Quote of the year

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote of the year

 The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are.

I definitely have to use this as part of my signature; it is too funny for me not to do.

This is the sort of irrationality that atheism leads to.

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 My premise is that

 My premise is that everything you say is untrue.  My premise is true because I claim it to be true.  That should be sufficient reason for you to believe me. 

Good morning Mr. M.  

I just wanted to say that in spite of all the shit I've said about you, I do give you credit for coming in here and presenting your argument.  Also, all things considered, you stood up pretty well to criticism and you managed to defend your position relatively well.  While I think you're an immature dick at times, I also recognize that you would be interesting to talk to.  Now show us that you're not a one trick pony.  

Please don't go Trolling on us.  If you want any respect on this site in the future, present more arguments, and continue as civilized as possible under the constraints of this open forum.  If you don't care, then by all means, be an immature prick, the internet is full of your kind.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I suggest:Mistakes Were Made

I suggest:

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson.

http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299343134&sr=1-1

The book was available at my local library, so you don't need to shell out money to read it.  If you have a library card, and it isn't at your local library, you can request an interlibrary loan for free.  If you don't have a library card, shame on you.  Go get one.

I am not intending to single you out, the ideas in this book apply to all of us in all aspects of our lives.  Including me.  Including everyone here - atheists, theists, deists, etc.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
What you want us to allow

What you want us to allow you to make assertions that you want to use in arguments without supporting them?

Would you allow us the same?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:What you want

jcgadfly wrote:

What you want us to allow you to make assertions that you want to use in arguments without supporting them?

Would you allow us the same?

If you've already acknowledged that the premises are true, then why do you need further justification of their truth?  

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

What you want us to allow you to make assertions that you want to use in arguments without supporting them?

Would you allow us the same?

If you've already acknowledged that the premises are true, then why do you need further justification of their truth?  

 

If you have acknowledge that the premises are true and your opponent disputes that your premises are true, saying that "Well I think they're true so they are" isn't good argumentation.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If you have

jcgadfly wrote:

If you have acknowledge that the premises are true and your opponent disputes that your premises are true, saying that "Well I think they're true so they are" isn't good argumentation.

If your *opponent* acknowledges that the premises are true, then why would he need justification that they are true?

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

If you have acknowledge that the premises are true and your opponent disputes that your premises are true, saying that "Well I think they're true so they are" isn't good argumentation.

If your *opponent* acknowledges that the premises are true, then why would he need justification that they are true?

 

You really think it's worth busting somebody's balls over a typo when your holy book is filled with so many errors?


 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: The

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are.

I definitely have to use this as part of my signature; it is too funny for me not to do.

This is the sort of irrationality that atheism leads to.

Typical quote mining. This is a common fallacy among theist. I think Mr. M has committed an appeal to authority, question begging, and now this one.

Here's the context:

Quote:

Replace your god with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Congratulations! You've just proved the existence of a god that is known to be the work of fiction.

There's no grounding for anything of what your saying... The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are.

And perhaps this is why Mr. M did not understand anyone's arguments, because he failed to take the time to read them and insisted that they reply in 10 minutes. Sounds to me that he really doesn't want to debate, only spout of pseudo-intellectual garbage that is obviously flawed, but can't see it, perhaps because he's in such a big hurry such that he can't stop and think about his own arguments.

And besides, if you analyze that, your truth looks like this: "I say god exists, therefore god exists" That's Mr. M's logic. If I apply it, then I could say "I say the FSM exists, therefore the FSM exists".

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Ubuntu is not agreeing that

Ubuntu is not agreeing that your premises are true. He is criticizing your logic.

Putting that in your signature is, for lack of a better term, retarded.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Ubuntu is

butterbattle wrote:

Ubuntu is not agreeing that your premises are true. He is criticizing your logic.

Putting that in your signature is, for lack of a better term, retarded.

LOL, I think butter is still amazed at how much attention this guy is getting... and I agree with you, the signature is logically consistent... I'm not sure why he would want that advertised. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


BardlishtheMagnifico
atheistScience Freak
BardlishtheMagnifico's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2011-03-01
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Putting

butterbattle wrote:

Putting that in your signature is, for lack of a better term, retarded.

Which makes it wildly appropriate...

Wisdom lies not in thinking outside the box. Wisdom is the realization that there is no box. Truth and reality extend as far as the eye can see and infinitely further.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: The

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are.

I definitely have to use this as part of my signature; it is too funny for me not to do.

This is the sort of irrationality that atheism leads to.

No, your misreading of the meaning and context of the original response is the sort of lack of ability to read text accurately and with comprehension that is required to accept the vagaries and inconsistencies and contradictions of scripture.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mrOriginal
atheist
mrOriginal's picture
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I like the quote because it

I like the quote because it reminds me of the Virginia DMV.  I lost my license. Had no way of proving that I am ME.....I had no proof, I needed I.D., to get I.D.

I like how having a piece of paper saying that I was born here got me what I needed to be able to drive again.  Why couldn't they just believe me because I said it was true, I am me damnit.  The lady at the DMV i found out was a theist once I got to sweetalking her.  It's too bad she doesn't put that kind of investigative effort into her beliefs, but the afterlife is obviously way less important than letting me drive......=(

Some people need to believe.  Some people don't need to believe.  Some people want to believe and simply require proof in order to do so.

As an atheist, I rely on my five-senses in order to interpret the world around me.  That is my reality. I would hate to think of wasting my life not using my natural traits that some thiests would say that their God gave me. However, it took a few billion years of space-time and evolution on this planet for me to be alive to have my sight, taste, touch, hearing, and smell.  What we are as humans is a testament to the natural order of the Universe.  I refuse to say screw the universe, or give my credit and thanks to a false Idol and waste my short life in fear of God and his followers. If living and interpreting the world around me with my evolutionary traits is irrational behavior in the eyes of some, then so be it.  I will die knowing that I am happy and didn't waste my time creating a false reality to live in ignorance, but instead devoted my time into trying my best to understand our world and the stars around it.

The numbers im sure are off, but arent there nearly 100 billion galaxies, with around 100 billion stars or so each, with so much to observe and learn from, the last kind of person I will ever listen to is a theist who thinks they have figured out the answer to the impossible, without even leaving our planet to seek the wisdom of the infinite beyond.

The more knowledge you obtain, the more you come to realize how much you have to learn. Atheism is by far the most humble and rational approach a man or women can have, .......if knowledge is what you actually seek.  Atheism keeps my mind open to any an all possibilities and mysteries.  Life to me would be boring and mundane if I felt like I knew the beggining and end of all things, what then, would be the point of even living? 

 

If people are good only for the sake of being punished or being rewarded, then we are a sad lot indeed. <---quote by a guy smarter than me.

 

I guess Logic would seem to be an irrational concept to those who have no concept of reality.

"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."

Friedrich Nietzsche


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:This is

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

This is the sort of irrationality that atheism leads to.

Why is it that Mr. M is the only person who read this the way he did? Perhaps he's grasping at straws, looking for anything he can use no matter how far he rips it out of context... because he's desperate. He got us @$$ handed to him, and doesn't want to admit it...

Apparently, Mr M.'s head is so far up his @$$ that he can't see anything...much less his own bad arguments.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I don't even get his point,

I don't even get his point, TBH.

It clearly means that simply believing something is realistic, does not mean it's realistic, or realistic to believe it.

 

Are they immune to being skeptical?

Is that like a sin, or something? To be skeptical?

 

I really, really don't get it.

The whole OP makes no sense, to me, at all. It's not a sober thought, to me, at all.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I don't even

redneF wrote:

I don't even get his point, TBH.

.

.

.

I really, really don't get it.

The whole OP makes no sense, to me, at all. It's not a sober thought, to me, at all.

Basically he's saying that there is some being that is logically consistent and must exist by definition. He then concludes that it exists.

Problem is, his argument makes a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true, so the conclusion may or may not be true.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 That would be fine except

 That would be fine except for this

[quote Ktulu]

[quote Mr_Metaphysics]

Quote:

Common sense I meant only in as much as it is logically consistent, your comment about people beingfallen is again... silly for lack of a better word (stupid comes to mind also)

Um, phlogiston theory, flat earth, spontaneous generation, and the like were all logically consistent; they were just false.  When you make an error, it is better to just acknowledge it rather than nonsensically trying to polish it.

 

Aren't you trying to prove that OA is logically consistent? lol, I mean, isn't this your whole freaking point? wtf? talk about refuting yourself....  what's that about making an error?

 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Ubuntu is

butterbattle wrote:

Ubuntu is not agreeing that your premises are true. He is criticizing your logic.

Putting that in your signature is, for lack of a better term, retarded.

What you say is true, but that is not a sufficient reason to believe that it is.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Ubuntu is not agreeing that your premises are true. He is criticizing your logic.

Putting that in your signature is, for lack of a better term, retarded.

What you say is true, but that is not a sufficient reason to believe that it is.

Now you're proving Bob's point... you obviously can't read something in context.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Ubuntu is not agreeing that your premises are true. He is criticizing your logic.

Putting that in your signature is, for lack of a better term, retarded.

What you say is true, but that is not a sufficient reason to believe that it is.

Now you're proving Bob's point... you obviously can't read something in context.

I can read things perfectly in context, but just because I can read things perfectly in context is not a sufficient reason to believe that I can read things perfectly in context.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Ubuntu is not agreeing that your premises are true. He is criticizing your logic.

Putting that in your signature is, for lack of a better term, retarded.

What you say is true, but that is not a sufficient reason to believe that it is.

Now you're proving Bob's point... you obviously can't read something in context.

I can read things perfectly in context, but just because I can read things perfectly in context is not a sufficient reason to believe that I can read things perfectly in context.

You just proved you can't, so why should we believe anything else.

The statement didn't grant your premises. If you think for a minute it did, then you are just proving the fact that you love to use fallacies.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Ubuntu is not agreeing that your premises are true. He is criticizing your logic.

Putting that in your signature is, for lack of a better term, retarded.

What you say is true, but that is not a sufficient reason to believe that it is.

Now you're proving Bob's point... you obviously can't read something in context.

I can read things perfectly in context, but just because I can read things perfectly in context is not a sufficient reason to believe that I can read things perfectly in context.

You just proved you can't, so why should we believe anything else.

The statement didn't grant your premises. If you think for a minute it did, then you are just proving the fact that you love to use fallacies.

My premises are true because I said they are, but that doesn't prove that they are, even though they are.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:You just

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

You just proved you can't, so why should we believe anything else.

The statement didn't grant your premises. If you think for a minute it did, then you are just proving the fact that you love to use fallacies.

 

I think it is time to quit feeding the troll.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ubuntuAnyone

cj wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

You just proved you can't, so why should we believe anything else.

The statement didn't grant your premises. If you think for a minute it did, then you are just proving the fact that you love to use fallacies.

 

I think it is time to quit feeding the troll.

 

 

I don't think so, actually.  I think it is good to watch him have this little meltdown, so anyone wandering by can see the kind of person he is.

 

I'm always willing to give these guys enough rope to show the entire Internet they are petulant, creepy, childish stalkers.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


rdklep8
atheistScience FreakSuperfan
rdklep8's picture
Posts: 155
Joined: 2009-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: The

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are.

I definitely have to use this as part of my signature; it is too funny for me not to do.

This is the sort of irrationality that atheism leads to.

 

 

I interpret the quote as: Mr. M considers his premises to be true only because it's what he believes.  Your beliefs are not sufficient in proving a premise to be true.

 

If that is the correct interpretation, then why is this laughable?  People say this in a hundred different ways, and it's presented in hundreds of debates. 

 

Your subjective stance on a premise, if void of substantial evidence, doesn't carry enough weight to be considered true.  Take a step back and review the context. Or, you could also keep spouting non-sensical garbage.  Either one works for me... I find it entertaining.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Ubuntu is not agreeing that your premises are true. He is criticizing your logic.

Putting that in your signature is, for lack of a better term, retarded.

What you say is true, but that is not a sufficient reason to believe that it is.

Lol, yeah, that's not what he meant. You're......not actually comprehending what I'm saying, are you? 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:What

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

What you say is true...

According to whom?

The answer= Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
...but that is not a sufficient reason to believe that it is.

Checkmate!

 

Fuck are you stoopid...

 

 

mellestad wrote:
I'm always willing to give these guys enough rope to show the entire Internet they are petulant, creepy, childish stalkers.

The problem is, they run their mouths too much. They can't think quickly on their feet.

They ad lib from the script, and put their head in the noose.

Very predictable.

They never learn...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris