No, It’S Not Your Opinion. You’Re Just Wrong.

[disillusioned]

Is that the best you can do, label me a troll?

 

I am done here. I am casting pearls before swine.

 

Best wishes,

Paul.

 

Hang on a second Paul. I thought everything was cyclic? If that's true then you can't just leave. You'll be back. The ring is perfect and never ending, and all that. If the water cycle doesn't end than how can this conversation?

[sdelsolray]

He came...he went...he came...and he went again.

 

He seems to be a captive of the One Ring...the One that Rule Them All, according to Paul.

[bornagainathiest]

So which ring did Frodo offer to Gandalf?  

[Thurisaz]

Somehow I bet this one will not really be gone, so there. As I've recently dug out this one again I will not let the opportunity pass to kick a morontheist face with it again.
 

...Your citations of genocide were created by 1) the Nazis, a collection of people who despised Christianity...

 
Oh yeah they despised your cult. That's why they made, among others, this propaganda poster.
 

 

You may cry now. You can ignore the facts as long as you want, here you will not impress anyone with it. We've heard all the crap already that you have, and we know you have nothing else.

[Astreja]

I have given all the evidence I need.

 

But not sufficient for our needs.  In other words, from our perspective you haven't presented any evidence at all.

 

Go ask your imaginary friend to come talk to us in person, you deluded buffoon, as you are utterly unconvincing.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

Is that the best you can do, label me a troll?

 

I am done here. I am casting pearls before swine.

 

Best wishes,

Paul.

 

Funny thing is, you yourself admitted to being a troll, as already pointed out in this thread. Apparently you have forgotten about that.

[sdelsolray]

I have given all the evidence I need.

...

 

Funny guy.

[sdelsolray]

 

He came...he went...he came...and he went again.

 

He seems to be a captive of the One Ring...the One that Rule Them All, according to Paul.

 

 

So which ring did Frodo offer to Gandalf?  

 

 

 

The One Ring in Lord of the Rings was destroyed.  Paul's "One Ring" is eternal and the "Truth" (according to Paul - he would know, wouldn't he?).  Therefore, I could not have been referring to mundane and obvious fiction like JRR Tolkien's writings and his inferior "One Ring that rules Them All".

 

Instead I was referring to the more important and more known Paul's "One Ring that Rules them All".  

 

Paul is famous, doncha know?  And his Ring is his Master.

[Fweethawt]

Ooooo look! There's a pearl! Nom-nom-nom!

 

Oink...

[Astreja]

I don't see a "ring," per se; I see a universe informed by a fine balance between natural forces and the chaos where those forces reach their limits.

 

IMO, natural cycles simply cannot repeat with 100% accuracy because the possibility of infinitesimal variation (e.g., a gluon being .00000001 micron to the left of where it was last time) is so mind-bogglingly high.

 

The Circle of Fifths that Paul mentioned is man-made, based on the diatonic scale used in Western music for the past few hundred years.  This useful quirk of harmonic theory is also a pathetic example for the purpose of Paul's silly-ass hypothesis, as it owes nothing to a mythical "Great Architect" and considerably more to mathematician Simon Stevin, possibly the inventor of the even-tempered scale (based on the 12th root of 2) that makes transposition into any key feasible.  </music rant>

[disillusioned]

 

IMO, natural cycles simply cannot repeat with 100% accuracy because the possibility of infinitesimal variation (e.g., a gluon being .00000001 micron to the left of where it was last time) is so mind-bogglingly high.

 

No need to call this an opinion, its a fact. Natural cycles are all winding down. It's just the nature of the game. The earth is slowing in its orbit, and slowing in its rotation on its axis. Energy is "lost" each time we go around. If Paul had any real understanding of physics, he would know this.

[Fweethawt]

But, I thought there WASN'T any energy???? Did I misunderstand something somewhere else?

[mymistake]

But, I thought there WASN'T any energy???? Did I misunderstand something somewhere else?

 

 

You have to prove I am crazy or else God is real!

[midniterider]

Is that the best you can do, label me a troll?

 

I am done here. I am casting pearls before swine.

 

Best wishes,

Paul.

You're casting bullshit before people who prefer logic over make-believe.

[midniterider]

 

But, I thought there WASN'T any energy???? Did I misunderstand something somewhere else?

 

You have to prove I am crazy or else God is real!

I have the secret evidence that Jesus is real that I will never share with anyone cuz I dont really have that evidence but am really a big fat liar. Wink.

[Vigile]

In my experience, large swaths of issues are governed by those who haven't formed an opinion based on study, but as a result of PR efforts instead. This has poisoned the discourse of society making it almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the important issues of our time with most people.

[mymistake]

In my experience, large swaths of issues are governed by those who haven't formed an opinion based on study, but as a result of PR efforts instead. This has poisoned the discourse of society making it almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the important issues of our time with most people.

 

 

The Achilles heal of democracy - advertising is brainwashing.

[ironhorse]

Concerning the article. I read it and also the comments. 

I really like this one.

 

Michael Merrill wrote:

 

I completely disagree with this article. Here's why:

 

The words "you are wrong" are the worst words you could ever use to try and persuade someone to see your point of view. These words make everyone's mind stop working. If you use these words, you have already decided to no longer think, because you "know" that you are right. You will not listen to anything the other has to say. If you hear these words, you will also stop thinking, because you have now lost any respect you had for the person that is speaking to you, and most likely feel that the person speaking to you is a pompous "know it all".

 

 

Facts can be very illusory. You might have all the facts you need to back up your point of view, only to later discover that your facts were not facts at all, or that they had much less to do with what you "knew" to be true than you originally thought.

If we eliminated the words "you are wrong" from our vocabulary, perhaps we could have more discussions and less debates. More learning from each other and less "trying to teach others what we ourselves don't really know"

 

To quote Socrates: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

 

I would additionally add that perhaps the writer should read his own article about the difference between facts and opinions. I'm sure it was difficult to admit that you were wrong about the water, but the least you could do was state that you had the "facts" wrong, instead of stating that your "opinion" on water was wrong.

[mymistake]

Concerning the article. I read it and also the comments. 

I really like this one.

 

Michael Merrill wrote:

 

I completely disagree with this article. Here's why:

 

The words "you are wrong" are the worst words you could ever use to try and persuade someone to see your point of view. These words make everyone's mind stop working.

 

 

Not everyone.  Maybe you, er . . . I mean Michael Merrill, should speak for yourself.

 

 

 

. . . you have already decided to no longer think, because you "know" that you are right. You will not listen to anything the other has to say.

 

 

Not at all.  I find facts and logic to be very persuasive even if the answer is something I wasn't expecting.  You (and Michael Merrill) whine because you can't show anything for your beliefs.

 

 

 

Facts can be very illusory. You might have all the facts you need to back up your point of view, only to later discover that your facts were not facts at all, or that they had much less to do with what you "knew" to be true than you originally thought.

If we eliminated the words "you are wrong" from our vocabulary, perhaps we could have more discussions and less debates. More learning from each other and less "trying to teach others what we ourselves don't really know"

 

Nonsense.  Remember that when religious people had complete political power their idea of a "discussion" was to burn the other guy to death.  There are still some backward (Biblical) countries in the world where executions for blasphemy are happening right now.  If you could produce facts then you wouldn't complain.

 

Oh, the skeptics asked you to demonstrate your claims using empirical evidence and scoffed at you when you could not.  You are so persecuted!

[sdelsolray]

Concerning the article. I read it and also the comments. 

I really like this one.

 

Michael Merrill wrote:

 

I completely disagree with this article. Here's why:

 

The words "you are wrong" are the worst words you could ever use to try and persuade someone to see your point of view. These words make everyone's mind stop working. If you use these words, you have already decided to no longer think, because you "know" that you are right. You will not listen to anything the other has to say. If you hear these words, you will also stop thinking, because you have now lost any respect you had for the person that is speaking to you, and most likely feel that the person speaking to you is a pompous "know it all".

 

 

Facts can be very illusory. You might have all the facts you need to back up your point of view, only to later discover that your facts were not facts at all, or that they had much less to do with what you "knew" to be true than you originally thought.

If we eliminated the words "you are wrong" from our vocabulary, perhaps we could have more discussions and less debates. More learning from each other and less "trying to teach others what we ourselves don't really know"

 

To quote Socrates: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

 

I would additionally add that perhaps the writer should read his own article about the difference between facts and opinions. I'm sure it was difficult to admit that you were wrong about the water, but the least you could do was state that you had the "facts" wrong, instead of stating that your "opinion" on water was wrong.

 

 

Thanks for providing something more than just a cut and paste from a Christian apologetics website.

 

I often find it helpful (for me at least) to recast someone's statement into the first person.  By reading it again (in the first person), I can better understand what the declarant was trying to say.  Let me take Mr. Merrils statement and apply this technique:

 

He said:

 

 

 

The words "you are wrong" are the worst words you could ever use to try and persuade someone to see your point of view. These words make everyone's mind stop working. If you use these words, you have already decided to no longer think, because you "know" that you are right. You will not listen to anything the other has to say. If you hear these words, you will also stop thinking, because you have now lost any respect you had for the person that is speaking to you, and most likely feel that the person speaking to you is a pompous "know it all".

 

Translated into the first person, he would say:

 

 

 

The words "you are wrong" are the worst words I could ever use to try and persuade someone to see my point of view. These words make my mind stop working. If I use these words, I have already decided to no longer think, because I "know" that I am right. I will not listen to anything the other has to say. If I hear these words, I will also stop thinking, because I have now lost any respect I had for the person that is speaking to me, and most likely (I will) feel that the person speaking to me is a pompous "know it all".

 

Well, it appears Mr. Merrill has an on-off switch when it comes to assertions.  Most likely, he does not invest the time to distinguish between bald assertions and facts.  Here's an example:

 

Me:  Barak Obama is President of the United States (circa 2015).

 

Someone else:  No he is not the President!

 

Me:  You are wrong.

 

Someone else:  Well, he can't be President because he was born in Kenya, and his birth certificate was too short, and he's black.  That, and Sean Hannity told me so.  And God-Jesus spoke to me confirming all of this.  So there.

 

Me.  You are wrong.  And delusional.

 

This is an example of valid use of the statement, "You are wrong."

 

Perhaps better words could be used, such as:

 

"I think you are mistaken."

"Just not in any way you can demonstrate."

"You are full of shit."

 

Yes, the difference between fact and opinion is the central theme of that article.

 

[Justus]

But, I thought there WASN'T any energy???? Did I misunderstand something somewhere else?

If not mistaken I think what was said was that 'energy' is a theoretical concept to explain the force released from matter to produce momentum of mass at rest, yet 'energy' itself is not actual physical substance.

 

But if a real physical substance then what is it's atomic number?

[Fweethawt]

 

But, I thought there WASN'T any energy???? Did I misunderstand something somewhere else?

If not mistaken I think what was said was that 'energy' is a theoretical concept to explain the force released from matter to produce momentum of mass at rest, yet 'energy' itself is not actual physical substance.

 

But if a real physical substance then what is it's atomic number?

Ummm, no.

 

I was thinking along the lines of the zero energy theory as described here -- http://m.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html

[Vigile]

 

In my experience, large swaths of issues are governed by those who haven't formed an opinion based on study, but as a result of PR efforts instead. This has poisoned the discourse of society making it almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the important issues of our time with most people.

 

 

The Achilles heal of democracy - advertising is brainwashing.

 

 

Not just advertising, but a thriving yellow press and an MSM that is owned by the plutocrats.

[bornagainathiest]

 

But, I thought there WASN'T any energy???? Did I misunderstand something somewhere else?

If not mistaken I think what was said was that 'energy' is a theoretical concept to explain the force released from matter to produce momentum of mass at rest, yet 'energy' itself is not actual physical substance.

 

But if a real physical substance then what is it's atomic number?

 

 

Aside from yourself, who in this forum is saying that energy is a real physical substance, Justus?

[Xerces]

Concerning the article. I read it and also the comments. 

I really like this one.

 

Michael Merrill wrote:

 

I completely disagree with this article. Here's why:

 

The words "you are wrong" are the worst words you could ever use to try and persuade someone to see your point of view. These words make everyone's mind stop working. If you use these words, you have already decided to no longer think, because you "know" that you are right. You will not listen to anything the other has to say. If you hear these words, you will also stop thinking, because you have now lost any respect you had for the person that is speaking to you, and most likely feel that the person speaking to you is a pompous "know it all".

 

 

Facts can be very illusory. You might have all the facts you need to back up your point of view, only to later discover that your facts were not facts at all, or that they had much less to do with what you "knew" to be true than you originally thought.

If we eliminated the words "you are wrong" from our vocabulary, perhaps we could have more discussions and less debates. More learning from each other and less "trying to teach others what we ourselves don't really know"

 

To quote Socrates: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

 

I would additionally add that perhaps the writer should read his own article about the difference between facts and opinions. I'm sure it was difficult to admit that you were wrong about the water, but the least you could do was state that you had the "facts" wrong, instead of stating that your "opinion" on water was wrong.