kamimatsu said:
Because gay people exist. That's why. Blacklist and move on.

joke

your head

Ratte said:
joke

your head

Oh. Now I just feel silly.

kamimatsu said:
Good manipulators? No wonder I don't see them as a threat. Manipulation and Gaslighting is how most people in my town say hello. If they manipulate people that much, then that just means I don't have to feel bad about doing the same thing if I catch one. It's like when Superman gave his World of Cardboard speech, but with people's emotions instead of their organs.

Heh, you just described my parents perfectly.

And no, they're not reps, be it the biological or politcal kind... though they are very conservative.

HypnoBitch said:
They're not that powerful. They're just as vulnerable to a bullet as you and me. They're just good manipulators. They like to be in places of power, such as a CEO or a President of any corporation. Their goal is to manipulate humans through social conflict, making us fight each other. They use religion as one of their weapons. They also like to get people hyped up to make them think their side is the right side so they think less about harming the enemy. It's gone on for centuries, and it's going to keep going.

They're actually quite human in a lot of ways. Creativity, emotions, empathy, jealousy... all human traits that they share. Also, some of the supposedly higher up ones aren't even reptiles, but mammals with an outwardly reptilian appearance. There are even a decent amount of them that look fully human and actually believe that they are human.

However, much of the scenario you're describing isn't their doing. Most of it is the bad behavior of human beings who like to dominate other human beings. Not saying the reps have never done anything bad before, but most of the time they keep to themselves and much like us, they usually only interfere with other races when the safety and security of their own people is at stake. It's probably why you don't see any actual proof of their existence: they don't usually want to be seen and they're also very good at hiding themselves... sometimes even when they flat-out tell you what they are... *points at my own avatar and name*

I AM THE ANGRIEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED!!!

I really hate double standards, they're complete bullshit, they make no goddamn sense, and they shouldn't exist. You can't have something that's okay for one group of people but not okay for another, it needs to either be okay for everyone or not okay for anyone.

Siral_Exan said:
I AM THE ANGRIEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED!!!

Winnabego man? lol first result for "angriest man in the world".

HypnoBitch said:
They do know we exist. They've been on the planet since we first learned to walk on two legs. Let's move on, please.

You mean the Saurians? Those guys live underground, and they just as native as humans.

People who comment on your Steam profile just to whine at you because you taunted after a bodyshot... and then when you remind them it's only a game they get even more pissed, leave an even nastier comment, and block you immediately afterwards so that they can get the much-coveted "last word" as well as keep you from reminding them that it is only a game and that their complaining makes them look like an idiot.

InannaEloah said:
People who comment on your Steam profile just to whine at you because you taunted after a bodyshot... and then when you remind them it's only a game they get even more pissed, leave an even nastier comment, and block you immediately afterwards so that they can get the much-coveted "last word" as well as keep you from reminding them that it is only a game and that their complaining makes them look like an idiot.

I actually like when my killer taunts after the killshot. It's fun to see what actions they decide to play.

Furrin_Gok said:
You mean the Saurians? Those guys live underground, and they just as native as humans.

Not talking about Saurians. They're fine.

HypnoBitch said:
Not talking about Saurians. They're fine.

I think HypnoBitch is referring to the Winged Dracos/Draconians.

InannaEloah said:
I think HypnoBitch is referring to the Winged Dracos/Draconians.

I may or may not be. It actually depends on what we're all calling them. I'd rather not talk about it in this topic.

OW GOD I acutally googled Saurian Humanoids and got a yellow on black page and my eyes are hurting now.

For the record I was referring to Doctor Who's Saurians.

HypnoBitch said:
I may or may not be. It actually depends on what we're all calling them. I'd rather not talk about it in this topic.

Sorry for making you uncomfortable.

Furrin_Gok said:
I actually like when my killer taunts after the killshot. It's fun to see what actions they decide to play.

I kind of enjoy them too, I mean there's loads of different taunts and lots of humor and cutting up in TF2, especially on community servers like Skial and so on. Most of the time people are pretty laid back and everybody's laughing and having a grand old time. Then some douchebag has to come along and scream about how terrible a sniper you are because you don't headshot 100% of the time and you taunt after a bodyshot, it's like "dude, it's only a game, why are you so upset over a taunt?"

I mean, if someone's hacking, hell yeah I understand why other people would be upset. But being taunted after a sniper bodyshot? WTF? It's just such a petty reason to get all bent out of shape. There's loads of far more real reasons to get upset.

There's a difference between being good at drawing and being an artist.

Artist is a mindset and worldview. Great artists are thinkers and philosophers, which usually means they're open-minded or - pardon the phrase - liberal.

This means that artists tend to have wider and more accepting tastes than most people.

And this means that, while a better draw-er is more successful, a better artist is less successful, because people make excuses to hate things and hate anyone who doesn't hate them too - and the ideal artist hates nothing without a very good reason.

InannaEloah said:
I assume you're referring to the Reptilian Shapeshifter videos cropping up all over Youtube? Yeah, a bunch of pixelated people in low-resolution videos couldn't possibly be a problem with the camera or with the reception or with the lighting... nonono, they're all a bunch of giant shapeshifting lizards from outer space hellbent on dominating hoomankind.

Don't get me wrong. I do actually believe that such beings exist. But a blurry video with imperfections in the picture isn't evidence for shapeshifting people, it's evidence that something's wrong with the electronics.

Also, have you ever noticed how this "proof" tends to center around famous people? Why not the neighbors' little boy Billy, or the postal worker who came in to sub for the regular guy who got sick last week? Why is it always famous people?

Things that make you go, "hmmmmmmmmm..."

guess i missed this earlier. anyway, i don't know much about shapeshifting lizards (is that the thing where conspiracy theorists think some of our presidents were lizard people in disguise?) but these are 2 such videos i was talking about.

strange sky entity. no, dude, what you saw had nothing to do with religion. more likely it was a star or one of our neighboring planets that happened to be closer than usual. also, get a better camera. no one likes watching potato camera videos.

and 12 recent reports of cryptids. #9: blurry picture, #8 blurry dash cam video of a "yeti" (you have got to be kidding with this one. -_-), #6: yet more blurs, #3: interesting buuut...it's still just a blurry pic,

treos said:
guess i missed this earlier. anyway, i don't know much about shapeshifting lizards (is that the thing where conspiracy theorists think some of our presidents were lizard people in disguise?) but these are 2 such videos i was talking about.

strange sky entity. no, dude, what you saw had nothing to do with religion. more likely it was a star or one of our neighboring planets that happened to be closer than usual. also, get a better camera. no one likes watching potato camera videos.

and 12 recent reports of cryptids. #9: blurry picture, #8 blurry dash cam video of a "yeti" (you have got to be kidding with this one. -_-), #6: yet more blurs, #3: interesting buuut...it's still just a blurry pic,

Oh, derp, I didn't even think about those. Those things have been around since the dawn of photography pretty much. A lot of people like to claim that they're fakes precisely because they're blurry, however since most people don't have cameras that are really high quality or that are very steady, I think it's irresponsible to dismiss images just because of blur. I mean, think about it: you see something strange, you freak out, whip out your camera, and the camera is a low resolution cell phone camera that doesn't have zoom, or if it does you're so excited by what you're seeing that in the intensity of the moment you don't think to actually use zoom. Human nature, and human reactions to sudden and/or unusual events need to be taken into account. Fact is, I'd actually be more skeptical of the photograph's validity if it was clear and crisp, because it would suggest that it was set up and/or planned... or maybe that it was a totally different image originally that was photomanipulated to look like something the original image never portrayed.

InannaEloah said:
People who comment on your Steam profile just to whine at you because you taunted after a bodyshot... and then when you remind them it's only a game they get even more pissed, leave an even nastier comment, and block you immediately afterwards so that they can get the much-coveted "last word" as well as keep you from reminding them that it is only a game and that their complaining makes them look like an idiot.

I hate those people. I mean, the game has an achievement specifically for being a sniper and being in the middle of a taunt when you're shown on the killcam. You're SUPPOSED to do it.

When I come home from college and my mom tells me I need to do something with my life. Wtf, man... I'm in college, I'm doing everything I can at the moment. ;-;

People who throw a tantrum when you ask them to prove that their "scientific fact" actually is a scientific fact... or when you remind them that it is not your job to prove their point for them.

I just had to block somebody this morning for that very thing. If you can't (or won't) provide evidence, don't claim it's absolute proven incontrovertible (sp?) fact.

If you use that "believe what I say or burn in hell" tactic that I was surrounded by for 28 years of my life, I'm gonna call you out on it. And if you throw a fit like a toddler when you don't get your widdle way, I'm gone.

InannaEloah said:
People who throw a tantrum when you ask them to prove that their "scientific fact" actually is a scientific fact... or when you remind them that it is not your job to prove their point for them.

I just had to block somebody this morning for that very thing. If you can't (or won't) provide evidence, don't claim it's absolute proven incontrovertible (sp?) fact.

If you use that "believe what I say or burn in hell" tactic that I was surrounded by for 28 years of my life, I'm gonna call you out on it. And if you throw a fit like a toddler when you don't get your widdle way, I'm gone.

Dealt with someone that told me to literally copy and paste all of his claims into google -_- and he told me that if multiple sources are saying the same thing, then it must be true...but I don't think he understands the word "credibility" on how credible each source is.

InannaEloah said:
People who throw a tantrum when you ask them to prove that their "scientific fact" actually is a scientific fact... or when you remind them that it is not your job to prove their point for them.

I just had to block somebody this morning for that very thing. If you can't (or won't) provide evidence, don't claim it's absolute proven incontrovertible (sp?) fact.

If you use that "believe what I say or burn in hell" tactic that I was surrounded by for 28 years of my life, I'm gonna call you out on it. And if you throw a fit like a toddler when you don't get your widdle way, I'm gone.

ElctrcBoogalord said:
Dealt with someone that told me to literally copy and paste all of his claims into google -_- and he told me that if multiple sources are saying the same thing, then it must be true...but I don't think he understands the word "credibility" on how credible each source is.

been there, done that before. pretty annoying when you get into an argument with someone like that.they either won't back up their claims, provide proof (this one is fun when arguing about something for which theres no proof/evidence for them to even provide. lol), or try to get you to prove their point for them.

treos said:
been there, done that before. pretty annoying when you get into an argument with someone like that.they either won't back up their claims, provide proof (this one is fun when arguing about something for which theres no proof/evidence for them to even provide. lol), or try to get you to prove their point for them.

It's especially "fun" when they're strong atheists who make the positive claim "there is no god" and then start crying "burden of proooooooooof" when you call them out on it.

I mean, it's one thing when you have no belief at all and you're open and honest about that, but it's another thing entirely when you believe there's no god at all and state as much as though science has proved that claim beyond a shadow of a doubt. The first one doesn't require proof, because it's stated as an opinion. The second one DOES require proof, because it's stated as an absolute fact. If you state it as an absolute, readers will assume that you have some evidence to back that absolute up, and when you refuse to give it, it makes you look like a moron.

And yet these "reasonable and logical people" (ha ha ha) will throw an unholy FIT if someone reminds them that they need to prove such assertions.

InannaEloah said:
It's especially "fun" when they're strong atheists who make the positive claim "there is no god" and then start crying "burden of proooooooooof" when you call them out on it.

I mean, it's one thing when you have no belief at all and you're open and honest about that, but it's another thing entirely when you believe there's no god at all and state as much as though science has proved that claim beyond a shadow of a doubt. The first one doesn't require proof, because it's stated as an opinion. The second one DOES require proof, because it's stated as an absolute fact. If you state it as an absolute, readers will assume that you have some evidence to back that absolute up, and when you refuse to give it, it makes you look like a moron.

And yet these "reasonable and logical people" (ha ha ha) will throw an unholy FIT if someone reminds them that they need to prove such assertions.

Proving something doesn't exist is near-infinitely more difficult than proving something does exist. You only need one conclusive piece of evidence to prove something exists while you need to thoroughly examine absolutely everything in existence to prove something doesn't exist.

This is why the burden of proof lies on the one claiming something exists: proving it doesn't would take forever. I like to think of this as "absent until proven present".

InannaEloah said:
It's especially "fun" when they're strong atheists who make the positive claim "there is no god" and then start crying "burden of proooooooooof" when you call them out on it.

I mean, it's one thing when you have no belief at all and you're open and honest about that, but it's another thing entirely when you believe there's no god at all and state as much as though science has proved that claim beyond a shadow of a doubt. The first one doesn't require proof, because it's stated as an opinion. The second one DOES require proof, because it's stated as an absolute fact. If you state it as an absolute, readers will assume that you have some evidence to back that absolute up, and when you refuse to give it, it makes you look like a moron.

And yet these "reasonable and logical people" (ha ha ha) will throw an unholy FIT if someone reminds them that they need to prove such assertions.

-_- science may not be able to prove god does or doesn't exist but at the same time, religion can do no better.

InannaEloah said:
It's especially "fun" when they're strong atheists who make the positive claim "there is no god" and then start crying "burden of proooooooooof" when you call them out on it.

I mean, it's one thing when you have no belief at all and you're open and honest about that, but it's another thing entirely when you believe there's no god at all and state as much as though science has proved that claim beyond a shadow of a doubt. The first one doesn't require proof, because it's stated as an opinion. The second one DOES require proof, because it's stated as an absolute fact. If you state it as an absolute, readers will assume that you have some evidence to back that absolute up, and when you refuse to give it, it makes you look like a moron.

And yet these "reasonable and logical people" (ha ha ha) will throw an unholy FIT if someone reminds them that they need to prove such assertions.

I've gotten this from every possible belief imaginable, including none at all. People seem to be under the impression that Agnosticism is a fancy way of saying "I believe whatever you don't, and only what you don't." As if "not certain" meant "certainly not".

I mean, I'm not doing it to be an ass. I'm getting the raw end either way. If there isn't, I'll stop existing without ever getting to live even once. If there is, Room 101 it's all I can hope for because it's, pardon my language, Justice.

BlueDingo said:
This is why the burden of proof lies on the one claiming something exists: proving it doesn't would take forever. I like to think of this as "absent until proven present".

No, the burden of proof lies on the one making any claim at all. This includes negative claims. The rules don't suddenly change just because proving the nonexistence of a god is impossible. If you don't want to have to prove that a god doesn't exist, then don't go around proclaiming as fact that a god doesn't exist. Simple. Otherwise, show me the evidence that backs up your claim, because I most certainly will demand it, as I am fully within my rights to do.

InannaEloah said:
No, the burden of proof lies on the one making any claim at all. This includes negative claims. The rules don't suddenly change just because proving the nonexistence of a god is impossible. If you don't want to have to prove that a god doesn't exist, then don't go around proclaiming as fact that a god doesn't exist. Simple. Otherwise, show me the evidence that backs up your claim, because I most certainly will demand it, as I am fully within my rights to do.

That's a rather wordy way of saying "Never question my beliefs." and "Do the impossible or I won't listen to you.".

BlueDingo said:
That's a rather wordy way of saying "Never question my beliefs.".

And your statement is a fancy way of saying "I didn't read what you said so I'll make some shit up and attack it instead."

and "Do the impossible or I won't listen to you.".

And that's a fancy way of saying "I don't have to act like a mature adult cuz I'm a atheist and us atheists are so speshul."

InannaEloah said:
No, the burden of proof lies on the one making any claim at all. This includes negative claims. The rules don't suddenly change just because proving the nonexistence of a god is impossible. If you don't want to have to prove that a god doesn't exist, then don't go around proclaiming as fact that a god doesn't exist. Simple. Otherwise, show me the evidence that backs up your claim, because I most certainly will demand it, as I am fully within my rights to do.

No, people don't have to proof something doesn't exist. In science it's always that you proof something does exist, or that you have to proof it works the way you hypothesize.

The rationale for that is someone can't propose ridiculous claims (like that unicorns exist but are invisible at all times) and has that as accepted science until someone else disproves it.
In other words, any theory is rejected until a statistically significant amount of data suggests otherwise. "X doesn't exist" in science is not a theory, but the status quo of everything.

NotMeNotYou said:
No, people don't have to proof something doesn't exist. In science it's always that you proof something does exist, or that you have to proof it works the way you hypothesize.

Yes, you do have to prove your claim regardless of whether it is a negative or a positive. "Science" isn't the issue here, as "science" doesn't deal in the non-physical, such as the existence of a god who allegedly lives outside the physical realm of this universe.

The burden of proof lies on whoever makes a claim, regardless of whether it is provable or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo"

The rationale for that is someone can't propose ridiculous claims (like that unicorns exist but are invisible at all times) and has that as accepted science until someone else disproves it.
In other words, any theory is rejected until a statistically significant amount of data suggests otherwise. "X doesn't exist" in science is not a theory, but the status quo of everything.

And I see that, like BlueDingo, you are not dealing with what I said, but are instead attacking a strawman just like he did.

I never said or even implied that science must accept the existence of a god by default. What I said was that if you make a truth claim as to the existence of a god, you are required to provide evidence that backs that claim up. You don't get a free ride just because your claim can't be proven, and that holds true no matter what you believe.

Finally, science does NOT automatically assume that there is no god. Rather, it makes no claims concerning a god at all and concentrates on what it can observe, measure, study, and experiment on. Since "God" supposedly lives outside the realm of physics, science cannot observe, measure, study, or experiment on him/her/it, so science leaves the subject of "God" to philosophy and religion.

InannaEloah said:
Finally, science does NOT automatically assume that there is no god. Rather, it makes no claims concerning a god at all and concentrates on what it can observe, measure, study, and experiment on. Since "God" supposedly lives outside the realm of physics, science cannot observe, measure, study, or experiment on him/her/it, so science leaves the subject of "God" to philosophy and religion.

That, and science doesn't actually have a concrete definition of what makes something a god.

InannaEloah said:
Yes, you do have to prove your claim regardless of whether it is a negative or a positive. "Science" isn't the issue here, as "science" doesn't deal in the non-physical, such as the existence of a god who allegedly lives outside the physical realm of this universe.

The burden of proof lies on whoever makes a claim, regardless of whether it is provable or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo"

And I see that, like BlueDingo, you are not dealing with what I said, but are instead attacking a strawman just like he did.

I never said or even implied that science must accept the existence of a god by default. What I said was that if you make a truth claim as to the existence of a god, you are required to provide evidence that backs that claim up. You don't get a free ride just because your claim can't be proven, and that holds true no matter what you believe.

Finally, science does NOT automatically assume that there is no god. Rather, it makes no claims concerning a god at all and concentrates on what it can observe, measure, study, and experiment on. Since "God" supposedly lives outside the realm of physics, science cannot observe, measure, study, or experiment on him/her/it, so science leaves the subject of "God" to philosophy and religion.

I'm actually not attacking a strawman at all, the burden of proof argument is valid for everything, in every discipline. It's just better defined (or more precisely defined) in a scientific context than for example in a philosophical context, which is why I used the scientific context as vehicle to more easily and clearly illustrate my point.

And to turn your quote against yourself: "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo"
The belief of a god (or gods) only rose with the emergence of the homo erectus, no other being in existence (that we know of) believed in one prior to old human shamans, as such the burden of proof is squarely on shoulders of the believers.
In other words, if humans wouldn't exist nothing would claim a god would exist in any way, shape, or form, and the universe would still be the same, sans influence of humans on a tiny rock in space.

kamimatsu said:
I've gotten this from every possible belief imaginable, including none at all. People seem to be under the impression that Agnosticism is a fancy way of saying "I believe whatever you don't, and only what you don't." As if "not certain" meant "certainly not".

I mean, I'm not doing it to be an ass. I'm getting the raw end either way. If there isn't, I'll stop existing without ever getting to live even once. If there is, Room 101 it's all I can hope for because it's, pardon my language, Justice.

I just say "I'm more into the spiritual part of it, following the ideals of <Insert religion>." If they get all suspicious of me, I just inform them that I don't do groups very well, and a big part of making it a church thing is the group.

-

In relation to the whole proof thing, the way to handle it is that if somebody is trying to forcibly say "This does exist" or "This doesn't exist," sure, ask for proof. It's a bit of a rude way to say "Don't be an ass, let people believe what they want," but that's basically what it's saying. You really shouldn't be trying to be so rude to people who believe something differently than you.

NotMeNotYou said:

The belief of a god (or gods) only rose with the emergence of the home erectus, no other being in existence (that we know of) believed in one prior to old human shamans, as such the burden of proof is squarely on shoulders of the believers.

No, it does not fall squarely on the shoulders of believers. It falls squarely upon anyone who makes a claim.

And in your attempt to turn my quote against me, you neglected to acknowledge the word "especially." While the word "especially" indicates emphasis, it does NOT exclude other situations. You also neglected to acknowledge that the quote squarely places the burden of proof on ANYONE WHO MAKES A CLAIM regardless of whether they are "believers" or not.

Finally, your status quo argument does not hold up under scrutiny for one very important reason: lack of belief in a god does not imply that a god does not exist, but rather that the existence of a god is unimportant to the one who does not believe in one.

And one more thing...

The belief of a god (or gods) only rose with the emergence of the home erectus

Please define "belief of a god (or gods)." This statement is broad and could mean countless different things. So please specify what you define as a belief in a god or gods.

InannaEloah said:
Please define "belief of a god (or gods)." This statement is broad and could mean countless different things. So please specify what you define as a belief in a god or gods.

Pretty obvious it's meant in the vaguest sense possible. As far as we are able to tell, only humans believe in some sort of omnipotent being.

InannaEloah said:
No, it does not fall squarely on the shoulders of believers. It falls squarely upon anyone who makes a claim.

And in your attempt to turn my quote against me, you neglected to acknowledge the word "especially." While the word "especially" indicates emphasis, it does NOT exclude other situations. You also neglected to acknowledge that the quote squarely places the burden of proof on ANYONE WHO MAKES A CLAIM regardless of whether they are "believers" or not.

Finally, your status quo argument does not hold up under scrutiny for one very important reason: lack of belief in a god does not imply that a god does not exist, but rather that the existence of a god is unimportant to the one who does not believe in one.

And one more thing...

Please define "belief of a god (or gods)." This statement is broad and could mean countless different things. So please specify what you define as a belief in a god or gods.

Wow, you're getting really angry over this.

InannaEloah said:
No, it does not fall squarely on the shoulders of believers. It falls squarely upon anyone who makes a claim.

And in your attempt to turn my quote against me, you neglected to acknowledge the word "especially." While the word "especially" indicates emphasis, it does NOT exclude other situations. You also neglected to acknowledge that the quote squarely places the burden of proof on ANYONE WHO MAKES A CLAIM regardless of whether they are "believers" or not.

Finally, your status quo argument does not hold up under scrutiny for one very important reason: lack of belief in a god does not imply that a god does not exist, but rather that the existence of a god is unimportant to the one who does not believe in one.

Well, we're just going to argue in circles on this part of the argument. I stand by what I said that denying a claim of existence is not the same as proposing a claim of existence, and that denying a claim doesn't require the denying party to prove anything, for any reason.

InannaEloah said:
And one more thing...

Please define "belief of a god (or gods)." This statement is broad and could mean countless different things. So please specify what you define as a belief in a god or gods.

I'm not sure how to elaborate on this. Religion (any religion, including those that believe in any sort of deity, gods, or spirits) is a human construct. Religions only exist because humanity created them. They haven't been "discovered" like the laws of gravity or fire, but we brought them into existence in the first place. Both gravity and fire have existed long before humanity came around, and will continue to exist long after us, if humanity were to be wiped out tomorrow all religions would cease to exist immediately.
My rationale is now the following train of thoughts: universe existed without humans, nothing ever defined or thought of a god, humans start existing, and with humanity emerged the beginnings of all religions. At the beginning we had proto-religions that closely resembled the current aboriginal and American-Indian beliefs, and only even later came the current large religions like Buddhism and Christianity. Someone, somewhere, said to themselves "There is an all powerful being that created everything", and that was the start of "god".

Obviously this argumentation vastly simplified, but it still illustrates my standpoint. Someone somewhere thought of a concept we now call "god" and that is the start of the ages old question whether something like that can exist or not. There is nothing in existence that suggests religion was the default before humans came along and that some human once woke up and said "I don't think a supernatural being created everything, I need to tell the others of this!"
As such, my "belief" boils down to that the argument if god exists or not started twenty thousand years ago with someone claiming he exists. And thus the people claiming that need to provide some proof before my position shifts, because the standard stance to any claim is "prove it".

_{Edit: Fixed atrocious 4AM spelling.}

NotMeNotYou said:
Well, we're just going to argue in circles on this part of the argument. I stand by what I said that denying a claim of existence is not the same as proposing a claim of existence, and that denying a claim doesn't require the denying party to proof anything, for any reason.

I'm not sure how to elaborate on this. Religion (any religion, including those that believe in any sort of deity, gods, or spirits) is a human construct. Religions only exist because humanity created them. They haven't been "discovered" like the laws of gravity or fire, but we brought them into existence in the first place. Both gravity and fire have existed long before humanity came around, and will continue to exist long after us, if humanity were to be wiped out tomorrow all religions cease to exist immediately.
My rationale is now the following train of thoughts: universe existed without humans, nothing ever defined or thought of a god, humans start existing, and with humanity emerged the beginnings of all religions. At the beginning we had proto-religions that closely resembled the current aboriginal and American-Indian beliefs, and only even later came the current large religions like Buddhism and Christianity. Someone, somewhere, said to themselves "There is an all powerful being that created everything", and that was the start of "god".

Obviously this argumentation vastly simplified, but it still illustrates my standpoint. Someone somewhere thought of a concept we now call "god" and that is the start of the ages old question whether something like that can exist or not. There is nothing in existence that suggests religion was the default before humans came along and that some human once woke up and said "I don't think a supernatural being created everything, I need to tell the others of this!"
As such, my "belief" boils down to that the argument if god exists or not started twenty thousand years ago with someone claiming he exists. And thus the people claiming that need to provide some proof before my position shifts, because the standard stance to any claim is "proof it".

That was kinda long... That makes me... Angry. :3

HypnoBitch said:
That was kinda long... That makes me... Angry. :3

Good, your emotions sustain me and keep me young and pretty.

NotMeNotYou said:
I'm not sure how to elaborate on this. Religion (any religion, including those that believe in any sort of deity, gods, or spirits) is a human construct. Religions only exist because humanity created them. They haven't been "discovered" like the laws of gravity or fire, but we brought them into existence in the first place. Both gravity and fire have existed long before humanity came around, and will continue to exist long after us, if humanity were to be wiped out tomorrow all religions cease to exist immediately.
My rationale is now the following train of thoughts: universe existed without humans, nothing ever defined or thought of a god, humans start existing, and with humanity emerged the beginnings of all religions. At the beginning we had proto-religions that closely resembled the current aboriginal and American-Indian beliefs, and only even later came the current large religions like Buddhism and Christianity. Someone, somewhere, said to themselves "There is an all powerful being that created everything", and that was the start of "god".

Obviously this argumentation vastly simplified, but it still illustrates my standpoint. Someone somewhere thought of a concept we now call "god" and that is the start of the ages old question whether something like that can exist or not. There is nothing in existence that suggests religion was the default before humans came along and that some human once woke up and said "I don't think a supernatural being created everything, I need to tell the others of this!"
As such, my "belief" boils down to that the argument if god exists or not started twenty thousand years ago with someone claiming he exists. And thus the people claiming that need to provide some proof before my position shifts, because the standard stance to any claim is "proof it".

couldn't have said it better myself. :) and i think you mean "prove it" not "proof it"

treos said:
couldn't have said it better myself. :) and i think you mean "prove it" not "proof it"

It was 4am, I'm already happy there were no German words.

_{Edit: Fixed it up.}

NotMeNotYou said:
"I don't think a supernatural being created everything, I need to tell the others of this!"

_{Edit: Fixed atrocious 4AM spelling.}

I see where the problem is. You are assuming that I am referring to people who opine or who don't have a belief. I am not talking about people like that and considering the fact that I have already made it abundantly clear what I actually was talking about, I rather frustrated that you still haven't figured out what I've been saying.

"I don't believe in a god" is not a claim but a statement of opinion, and therefore has no burden of proof.

"There is no god" is a claim which assumes as fact that the existence of a god has been conclusively proven to be false and therefore *does* bear the burden of proof.

And perhaps my own wording wasn't entirely clear. When I referred to "Strong atheists" I was referring to people who make the unsubstatiatable claim that "there is no god." Another word that perhaps might have worked better would have been "anti-theist." I don't have a beef with people who have opinions, but I do have a beef with people who are not content to merely voice an opinion and decide instead to make their opinion into a truth claim.

And on a related (as well as more on-topic) note to this: something that really angers me is people who assume that when I say "make a claim" or "state something as an absolute proven fact" that I'm somehow actually talking about "having an opinion" or "not having a belief." I never said those things, and I never even implied those things, and I wish people would stop basing their entire long responses on assumptions about what I said that have nothing to do with what I actually said.

You and BlueDingo have been using a strawman, whether you know that you've been using one or not, because you have been operating under the assumption this entire time that I was referring to people who have an opinion or who lack a belief, even though I made it perfectly clear that I was referring to people who state things as absolute facts rather than as opinions. I was referring to a form of authoritarian fanaticism, not a lack of belief. I don't appreciate my words being twisted around or completely ignored like this.

I believe the problem lies in that some people feel so strongly that they accidentally state something as a fact, when they know full well it's an opinion. In those cases, it's usually fine to just say "Okay fine whatever" and drop it.
There are, however, people who persue the case and try and convince others that their opinion is absolute fact, and those people, yes, should be showing proof if they're going to jump on people like that.

Another thing that makes me angry is people who try to diagnose people over the Internet (which sort of ties in with the assumptions thing I mentioned immediately above). Just had a guy on a furry website who tried to diagnose me with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) because I wrote in a journal that I have a nasty cough since we had several sudden drastic weather changes in the space of about a month and my body hasn't had time to adjust, which in turn would have naturally made my body more vulnerable to airborne bacteria and viruses.

Presumptive behaviors like this really grate on me after awhile.

Furrin_Gok said:
There are, however, people who persue the case and try and convince others that their opinion is absolute fact, and those people, yes, should be showing proof if they're going to jump on people like that.

See, these are the people I was referring to. Not people who have an opinion or lack of belief. I was brought up in a Fundamentalist Christian household, and though my family wasn't all that strict my church sure as hell was, and one of the ways to be "right" with God was to essentially force-feed the church's bullshit down the throats of people who didn't want to hear it. I left that religion for multiple reasons, that one being high on my list, and so when I see a self-proclaimed "free thinker" doing the exact same thing that my church said I had to do in order to be right with God, I call them out on it.

It's all about tactics. If you're going to act like a fundamentalist crazy, I'm going to treat you like a fundamentalist crazy. If you want me to treat you like a civilized human being, then act like a civilized human being.

NotMeNotYou said:
...and only even later came the current large religions like Buddhism and Christianity. Someone, somewhere, said to themselves "There is an all powerful being that created everything", and that was the start of "god".

I didn't think Buddhism had anything to do with whether there is a god or not. Siddhartha was just seen as a mentor who happened to be the first Buddha, and we just called him Buudha because he was the first. It pretty much says anyone can do it and that, eventually, everyone will.

Also, fun fact: The fat guy people usually refer to as Buddha isn't actually him. It's a deity known as Budai (I may have spelled this wrong). While Buddha was slightly overweight in his early years, that was before he ever started his beliefs, and his weight was the result of being a Brahman, the highest caste in Hinduism. Later on, he was just skin and bones, and after that, he realized this was just pointless Self-Harm, and came up with something known as The Middle Way (everything in moderation).

Another fun fact: He was so sheltered as a child that he thought everyone lived the life he lived, and his need to find another philosophy to live by (which would become Buddhism) began after he saw how Untouchables were treated.

InannaEloah said:
See, these are the people I was referring to. Not people who have an opinion or lack of belief. I was brought up in a Fundamentalist Christian household, and though my family wasn't all that strict my church sure as hell was, and one of the ways to be "right" with God was to essentially force-feed the church's bullshit down the throats of people who didn't want to hear it. I left that religion for multiple reasons, that one being high on my list, and so when I see a self-proclaimed "free thinker" doing the exact same thing that my church said I had to do in order to be right with God, I call them out on it.

It's all about tactics. If you're going to act like a fundamentalist crazy, I'm going to treat you like a fundamentalist crazy. If you want me to treat you like a civilized human being, then act like a civilized human being.

That was why I left too. I was raised Roman Catholic, and they told me my dog wouldn't go to Heaven because "Dogs have no soul. That's why they don't feel anything." My dog had separation anxiety from the trauma of finding the body of his previous owner and guarding the body for three days. When you let go of his leash when walking him, he ran home immediately. He howled as a way of making sure he wasn't alone. When my brother was hurt, he ran to wake my parents up so they could help him. When we took him with us out of state, we found out he ran away because he was looking for us shortly after we went to get groceries (We found him that night, unharmed other than a slight scratch from jumping through a screen in the window). I'm pretty sure he had emotions, and if souls exist, he certainly has one.

InannaEloah said:
"I don't believe in a god" is not a claim but a statement of opinion, and therefore has no burden of proof.

"There is no god" is a claim which assumes as fact that the existence of a god has been conclusively proven to be false and therefore *does* bear the burden of proof.

Oh, now I understand what you mean.

I do believe even opinions need to be based on cold, hard facts, but that's just my opinion.

NotMeNotYou said:
Oh, now I understand what you mean.

I do believe even opinions need to be based on cold, hard facts, but that's just my opinion.

Is your opinion based on what you think opinions should be? (I joke.)

And what makes me angry is people getting away with clearly unethical things, especially people with lots of money/fame.

MissChu said:
And what makes me angry is people getting away with clearly unethical things, especially people with lots of money/fame.

Same.

But what if they play football or music real good?? Is it okay then?

Fenrick said:
But what if they play football or music real good?? Is it okay then?

No.

Fenrick said:
But what if they play football or music real good?? Is it okay then?

Definitely not.

Fenrick said:
But what if they play football or music real good?? Is it okay then?

No. Especially if they try to use it as a Get Out of Jail Free Card.

NotMeNotYou said:
Oh, now I understand what you mean.

I do believe even opinions need to be based on cold, hard facts, but that's just my opinion.

Thank you. This makes me happy...

Oh shit, wrong thread.

And back to the topic at hand: people who post in the wrong threads, like I just did. Grrrrrrr...

Fenrick said:
But what if they play football or music real good?? Is it okay then?

ಠ_ಠ stingy bums should spend their own millions to pay for their overly extravagant stadiums instead of extorting the money from the cities hosting them. and the fans should stop rioting when their favorite team(s) win or lose.

on the 1st point, that money could be put to better use on FAR more important things that people actually need. on the 2nd point...stop acting like a bunch of wild animals you idiots!

video games are probably of more use to people than sports at this point.

People who do those stupid videos on Youtube that start with a cop in their face and nothing to show why the cop got in their face in the first place... and then expect everyone to hate the cop for being a bully and love the uploader for being the poor widdle victim of the big bad cop's bullying. And usually sometime after the cop is already talking the uploader will then say "I was just doing X innocent thing, I don't understand why you are talking to meeeee." Because apparently nobody ever lies in front of the camera that they're filming this whole thing with to look good in front of viewers so they can get more views and look like a hero. Nooo, they're perfectly honest in every way and the cop is just a stupid douchebag who wants to piss on their day because they dared to walk down the street, totally innocently and totally not acting in any way that might be deemed suspicious or antagonizing.

Losing an eBay auction because your wifi or internet connection crapped out.

People who preface a rude post with "I'm not trying to be rude, but..."

InannaEloah said:
People who preface a rude post with "I'm not trying to be rude, but..."

Pretty much anyone who starts a sentence with "I'm not trying to be x, but..." ends up being x. Interestingly, x is never something nice.

BlueDingo said:
Pretty much anyone who starts a sentence with "I'm not trying to be x, but..." ends up being x. Interestingly, x is never something nice.

_{^{I'm not trying to be generous, but I baked these Anzac bikkies just for you.}}

Language policing.

Me.

youtube being shitty. for a while the notification system was broken and has since been...updated? or replaced with a new one?

what pisses me off about youtube by FAR is how it can almost never load a page correctly. the videos usually load fine but quite frequently i'll have to refresh for 1 of 3 reasons:

1. the thumbnail pics in the "up next" column won't load.

2. the thumbnail pics DO load but the comments won't load.

or 3. the video is loading and playing fine but 5 refreshes later and both 1 and 2 STILL won't load correctly. even after hitting ctrl+F5.

if a page is loading then the icon up on the tab should be a spinning circle. on youtube it's only loading till the video and all text has loaded then nothing until you refresh a few times and force it to load EVERYTHING.

treos said:
youtube being shitty. for a while the notification system was broken and has since been...updated? or replaced with a new one?

what pisses me off about youtube by FAR is how it can almost never load a page correctly. the videos usually load fine but quite frequently i'll have to refresh for 1 of 3 reasons:

1. the thumbnail pics in the "up next" column won't load.

2. the thumbnail pics DO load but the comments won't load.

or 3. the video is loading and playing fine but 5 refreshes later and both 1 and 2 STILL won't load correctly. even after hitting ctrl+F5.

if a page is loading then the icon up on the tab should be a spinning circle. on youtube it's only loading till the video and all text has loaded then nothing until you refresh a few times and force it to load EVERYTHING.

I know just how you feel.

People who talk like the worst thing you could possibly do is put in even the slightest effort to NOT be an offensive prick.

BlueDingo said:
Pretty much anyone who starts a sentence with "I'm not trying to be x, but..." ends up being x. Interestingly, x is never something nice.

I'm not a racist, but my butt itches.

BlueDingo said:
Pretty much anyone who starts a sentence with "I'm not trying to be x, but..." ends up being x. Interestingly, x is never something nice.

_{^{I'm not trying to be generous, but I baked these Anzac bikkies just for you.}}

I'm not saying this is a refrigerator box but this is totally a refrigerator box

Fenrick said:
I'm not a racist, but my butt itches.

typical privileged white male cishet butt itch appropriation

HypnoBitch said:
I know just how you feel.

hardly the first problem i've come across on youtube unfortunately.

bypassing a block google had on the comments at some point which would prevent you from posting links (ty greasemonkey script).

fighting that stupid video quality auto adjust "feature". um, we can watch netflix and stream HD on my aunt's blu-ray player in the living room, with little problem, on the same connection (shared) i use for internet. so why then, am i almost always getting auto-adjusted to the lowest possible quality? i doubt that's an issue with just my internet connection. o_O

unfortunately there were also a few changes that couldn't be fixed such as the complete removal of the PM system entirely. as well as the useful "all comments" link which would let you load a page showing the comments on a video minus the video itself.

but...it's still one of the best places for videos. so no amount of complaining will make things better unless google stops breaking things whenever they fix and/or add things.

Fenrick said:
I'm not a racist, but my butt itches.

hmmm...mr. stretchy butt who owns this site might have something that could help with that. lol

Munkelzahn said:
typical privileged white male cishet butt itch appropriation

Case in point.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Case in point.

There's a difference between being ridiculous and being in favor of social improvements. He was probably referencing the former group (the anti-cultural-appropriation campaign is the most asinine thing).

On that note, the people who claim to be against all sorts of -isms while they just dish out their own prejudices and bigotries in response to (often real!) injustices they've faced. The idea that "two wrongs don't make a right" just does not resonate with these goons.

Fenrick said:
There's a difference between being ridiculous and being in favor of social improvements. He was probably referencing the former group (the anti-cultural-appropriation campaign is the most asinine thing).

I mean, cultural appropriation is a thing. Any society that's gonna basically shove Native Americans into reservations and then flaunt their cultural symbols for 'fashion' is pulling a massive dick move. If you wouldn't wear War Medals you haven't earned, you really shouldn't go wearing a War Bonnet just for fashion.

Fenrick said:
On that note, the people who claim to be against all sorts of -isms while they just dish out their own prejudices and bigotries in response to (often real!) injustices they've faced. The idea that "two wrongs don't make a right" just does not resonate with these goons.

You've got to understand that a lot of these people have gotten used to being completely ignored, having their experiences written off as bullshit, and having people who never had any interest in actually learning anything demand to have the most basic information about, as you call it, social improvement explained to them like one would speak to a toddler, only to be treated with very nearly violent backlash at the slightest hint of frustration.

Whether or not you think "social justice warriors" are bigoted or not, it's important to understand that they're coming from a place of extreme frustration with people who just don't have any interest in treating them like human beings.

It's like being in customer service except 1000x worse because you're not getting paid to deal with this shit, just arguing that you have human rights.

I'd be grumpy too. In fact, I often am. (For the record I'm disabled, gay, and not the gender I was assigned at birth, so a lot of this shit affects me, too. Not all of it, but plenty enough that I have a dog in this fight.)

LumenSageAlexander said:
I mean, cultural appropriation is a thing. Any society that's gonna basically shove Native Americans into reservations and then flaunt their cultural symbols for 'fashion' is pulling a massive dick move. If you wouldn't wear War Medals you haven't earned, you really shouldn't go wearing a War Bonnet just for fashion.

Yes, that is definitely a misguided thing to do. However, don't confuse ignorance with malice. The people who do those things might even think they're being respectful. It is one thing to tell them they are wrong. That is fair enough. It is another to try to start a public shaming campaign or call them horrible people, which seems like all-too-common of a reaction.

You've got to understand that a lot of these people have gotten used to being completely ignored, having their experiences written off as bullshit, and having people who never had any interest in actually learning anything demand to have the most basic information about, as you call it, social improvement explained to them like one would speak to a toddler, only to be treated with very nearly violent backlash at the slightest hint of frustration.

Whether or not you think "social justice warriors" are bigoted or not, it's important to understand that they're coming from a place of extreme frustration with people who just don't have any interest in treating them like human beings.

It's like being in customer service except 1000x worse because you're not getting paid to deal with this shit, just arguing that you have human rights.

I'd be grumpy too. In fact, I often am.

And the way to fix that isn't to just lash out at people who have had nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter how mean to another somebody was, there is no guilt by association here.