quitting graal

[Kaimetsu]

Originally posted by _0AfTeRsHoCk0_
I always did have a problem with you, but lately I thought I'd just bite my lip and not say a word.

Until you saw that you were losing an argument and wanted to divert attention away from it, obviously.

I did for a couple months, but there is only so much I can take. I won't stand quiet forever while you start bashing my ideologies and values on these forums.

Then don't. Argue back, show me the error of my ways, whatever. But guttersniping about completely unrelated issues is merely childish and not at all fitting for your supermod position.

your constant pessimistic views towards politics (hey, if you think poiliticians should be the only ones talking these things, then shut your mouth and don't reply in the post. I don't go rambling on in threads that deal with anime and computers because I don't know much about them.)

Ridiculous logic, as usual. My post didn't make any political claims so it wasn't a contradiction. Also I don't particularly lack knowledge on political issues so your comparison to your ignorance on anime and computing subjects is ultimately groundless.

and religion (fine, you're an atheist, but you don't have to go around telling Christians how poorly their ideology is flawed and how they're all "damned").

When on earth did I tell christians that they are damned? And in any case: I don't have to tell them these things but I enjoy doing so. Why shouldn't I? How is that debate off-limits while others are fine 'n' dandy?

And I'm not an atheist. Not by the usual definition.

Genuinely, how would you feel if I went into the NPC forums and started rambling on about how scripting is stupid and it's just a little kiddies hobby for an online game and what you're all doing is useless.

I'd think you were making a fool of yourself, just as you are now. Your comparison is once more extremely flawed. I criticise the logic behind theism - something that can be objectively considered - while you would be criticising our subjective appreciation of scripting. See the difference?

[tlf288]

Originally posted by Kaimetsu

And I'm not an atheist. Not by the usual definition.

If you don't mind saying, by what definition then?

[Kaimetsu]

Originally posted by tlf288
If you don't mind saying, by what definition then?

If the definition is "A person who does not believe in a deity" then I am an atheist. If the definition is "A person who believes in the non-existence of a deity" then I am not an atheist.

[_0AfTeRsHoCk0_]

Subjectively arguments cannot be won.

Objectively this thread is off topic so it must be closed.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally posted by _0AfTeRsHoCk0_
Subjectively arguments cannot be won.

Your statement is flawed, but I assume that you meant to say 'Subjective arguments cannot be won". Which is fine, but it's hardly a statement that works in your favour; it supports me more than it does you. Your criticism of scripting would be subjective, while my criticism of religion was objective. Thus they are incomparable.

Objectively this thread is off topic so it must be closed.

Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason. Nothing to do with the fact that I'm beating the heck out of you.

[Kinatt]

Originally posted by Kaimetsu


Your statement is flawed, but I assume that you meant to say 'Subjective arguments cannot be won". Which is fine, but it's hardly a statement that works in your favour; it supports me more than it does you. Your criticism of scripting would be subjective, while my criticism of religion was objective. Thus they are incomparable.



Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason. Nothing to do with the fact that I'm beating the heck out of you.

So many big words.. mind spinning *pukes*

[Darlene159]

Another thread that has turned into a religion bash? Why hasnt this been closed?
I seriously dont think the person quitting graal is doing it for religious reasons...Why dont you do your job Kami, and close it instead of arguing

[_0AfTeRsHoCk0_]

Originally posted by Kaimetsu


Your statement is flawed, but I assume that you meant to say 'Subjective arguments cannot be won". Which is fine, but it's hardly a statement that works in your favour; it supports me more than it does you. Your criticism of scripting would be subjective, while my criticism of religion was objective. Thus they are incomparable.

No, an argument cannot be won. You cannot go up to someone and say "who is winning the argument?" unless someone actually concedes defeat because he will provide you with refutable evidence. You cannot also prove to me that God exsists, or does not exsist, and there is no evidence on Earth objectively proving otherwise so therefore your statements are all based on subjective points.

And yes I will close this thread now. If Kai has a strong urge to reply and start attacking me again then he can, I don't care.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally posted by Darlene159
Another thread that has turned into a religion bash? Why hasnt this been closed?

1) I'm not bashing religion.
2) Because it's not really doing any harm.

Originally posted by _0AfTeRsHoCk0_
No, an argument cannot be won. You cannot go up to someone and say "who is winning the argument?" unless someone actually concedes defeat because he will provide you with refutable evidence.

There are rules to the arguing game, though they're not explicitly stated. Remember all those times when you walked around looking for posts by popular people and then replied with "you, sir, owned him" or something equally nauseating? You liked the phrase so much that you set it as your custom title for a while, I believe. And you said it for two reasons:

1) You wanted the person to like you.
2) You believed that the person had won the argument.

Unless it was just number 1? In which case I'll need to retract my argument

You cannot also prove to me that God exsists, or does not exsist

And you cannot understand this simple concept: I am not trying to prove or disprove God's existence.

and there is no evidence on Earth objectively proving otherwise so therefore your statements are all based on subjective points.

What statements? See, the problem is that you still refuse to read and understand my posts. I cannot prove that God does not exist, but it is objectively true that, scientifically speaking, God is very unlikely to exist. There's a difference, yeah?

But, incidentally, stating this is not equivalent to religion-bashing; only fools believe that their God's existence can be proven (or even strongly indicated) rationally, which is why the focus of religion is faith. I acknowledge that belief in a deity can do people good, but I argue against the notion that it is a logically-sound belief.