

wat

[Xrow]

Well, you missed the point of his video. Yes. I have never claimed absolute truth nor anything regarding an edge (lol?)

If I were to go to the edge of the universe and throw a rock

Retard :3. Quite the contrary -- I am always the one that puts events in my own perspective for yourself. One man's perspective is another man's your dumb. You claim religious truth; I give examples of several other religions and ask the question, why are these not of equal truth? You would give some menial difference and claim this is why Christianity is correct. You have NEVER done this apart from BOTS!!. If you have, quote it and provide a link. On top of this, I have consistently given you antidisestablishmentarianistic conclusions betwixt multiples. (There, I can use a thesaurus as well :3). I would then give another isolated event found in another religion (not in your own) and for "what if" purposes, make the claim, because of this event within this specific religion, it is the correct way-of-life. I have objectivity -- you lack objectivity (are subjective). True objectivity doesn't exist; however, objectivity and subjectivity lye on a sliding scale -- I am less subjective than yourself and more objective. I refute your beliefs because you give no substantial accreditation towards those beliefs. I was you at one time (similar mindset). o.O Accreditation forms not a foundation for that which cannot be disproven. Simple. If you claim something phenomenal, then the burden of proof always lies with the individual making this claim.

If I were to go to the edge of the universe and throw a rock, it would behave in an identical manner to that at an alternate location given identical surroundings.

Prove it. Always. Prove the former. I could not prove (or at least give SOME substantive explanation towards what I was claiming that made logical, coherent sense) this when I was a believer in Christ; therefore, I left this way-of-life. You can prove nothing. You can quote all the higher powers you want, but they are just quotes. What is logic? Logic is many things. I define logic as a thought transitioning to an action, enabling a tangible benefit. This tangible benefit is reproducible through repetition of this thought process through "stand alone complexes" throughout the world. You have a "god complex."

Oooof course you edited it >_> I'll read it but I'm not editing the above.

[Optimism]

Retard :3. Quite the contrary -- I am always the one that puts events in my own perspective for yourself. One man's perspective is another man's your dumb. You claim religious truth; I give examples of several other religions and ask the question, why are these not of equal truth? You would give some menial difference and claim this is why Christianity is correct. You have NEVER done this apart from BOTS!!. If you have, quote it and provide a link. On top of this, I have consistently given you antidisestablishmentarianistic conclusions betwixt multiples. (There, I can use a thesaurus as well :3). I would then give another isolated event found in another religion (not in your own) and for "what if" purposes, make the claim, because of this event within this specific religion, it is the correct way-of-life. I have objectivity -- you lack objectivity (are subjective). True objectivity doesn't exist; however, objectivity and subjectivity lye on a sliding scale -- I am less subjective than yourself and more objective. I refute your beliefs because you give no substantial accreditation towards those beliefs. I was you at one time (similar mindset). o.O Accreditation forms not a foundation for that which cannot be disproven. Simple. If you claim something phenomenal, then the burden of proof always lies with the individual making this claim.  Prove it. Always. Prove the former. I could not prove (or at least give SOME substantive explanation towards what I was claiming that made logical, coherent sense) this when I was a believer in Christ; therefore, I left this way-of-life. You can prove nothing. You can quote all the higher powers you want, but they are just quotes. What is logic? Logic is many things. I define logic as a thought transitioning to an action, enabling a tangible benefit. This tangible benefit is reproducible through repetition of this thought process through "stand alone complexes" throughout the world. You have a "god complex."


Oooof course you edited it >_> I'll read it but I'm not editing the above.

You're taking simplistic parallels used to facilitate your understanding of matters and quoting me as if I was stating traveling to the edge of the universe is a possibility, etc. However...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

Your limited knowledge is fairly frustrating. There are methods to accomplish this without being there (general)...

As for science having all the answers -- it doesn't. However, at the very least it is a credible and accurate method (scientific method) for obtaining practical constants that enable practical events that are repetitious. Religion doesn't give a society medicine, plumbing, cars, heating, etc. Science does.

\rolls eyes. Didn't feel like debating religion I see? . Maybe you are starting to understand this objective perspective XD.

[Xrow]

You're taking simplistic parallels used to facilitate your understanding of matters and quoting me as if I was stating traveling to the edge of the universe is a possibility, etc. However...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

In effect, the space-time volume of the observable universe is expanding;

Gg, Optor

Your limited knowledge is fairly frustrating. There are methods to accomplish this without being there (general)...
I apologize. I am only 17, and high school is frustratingly general.

As for science having all the answers -- it doesn't. However, at the very least it is a credible and accurate method (scientific method) for obtaining practical constants that enable practical events that are repetitious. Religion doesn't give a society medicine, plumbing, cars, heating, etc. Science does. (At least in my opinion) science doesn't give society an apt reason for the creation of the universe; aside from "evolution," that is. Religion does.

\rolls eyes. Didn't feel like debating religion I see? . Maybe you are starting to understand this objective perspective XD.
Naa, I could. I'm tired and sick of moody and judgmental people who need to get their heads out of their ignorant asses before they make retard assumptions... is all

[Mr_V]

too much to read...omg, just woke up and already have a headache...

[Allie]

Well, you missed the point of his video. I have never claimed absolute truth nor anything regarding an edge (lol?). Quite the contrary -- I am always the one that puts events in perspective for yourself. You claim religious veracity; I give examples of several other religions and ask the question, why are these not of equal veracity? You would give some menial difference and claim this is why Christianity is correct. I would then give another isolated event found in another religion (not in your own) and for "what if" purposes, make the claim, because of this event within this specific religion, it is the correct way-of-life. I have objectivity -- you lack objectivity (are subjective). True objectivity doesn't exist; however, objectivity and subjectivity lye on a sliding scale -- I am less subjective than yourself and more objective. I refute your beliefs because you give no substantial accreditation towards those beliefs. I was you at one time (similar mindset). Simple. If you claim something phenomenal, then the burden of proof always lies with the individual making this claim. Always. I could not prove (or at least give SOME substantive explanation towards what I was claiming that made logical, coherent sense) this when I was a believer in Christ; therefore, I left this way-of-life. What is logic? Logic is many things to many people; however, logic provides benefit. I define logic as a thought transitioning to an action, that ultimately derives a tangible benefit for humanity. Religion isn't this. Prayer isn't this. This tangible benefit is reproducible through repetition of this thought process through "stand alone complexes" throughout the world. Prayer for example, is statistically, a failure. Let us take a sample population of 1000 individuals and have them pray for random things. It is highly unlikely that even one individual will gain through prayer. Moreover, one can simply look at the disparity between nations. Does god choose to benefit one over the other? What about amputees regarding miracles? God heals; however, is he bias towards amputees? The answer: no god (at least a god that cares of the human race on planet earth) exists. Life is cruel. No omnipotent, omniscient god would allow such cruelty. Belief? What god, being all powerful and all knowing, require belief? It is a human tenant. Yaweh is a malicious, hateful god. Moses had to stop him from slaughtering (through begging) all of his fellow travelers upon his return from Mount Sinai. Again, ungodly, petty, human tenants. If this world is to ever improve, we must surpass the "morality" of the christian god and, in a sense, become the true gods of this world. Intolerance is unacceptable. Religion inherently instills this quality within all of its followers. Always. The bible is full of contradiction and fallacy. Because of this, Christianity can never be taken seriously by a logical/critical thinker. Unless taught as a literary tool, it holds no information that I can't obtain by myself (internal moral compass). "Believe in me or go to Hell." If "god" wants to send me to hell for thinking critically and logically, then by all means, send me. I'll see him on the battle field with Lucifer the light bringer. The old saying goes -- history is written by the victor. God has his book. Where is Lucifer's?

Holy shit.

[Meta]

Stop the wall of text goddammit

[Xrow]

Secretly, I didn't read the edited part ;p
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA