Spademan

Ah. I misunderstood you. I'm with you.

I forgot I was going to add a simple and clear edification concerning this and it got lost in my rush to ad absurdum. "Occam's razor, also known as Ockham's razor, and sometimes expressed in Latin as lex parsimoniae (the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness)".I don't know where you were going with the "parsimony is a just a preference" thing - it is the very foundation of Occam's razor. I pointed this out with a diatribe, but should have prefaced with basic semantical clarification.

So as far as I can tell there isn't a single actual argument for either a deity or the benefit of libertarianism. The closest we have are:1. Something can't come from nothing. Fails for multiple reasons. First, the closest to "nothing" we are aware of is constantly producing particles and anti particles that head straight back to "nothing". Second, even if it were true that "something can't come from nothing", and if it is true that there was ever such thing as "nothing", it does not follow: therefore Yahweh. It does not follow: therefore someconciousthing.There are other reasons but these

double tap

Uh... only kinda. I was getting at his blatant implication that he went on to explicitly state: Given a choice between a "conscious entity which created the universe" and "the universe" the parsimonious choice is fucking obvious. Since there is:1. No need for a conscious entity to explain the existence of the universe.2. No evidence, whatsoever, in any way, shape or form, at any point, in all of human history, from knuckle-dragging primate to post enlightenment primate, from any place, in any language or discernible communication method, at all, ever, not the most tiny shred, indirect or dire

I browsed the thread and wanted to respond to... things.Then I saw this response to a particular statement (jesus, it takes a matter of seconds to copy/paste the original text into google to discover if your stupid-ass hypothesis has merit) and realized it was the perfect answer to the whole thread.Only Speedz even made an attempt. His attempt, obviously, falls to parsimony - but at least there was an attempt.

Idiot. Lord. Welcome to a long time ago. Welcome to making sense. Welcome to saying shit and doing what you say. Welcome to the moment. Welcome to me when I was maybe 6 years old, when I might have said shit I didn't meant or didn't read something immediately. Welcome to exactly why I cut you out of this conversation.Good luck watching the videos and reading the books that might have disabused you of your stupid ass beliefs when they were mentioned to you a long time ago. I hope you find the time to watch and read and fix your magical beliefs. Hopefully before your actions or votes or

This thread is for deist and libertarians to defend their belief. I'm not interested in posting here to assuage my desire to promote teh funny anymore. I'm not interested in crushing abject idiots. Too few people to observe the conversation for it to be worth it in terms of education.I'm still willing to engage general "deist" and "libertarian" types who might be bright enough to stop being an idiot.BG types need not apply. Brv need not apply, he was already given a chance, said he'd read a book or two - but never did. Henry can save his ideological nonsense. I don't like when people don't

I'm embarrassed for you that you felt you needed to qualify.

What if you sucked on a very small section of the furthermost rear portion of my ball sack for thirteen hours straight and by doing so fashioned a shriveled tail-like swath of skin near my taint.It might hang down from behind my scrotum - as seen from fellatio perspective - lonely and abnormal. Jesus. What if?

Oh, btw, the libertadrian slight is leveled at you as well.You're a fairly reasonable guy, the fact that you're a libertarian is an embarrassing artifact of, hopefully, you living your life on the internet. It cannot be defended unless you are bordering sociopath tendency. Good luck, you'll need it. Before you respond, look up libertarian on Pharyngula and parse the comment sections. There are giant comment sections I've made, and others who are brilliant have made, that sum up how fucking stupid you are on the subject. I assume this won't be an issue. If you bring up a point that has been a

I literally laughed out loud that you rhetorically abuse that someone will "use name-calling", which is not a fallacy, for you to create an ad hominem, which is a fallacy, to dismiss the person's argument."He calls names, therefore he is not a 'real economist', and his argument is invalid". lolIn other circles we call that tone trolling - addressing the tone of an argument rather than the argument itself. A common tactic amongst poor thinkers. It was especially funny because so many people wrongly think that "insults" are ad hominem, so it is enriched by irony. What it really boils down to,

Oh, and before I forget:

Uh, the science thing doesn't help.Some suspected and known INTJ's:Sir Isaac Newton - AstronomerNiels Bohr – physicist Stephen Hawking – astrophysicistLise Meitner – chemistJohn F. Nash Jr. – mathematician, game theoristNorbert Wiener – mathematician, founder of cyberneticsNikola Tesla – physicist, engineer, inventorIsaac Asimov – biochemist, science-fiction author hLongLiveYorke - Super introverted nerd and scientist. Both INTJ and INTP will be heavily represented in the sciences.

I've usually seen Einstein categorized INTP (sometimes INTJ) and Jefferson is almost always categorized INTJ. Though I've found a lot of the INT's score pretty low either way on the J/P and there is some crossover.

It is more that they tend to be excellent leaders, but prefer not to lead. They prefer someone else leading, provided the leadership is competent. If it isn't, the INTJ is apt to, first, make it known the person is incompetent, and second, take over if no other option is available. As to the Heiss quote, it's one of the reasons INTJ's can be very susceptible to SIWOTI syndrome. Something like 2% of the population. But it isn't really the "leadership" trait combo, it's the strategist (duh, ur name) or "mastermind" combo. And this environment (pseudo-anonymous, devoid of social interaction, a

No, you are. Your actual breakdown would have been:ENFJExtroverted 33%Intuitive 31%Feeling 6%Judging 11%It your feeling only being at 6% doesn't mean you don't "feel" much, but rather it indicates you, in general, may tend to make decisions or formulate opinions slightly more often on feeling or emotion, rather than thought, or place slightly more importance on feeling over thought.I should point out, this isn't some comprehensive diagnostic of the human brain and behavior or anything. Though isn't astrology, either.

Agnostic Deist works. Is it ENTJ or is it Feeling 6%?

I'm researching something. Take this test and post your results: Personality test I am mostly interested in people who are/have been fairly engaged in debate in politics and/or religion, so I post it here.Please provide your results in this format:Your Type is INTJIntroverted 67%Intuitive 100%Thinking 75%Judging 22%(And provide)Political affiliation: Independent (Republican/Democrat/Communist/Social Democrat/ect)Religious affliction: Atheist (Deist/Christian/Muslim/Pagan/Spiritual/ect - please don't use agnostic alone, there is no such thing. gnostic/agnostic deals with certainty. You are e

Holy fucking Xenu*. This is the first post in the first forum, scrolling down from top, I'd respond to. I'll use this as my catch-all. This goes for this forum, the religion forum and off-topic. These are the only forums I've caught/kept up with in any way.Most of you are idiots. The level of argument is almost devoid of content, evidence, or reason. mk and FCP Bob are the only two who seem to absolutely care about epistemology. VB and LLY are clearly good at methodology (omg, they became scientists for a living... how shocking), and how good they are at testing and retesting and only a

*sigh*Wave your hands around."Macro and micro... so hard to understand."Ugh. What a cesspool.

You didn't adequately answer his objections and I didn't present a non argument, I said VB's argument against you was sufficient. This is an example of your failure in logic. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a matter of you making illogical, unreasonable and occasionally downright absurd claims/arguments and having them demolished without you realizing. Hardly anyone is outraged at what you think they are outraged about. Your points, which may have an underlying sense of compassion, are horrible. Just terrible. The logic is bad. I would guess most people don't even really pay att

The old "I've done more shit but don't say what it is" defense. The time tested "you just don't understand why I'm better than Ghandi and have done more than you to help other people" gambit. Well played.Or: Shut the fuck up you hand-waving piece of shit.Please... explain to me how you've done more for other people than the idiots Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama... or even me. Put it in detail. I'd love to know. I know the history of each, and what they've done for their respective populations and cultures.But clearly, you and those who think like you have done more than they, or

In this thread VB pointed out probably 3/4ths of the things I would have dismantled. It was plenty enough to shut your argument down. I have no idea where else I've specifically challenged your posts, but I do remember doing so a few times. I'd look them up if you were relevant enough in this thread. I also remember glossing over a few of your posts that were silly because there was a larger discussion going on.You'd have to be much more clear, coherent or prolific for me to be assed enough to put the effort in to elaborate. Just, seriously, learn to logic.