Religion's

Dude, I know you're Claire, but can I be the Graham to your Ladd? Because dear Christ I am so in love right now <3

Let it be known; as of now I am Makaze's official, omnipresent pair of jazz-hands.

 

Yeah, go ahead. And as a recoil, I love that conceit. Keep it up.

 

Again, at least for my purposes here "undecided" does not mean someone that is looking to make a decision but has not done so yet. I'm using "undecided" to describe someone who is not decided currently regardless of if they are looking to make a decision.

I can't edit polls, so asking me too is useless. It you have serious quarrels about my poll then please, by all means make your own better one.

You're all talk and no show. I mean you have enough belief in your experiences to work a computer just fine. The purpose of belief is to guide your actions (according to several Pragmatic philosophers) if you were without it you would have nothing to guide you. Say you don't believe a wall is in your way and you walk into it. True, there could of been something else to cause your inability to pass, say an extreme pressurization of the air. That is fine, but at some point you will most likely accept that there is a wall there. Maybe with a mental foot note like the one you have that tells you that I might not be real either, but your actions still conform to it.

If people want to feel special, let them feel special. I see nothing wrong with that

I know I don't fit dialectic argument entirely, but that is my goal. yes. Also, I know it wasn't exactly what you wanted but I love how your analogies come together here. An insult is a punch and an argument is a fight. So an argument becomes to people insulting each-other until one of them is too broken to continue.

Now for another analogy that is back on topic but at the same time less serious.I find a friend about to jump off a cliff. He believes he will fall into a vat of pudding, I believe he is going to hurt himself. After arguing he convinces me that he was right. We jump and both end up crippled. He convinced me of his side but I would say we both lost there. Alternatively if we we did in fact land in pudding then I would say we both won. To me if an argument is "won or lost" not based on where you started but rather where you end.

 

Hey, I just remembered something. I'm a Haruhiist, not a Christian. Specifically I'm a Haruhi's Witness. Who wants to hear the Good News of Haruhi Suzumiya?

 

This reminds me, I was jumped in a mall by a Jehovah Witness not long ago.

As for me though, I jump between agnostic and deist.

 

Oh, here we go again...

I have trouble believing that you read the post at this point. It is clearly a decision. I fail to see where you are having trouble here.

Oh, you can't? Sorry, then. I thought that you could.

Wrong... I will not accept that there is a wall there. I will break it down. But, to some extent, you are right, and that is hardly against what I am saying. Knowledge of concepts is far removed from faith in them, and that is as it should be. See my other posts on doubt, here and elsewhere.

I do. I have trouble letting people hold double standards at any point along the line. People who claim insanity and so on also earn my disdain because of this model.

Quite right. The main difference is that, if you are not using ad hominem, you are not harming them but the ideas that they hold when you argue. That is important to note. It is only your weapons that you break in civil arguments, and not each other, if you are doing things right.

Agreed... And I do not see how that was contrary to what I was saying here. The main difference here is that in your analogy, you used evidence as a basis for truth. Notice that you could have become crippled and still landed in a vat of pudding. All that you know is that you see no pudding and feel no pudding, and so on. Full-on sensory hallucinations work both ways, mind. Assuming facts based on experience is what I am against here. The experience of pain is no exception, as it is still an external sense and cannot be proven logically.

 

Nova's not the only one touching himself to this thread~

 

Nova? Where is a Nova? And what do you mean by that? Cryptic messages ensue...

 

I keep forgetting that you're new here. Nova is Sforzato xD His name used to be Novueau Nova, or just Nova for sure.

That's misspelled, but laziness is a virtue so I won't dare look up how to fix it.

 

This thread deserves to be moved to the Discussion section tbh.

And I thought I was the only one...

Sforzato's old name is Nouveau Nova. We still like to call him Nova. I personally like Sforz-kun xD

 

Ahh, thanks. I will have to remember that later; sorry.

I fixed it for you. There you go...

Ah, I was too late, and so were you. Thanks anyway. Sforz-kun... Haha.

 

Actually it's spelled Naoieuaoeiuaeoiaeuaeoaieuaoeiuvaoieuaeoiaueaeaoeua Nova.

That's because you actually LISTEN TO ME ;_; THANK YOU.

Oh god he knew

OH GOD HE KNEW

S-someone catch me I'm going to faint <3

 

I don't like this idea one bit.

 

'The spamzone with the occasional serious thread that JedininjaZC doesn't like' section.

Better?

 

If posts count in it, then I am happy.

 

Should I...? Naw, I should leave some dream in tact here.

On another note, I have been waiting for some rep because of all of the praise, but I take it that you guys haven't repped anyone else yet to make up for it. Ah well.

 

You, as an agnostic, don't like being placed with "Undecided" because being agnostic is a decision. I'm saying that by deciding on agnosticism you are active undecided on what religion you believe in, so you aren't a believer in any catagory. Not because you think any of them are wrong, but because you can't be sure any of them are right.

Staff might, I can't

Do you not have to accept that there is a wall there for there to be something for you to break down?

I'll check that out later

Well aren't you special? *shot*

Not the ideal, but I guess I can't deny that is more often how it works. Sadly, it is hard to seperate the person from the ideas they hold at times.

What I'm saying is that to me, an argument is not a battle for supremacy. When I'm proven wrong in an argument I don't feel defeated, I'm happy because the way I see it I have formed a more accurate viewpoint. Now as you have said, there is doubt in everything so I can't be sure that I've arrived on the best path from that argument. But I have faith that at the very least I'll end up right more often than wrong. Conversely when I convince someone of my point I don't feel like I conquered them, but more like I helped them.

 

Back, sorry.

The two parts in bold here seem to contradict directly, if I am not mistaken. It is impossible to be actively undecided. Both Sforzato and and I have explained this already, but perhaps this will help you further.

The format of beliefs here is as follows: "I conclude that X is an absolute truth." Substitute a belief system in for X here. See below for a couple of them.

• "I conclude that Christianity is an absolute truth."
• "I conclude that Buddhism is an absolute truth."
• "I conclude that Islam is an absolute truth."

All beliefs, or decisions, as you call them, will take this form. I hold that substituting anything in for X will satisfy this statement. Consider...

• "I conclude that everything is an absolute truth."
• "I conclude that nothing is an absolute truth."

Unless you can somehow rule these two out as options, then there is no such thing as actively undecided here. As far as I can tell, that term was made up for this conversation, and does not exist elsewhere in the real world. An actively undecided person would have be indifferent, if you were going to make it real, and not agnostic, as only they choose not to take a side at all.

Yeah, sorry about that again. Either way, though. I hate mistakes, even if they cannot be fixed later on. Correcting them, as a teacher might mark up a paper, will have to do for now.

No, not really. When you hit a wall, you are forced to deal with the problem. Accepting it happens in the mind, and it is what happens when you turn and walk away afterwards. It is very much like complacency in that way.

Not really. People hold that position a lot of the time; it is why so many people claim this philosophy in the first place. They hate double standards and other such contradictions of basic logic.

The vast majority of times, unfortunately.

Good, then. Again, I do not see how we disagree on this. Keep up that mentality, and we will be just fine.

 

Good news guys, since you're all so into pouring blocks of text that have relevancy in the spamzone, we've decided to turn the spamzone into the discussion section. Except there's still no post count.

Good luck getting prem~

 

Could you move the thread for us? It would be greatly appreciated.