+- Las Venturas Playground (https://forum.sa-mp.nl)
+-- Forum: Miscellaneous (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: General Talk (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-24.html)
+--- Thread: [Serious Discussion] Religion (/thread-26936.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Tuism - 06-06-2011
I have a feeling that this styla kiddo has been trolling since page 1... imagine that... every post, every reply has been a troll
rofl
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Munch - 06-06-2011
(06-06-2011, 02:37 AM)TwistedDemon link Wrote: I have a feeling that this styla kiddo has been trolling since page 1... imagine that... every post, every reply has been a troll
rofl
Considering the size of the posts he's going to some great lengths to troll people, when he can just say "cool story bro" and have a similar affect.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-06-2011
(06-06-2011, 02:37 AM)TwistedDemon link Wrote: I have a feeling that this styla kiddo has been trolling since page 1... imagine that... every post, every reply has been a troll
rofl
remember that "wine" case to prove Christians "allow" sins like that? pretty much failed there bro.
thats what i call fail trollingyes i agree, i did have to make other debaters like 0target0 angry at one point (like "cuz i say so" examples) , that is provoking lulz, but in the other hand, i did state real conclusions and considered facts, now go on and deny me but no one on this topic has ever proved me wrong yet.
COOL STORY MUNCH
p.s.: if there's another reply "everything u've ever done on this topic is..." or "
" reply (make yourself /care) then quote it and prove me wrong like i did with every person here (that tried to do that). debate is not really called "stating ur own opinion and consider it as true because you say so" and same goes to u TwistedDemon, ur "fact" was the way Allah told us to sleep, what side is the best to sleep on, which could easily be tested , but u considered it as SCIENTIFIC proof rofl)but there are few debaters here i like, becaues they didnt keep it personal and really knew what they're talking about. not talking about religious debaters only
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - 0Target0 - 06-06-2011
(06-06-2011, 05:25 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: i did state real conclusions and considered facts, now go on and deny me but no one on this topic has ever proved me wrong yet.
You have not posted any facts. Orch-or? Oh a brilliant misinterpretation. Also predictions of radio waves? Retarded. You called it proof as well. That is not proof, it is proof however about how uneducated you are. The earth is round prediction, the egyptians already knew.
I have proved the flaws in your theory every single time. So you have to face the facts, above quote is a lie or a complete troll.
You lost this discussion 40 pages ago.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-06-2011
(06-06-2011, 05:38 PM)0Target0 link Wrote: You have not posted any facts. Orch-or? Oh a brilliant misinterpretation. Also predictions of radio waves? Retarded. You called it proof as well. That is not proof, it is proof however about how uneducated you are. The earth is round prediction, the egyptians already knew.
I have proved the flaws in your theory every single time. So you have to face the facts, above quote is a lie or a complete troll.
You lost this discussion 40 pages ago.
you did try to disprove ORCH OR and failed at it, i suggest you to read few pages back.
Also predictions of radio waves? they were stated in "few of predictions in the Bible" at 1 website. it cannot be denied, it is not false interpretation but that was not my main conclusion. i wonder why u didnt comment on others. at first i remember u've stated that they just interpretated what they had seen, if it was like that then the Bible would change ALOT. yes ALOT my boy.
hmm proof? that's what u call it, a false "proof" , what i call it is a reliable conclusion i've stated (that they couldn't just interpretate whatever they had seen, because it was impossible to interpretate something like that back then - " u stated back then that they interpretated whatever they had seen pages back btw", they didn't have submarines, they didn't master chemistry, their history prediction events that happent also couldn't be "piece of cake" ETC. ETC. ETC. so MY POINT WAS that Bible is not just some fairytale as u've mentioned, it is more than that because many Bible events are supported by archeologic founds and known history persons therefore it is more than that and that is a FACT. where in my latest post i mentioned "proofs"?)
after fail attempt to disprove orch or theory.. fail attempt to make a conclusion that Bible is a fairy tale.. after fail attempt to say that they've interpretated whatever they HAD seen.. after fail attempt of your opinions ... pretty much its u who lost, that is what i considered as a conclusion because it's real, my attemps were not fail, ur conclusion / opinion was
I have proved the flaws in your theory every single time
- go read pages back and see my EVERY reply on ur QUOTE about orch or theory, u didn't say nothing back then (u did but i've replied and proved u wrong once again), u stopped talking about ORCH OR theory. that is a fact (won't call it a proof, i know how sensitive u are about it), u've misinterpretated the theory and failed with it.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Maka - 06-06-2011
Boohoohoo.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - 0Target0 - 06-06-2011
(06-06-2011, 05:50 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: you did try to disprove ORCH OR and failed at it, i suggest you to read few pages back.
Also predictions of radio waves? they were stated in "few of predictions in the Bible" at 1 website. it cannot be denied, it is not false interpretation but that was not my main conclusion. i wonder why u didnt comment on others. at first i remember u've stated that they just interpretated what they had seen, if it was like that then the Bible would change ALOT. yes ALOT my boy.
hmm proof? that's what u call it, a false "proof" , what i call it is a reliable conclusion i've stated (that they couldn't just interpretate whatever they had seen, because it was impossible to interpretate something like that back then - " u stated back then that they interpretated whatever they had seen pages back btw", they didn't have submarines, they didn't master chemistry, their history prediction events that happent also couldn't be "piece of cake" ETC. ETC. ETC. so MY POINT WAS that Bible is not just some fairytale as u've mentioned, it is more than that because many Bible events are supported by archeologic founds and known history persons therefore it is more than that and that is a FACT. where in my latest post i mentioned "proofs"?)
after fail attempt to disprove orch or theory.. fail attempt to make a conclusion that Bible is a fairy tale.. after fail attempt to say that they've interpretated whatever they HAD seen.. after fail attempt of your opinions ... pretty much its u who lost, that is what i considered as a conclusion because it's real, my attemps were not fail, ur conclusion / opinion was
I have proved the flaws in your theory every single time
- go read pages back and see my EVERY reply on ur QUOTE about orch or theory, u didn't say nothing back then (u did but i've replied and proved u wrong once again), u stopped talking about ORCH OR theory. that is a fact (won't call it a proof, i know how sensitive u are about it), u've misinterpretated the theory and failed with it.
I disproved orch or long time ago, i suggest you go a few pages back.
to summarize
property of A is B
property of Z is B
thus A=Z
is not valid.
About website proof, yes very valid, not anyone can make a website and just post bullshit on it.
Again, grow up and come with some valid arguments.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-06-2011
(04-13-2011, 12:51 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: "Sorry I forgot about this. Yes so basically I say a mind is a self-collapsing wave-function but you're asking does that mean that all self-collapsing wave-functions are minds? Yes that would be erroneous of me to assume it goes both ways automatically. It's just that in this case Orch-OR was explicitly derived in the context of Penrose's quantum mind theory. So in this particular case it's meant to be go both ways: X=Z and Z=X. It's a biconditional." - @video and so on..
Theory is approved once again. questions after questions, im the one giving explanations but questions wont take u nowhere.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-06-2011
my reply is to ur first conclusion(u making things up now? ) this is what u said btw at first
(04-12-2011, 11:37 AM)0Target0 link Wrote: Cool, authority argument again, this time a university. Orch or can be approved by a uni. But the god linked theory that you made out of it will not be.
Oh and giving your opponent less crediblity by saying he's too dumb to understand
I believe there are terms for this false argumentation, but i'm too lazy to look it up.
It's just because there's a gigantic hole in your 'god proof' theory, ive maybe quoted it 1000 times and still you intentionally ignore it.
Property of X=A, Property of Z=A, Thus X=Z is not proof, because the logic is wrong.
SO THERE GOES YOUR ORCH OR BASED GOD PROOF THEORY.
about website, wow just wow, Scientific conclusions cant be on a single website, ure too pro to believe that though
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - 0Target0 - 06-06-2011
Yes I made a typo.
Properties are part of the physical constitution of something. PART. So if a PART of something is equal to a PART of another thing doesnt mean that the two physical constitutions are the same.
Hope you are not too dumb to be able to wrap your mind around that.
Scientific conclusions are re-executed, verified, peer reviewed. Something that is unvalid for the websites you have posted. Wow just wow, thought you learned those things at school. But I guess your education isn't that good.
As with youtube video's, that is also real proof:
The Major Factors that Influence Masturbation Damage
How an erection works according to Happeh Theory