+- 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 - [SAE]Grim - 06-11-2011
There's no point in "debating" with you Styla, and it seems like most people have realised that now aswell. (For the past few pages)
Nobody wants to bring arguments to a dude who constantly places himself above everybody else and call them idiots, directly or indirectly. You just keep calling ppl bad debaters, "i win", "gg u fail" etc etc. Whats the point? You dont know how to argue in a mature way.
If you had written like this in a newspaper (on the back, where debates go on usually) u'd probably be banned or something.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-11-2011
that's what u say, u're not on my side really (atheist)
i know u're againts me as u're a non-believer therefore that's ur final answer and i "apreciate it", it's a debate afterall you can't really "deny" those 2 quotes because they're very fittable to the science. if you won't provide something that backs u up with scientific facts then it is not considered as fact and is not reliable, until then there's not much u can say but "ur own opinion"
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - [SAE]Grim - 06-11-2011
(06-11-2011, 11:31 AM)STyL4 link Wrote: it's a debate afterall
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this aint a debate.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Daniel - 06-11-2011
Maybe his god is STyL4, so he can't be wrong
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-11-2011
"Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument."
arguments were represented, therefore it is.
ur argument was partly axiom (not 100
, mine was factual unless u argue with science. (if u say it isnt, then quote something from the two quotes above (considering ORCH OR theory) and explain it as a factual argument)
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Maka - 06-11-2011
Man Styla, keep believing your own shit. No one gives a rat's ass anymore anyway. You're far too narrow-minded to accept anything else.
It's not even a debate, it's a discussion. Something you've always failed to understand (together with a bunch of other shit in this topic).
You're talking to ex-Christians here mainly, so there's no need to try and inform us about the crap we've been hearing for years. If you're this convinced, then it's your turn to give us the facts and so forth, but so far, you have always failed to do so.
You're wasting your time and everyone's been laughing in your face for a while now. This was a serious post by the way.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-11-2011
(06-10-2011, 07:16 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: 0target0, i guess i reached the limit of ur "patience", gg
"Therefore they are not real and therefore your god is not real."
u're doing his quantum all backwards if u think there is no real wave-like nature before collapse occurs: Dear Positivists: Who's The Quantum Mystic Now?
If there is no real probability wave then we wouldn't be seeing an interference pattern in the double-slit experiment. Also the ensemble interpretation has long been debunked.
This is from Hameroff's site directly: (Hameroff is the guy who teamed up with Penrose on Orch-OR)
Problematic Feature of Consciousness:
"Essential nature of human experience"
Possible Quantum Solutions:
"1) Wave function self collapse (Orch OR) from incompatible superposition of separated space-times;
2) Pre-consciousconscious transition;
3) Effectively instantaneous "now"(Orch OR) collapse."
"
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchor.html"
nuff said 0target0, yet another argument of urs "cuz i say so" has been proven a fail. deny more u want, u've officialy lost this debate, now go state ur own opinion because u simply can't stop, but the fact is that u're wrong. THESE UP THERE ARE FACTS. if u deny them, u deny science therefore u can't say NOTHING about Religion, NOTHING about this debate itself.
Johananratz truly is a scientists, not to mention his public debates... he's master at this, engineers cant stop him.
u're an ex-christian and u're on opposite side of the debate. "then it's your turn to give us the facts and so forth, but so far, you have always failed to do so." THESE above (quote) in ORCH OR theory are FACTs. if you think they aren't then answer :
"Since collapse is ontologically identical with protophenomenal observation (meaning the same thing that occurs in both mental observation and observation by non-mental equipment), how can self-collapse not equal self-observation? Since self-observation is equal to consciousness how is self-collapse ontologically different in any way shape or form from self-observation?"
you couldn't (obviously u're clueless, i like the way u can't answer because i know = its a win then), therefore ex-christians and atheists can laugh, but the truth remains (no matter how much you try, they will STAY as facts. face it, u dont have a clue what science ORCH OR provides, you just deny and state ur clueless opinion. God, go study you've been owned by 17 years old kid. )
"Classic debate emphasizes logic and real-world discussion" wow, only a discussion.. yet again failed
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Maka - 06-11-2011
It's a discussion. Can't you read? I didn't even bother reading your post having seen the very first sentence.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Matthias - 06-11-2011
I've just removed a page of useless insulting posts, quit the bullshit and get back ontopic. I'm going to be handing out mutes if this continues.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-11-2011
(06-11-2011, 11:39 AM)Maka link Wrote: It's not even a debate, it's a discussion.
yet another mistake
i suggest you to answer the questions otherwise stop stating ur clueless opinions because it's clear ORCH OR has too much science inside for u