God, Heat, Cold and darkness?

Honestly, how can you disagree that millions of people have bettered their lives after converting to some sort of faith, that's just being ignorant on your part. Look at Convicts that go into the prision system for so long and they finally want to change, what do they do? They turn to Faith/Religion, and come out better as a whole.

Why is it you call people ignorant before hearing the argument. I would argue that's ignorance on your part. I think I can make one hell of an argument that religion, all in all, has been not just somewhere in the middle, but egregious to humanity, and the ecosystem as a whole. But when I have time.

You are in fact reading too deep into it, you can't debate God with science, didn't you read the entire story? This is a whole entirely different argument, and you're taking a completely false spin on it.

Reread and come again. Honestly, that doesn't seem to be your strong point with my posts lately. Neither of my posts (this one, the rape one) that went completely over your head were even that long. I didn't disagree with the OP in that quote, it was you I disagreed with, specifically "and that alone is good enough not to debate it amongst anyone but yourself." I presented the reason why it should be debated, namely because it contravenes and imposes itself onto the realm of science. And I'm putting the spin on things?

D3v is just honestly incapable of holding an intelligent unemotional conversation, much less a debate. For a long time I've thought of people's capabilities in terms of a series of tunnels (or tubes). Each tunnel allows for a particular thought process. Some people have many tunnels, and thus have the ability to consider many particulars at a time, as well as more quickly since there is more throughput. Think of it as mental multitasking. However, other (stupid) people may have only one tunnel, and are just physically limited by it. These people cannot usually be reasoned with, as they are simply incapable of it. As silly as it is, I take solace in it.

D3v is just honestly incapable of holding an intelligent unemotional conversation, much less a debate.

MJ did the exact same thing

The professor is an idiot. I'll expand, probably Saturday. Or if I'm not deathly tired from being up all week, perhaps Friday.

It's not worth the time or effort to even try sifting through MJ's replies searching for an actual response behind all of the backward-ass logistically placed comments that aren't even relevant to the argument itself.

It's not worth the time or effort to even try sifting through MJ's replies searching for an actual response behind all of the backward-ass logistically placed comments that aren't even relevant to the argument itself.

Yea. Two lines. Heaven forbid!!! You're going to get eaten by the long-winded-post monster D3V! Grow up.

You did basically the same thing, scroll up a few lines, calling the professor an idiot is the same presumption giving you have heard his side, and we've all heard your opinion on things on numerous occasions.

Incorrect. The professor is an idiot because he was not able to promulgate simple syllogisms to his students that would have entirely trashed a lot of what the second student was rambling on about. You, on the other hand, have a problem with the idea that I'm trying to convey. You've basically already made your mind up. That much is obvious when you're calling me ignorant based on something I haven't said. I can pinpoint exactly why the professor is an idiot. What he should have done that would have stripped him from his current title of idiot. And I wholeheartedly intend to friday or saturday. You, on the other hand, just have a problem with my ideology. You won't say why. You'll just say I'm ignorant, and decree by fiat that I'm wrong. Open your mind. Grow up.

I don't think you're getting my point, you are breaking this down too much, the simple fact that you are trying to turn this into an argument about an argument is idiocracy.

I'm simply pointing out the incessant hypocrisy in your statements.

The professor is an idiot because he was not able to promulgate simple syllogisms to his students that would have entirely trashed a lot of what the second student was rambling on about

I r likeing to oose big words.

Is it really that necessary? You sometimes make yourself out to be too smart and by the time I'm reading your posts I've totally forgot what you were talking about in the first place. It's hard to follow your train of thought sometimes.

I r likeing to oose big words. Is it really that necessary? You sometimes make yourself out to be too smart and by the time I'm reading your posts I've totally forgot what you were talking about in the first place. It's hard to follow your train of thought sometimes.

It is the quintessence of effective communication to articulate suitably succinct statements.

This thread is actually pretty entertaining.

I r likeing to oose big words. Is it really that necessary? You sometimes make yourself out to be too smart and by the time I'm reading your posts I've totally forgot what you were talking about in the first place. It's hard to follow your train of thought sometimes.

That's basically my point, that and his origional point gets skewed beyond even giving a shit when he breaks down every possible aspect, of everything.

This isn't the first time either, it's basically every argument, it's basically resorting to making an essay, rather than a point.

That's basically my point, that and his origional point gets skewed beyond even giving a shit when he breaks down every possible aspect, of everything. This isn't the first time either, it's basically every argument, it's basically resorting to making an essay, rather than a point.

So you are arguing that your opponent's arguments are too effective to be considered valid arguments?

The workings of your mind are suddenly very clear.

That's basically my point, that and his origional point gets skewed beyond even giving a shit when he breaks down every possible aspect, of everything. This isn't the first time either, it's basically every argument, it's basically resorting to making an essay, rather than a point.

So your point is my arguments are too precise to be taken seriously?

Edit: Nevermind, Grav beat me to it.

If you don't like them, quit being a puling bitch and don't read them. If my arguments are filled with so much damned awesomeness that you can't/won't rebuke them, ignore me. But for fucks sake, quit bitching.

I r likeing to oose big words. Is it really that necessary? You sometimes make yourself out to be too smart and by the time I'm reading your posts I've totally forgot what you were talking about in the first place. It's hard to follow your train of thought sometimes.

Well, the syllogism would be the basis to almost all the arguments I make regarding this thread. Perhaps I'll define it first, because it would be too damned tedious without it.

Why is it you call people ignorant before hearing the argument. I would argue that's ignorance on your part. I think I can make one hell of an argument that religion, all in all, has been not just somewhere in the middle, but egregious to humanity, and the ecosystem as a whole. But when I have time.

You did basically the same thing, scroll up a few lines, calling the professor an idiot is the same presumption giving you have heard his side, and we've all heard your opinion on things on numerous occasions.

Reread and come again. Honestly, that doesn't seem to be your strong point with my posts lately. Neither of my posts (this one, the rape one) that went completely over your head were even that long. I didn't disagree with the OP in that quote, it was you I disagreed with, specifically "and that alone is good enough not to debate it amongst anyone but yourself." I presented the reason why it should be debated, namely because it contravenes and imposes itself onto the realm of science. And I'm putting the spin on things?

I don't think you're getting my point, you are breaking this down too much, the simple fact that you are trying to turn this into an argument about an argument is idiocracy.