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

[Fweethawt]

This should help SOME people here distinguish between the two states of most debates here.

 

Basically, just because you think something is your, or someone else's opinion, stating such is not a "win" to any argument/debate. Someone is still wrong.

 

http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-7611752

[mymistake]

Very good article.  This goes for "I beLIEve" as well.  It doesn't matter if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3.  Oh do

 

you believe that 2 + 2 = 5?  Well too bad, it's still wrong.

[disillusioned]

 

Very good article.  This goes for "I beLIEve" as well.  It doesn't matter if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3.  Oh do

 

you believe that 2 + 2 = 5?  Well too bad, it's still wrong.

 

 

Oh...what  about this?:  

 

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html 

 

 

I've brought this and similar things up here before and received mixed responses. "2+2=4" is not an absolute truth. It is a statement, which may or may be true depending on which formal system we are using. In other words, it depends what we mean by "2", "+", "=", and "4". Then again, these days I'm finding that I don't believe in absolute truth at all, so maybe my perspective isn't really that relevant to this thread.

[mymistake]

 

Very good article.  This goes for "I beLIEve" as well.  It doesn't matter if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3.  Oh do

 

you believe that 2 + 2 = 5?  Well too bad, it's still wrong.

 

 

Oh...what  about this?:  

 

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html 

 

 

 

It's giving me "404 Not Found".

[Thurisaz]

"Everyone's entitled to her own opinion but not to her own facts"

 

Methinks not much more needs to be said besides this one line

[sdelsolray]

Yes, good article.  The Balkanization of the word "opinion" has rendered the word imprecise.

[Justus]

Very good article.  This goes for "I beLIEve" as well.  It doesn't matter if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3.  Oh do

 

you believe that 2 + 2 = 5?  Well too bad, it's still wrong.

 

Did you say 5?  I guess you never heard of the 5th anomaly.  If I use the same method of deducing my answer, then theoretically the principle of mathematics would prevent  me from effecting the same solution.  Using your 2 + 2 = 5, if 2 + 2 = 5 then 5 - 2 would equal 2 which it doesn't.   Likewise if 3 x 12 = 36, the 36 divided by 3 would equal 12, or if divided by 13 would equal 3.  

 

So what is 5% of 45?  I will presume that you will say that the answer is 9.  Moreover, that 9 is the only principled answer that is correct.

 

But what if my answer is 18, would it  be wrong?  If I divide 45 by 5 and then multiply the answer by 5 then if it equals 45 then it would right, no?  

 

Here is a link that will explain it better than I can.   LINK    You tube

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Very good article.  This goes for "I beLIEve" as well.  It doesn't matter if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3.  Oh do

 

you believe that 2 + 2 = 5?  Well too bad, it's still wrong.

 

 

Oh...what  about this?:  

 

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html 

 

 

I've brought this and similar things up here before and received mixed responses. "2+2=4" is not an absolute truth. It is a statement, which may or may be true depending on which formal system we are using. In other words, it depends what we mean by "2", "+", "=", and "4". Then again, these days I'm finding that I don't believe in absolute truth at all, so maybe my perspective isn't really that relevant to this thread.

 

Good point.  2 + 2 = 11 in Base 3.

[florduh]

It is my opinion that carrying to absurdity a simple statement and point that everyone understands just for the sake of argument is not useful.

[mymistake]

 

Very good article.  This goes for "I beLIEve" as well.  It doesn't matter if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3.  Oh do

 

you believe that 2 + 2 = 5?  Well too bad, it's still wrong.

 

Did you say 5?  I guess you never heard of the 5th anomaly.  If I use the same method of deducing my answer, then theoretically the principle of mathematics would prevent  me from effecting the same solution.  Using your 2 + 2 = 5, if 2 + 2 = 5 then 5 - 2 would equal 2 which it doesn't.   Likewise if 3 x 12 = 36, the 36 divided by 3 would equal 12, or if divided by 13 would equal 3.  

 

So what is 5% of 45?  I will presume that you will say that the answer is 9.  Moreover, that 9 is the only principled answer that is correct.

 

But what if my answer is 18, would it  be wrong?  If I divide 45 by 5 and then multiply the answer by 5 then if it equals 45 then it would right, no?  

 

Here is a link that will explain it better than I can.   LINK    You tube

 

 

 

Wow.  Just wow.

[Astreja]

So what is 5% of 45?

 

2.25.  10% of 45 is 4.5; halve that for 5%.

[sdelsolray]

 

Very good article.  This goes for "I beLIEve" as well.  It doesn't matter if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3.  Oh do

 

you believe that 2 + 2 = 5?  Well too bad, it's still wrong.

 

Did you say 5?  I guess you never heard of the 5th anomaly.  If I use the same method of deducing my answer, then theoretically the principle of mathematics would prevent  me from effecting the same solution.  Using your 2 + 2 = 5, if 2 + 2 = 5 then 5 - 2 would equal 2 which it doesn't.   Likewise if 3 x 12 = 36, the 36 divided by 3 would equal 12, or if divided by 13 would equal 3.  

 

So what is 5% of 45?  I will presume that you will say that the answer is 9.  Moreover, that 9 is the only principled answer that is correct.

 

But what if my answer is 18, would it  be wrong?  If I divide 45 by 5 and then multiply the answer by 5 then if it equals 45 then it would right, no?  

 

Here is a link that will explain it better than I can.   LINK    You tube

 

Justus doesn't understand 5th grade math involving percentages.

 

He's a funny guy.

[mymistake]

 

 

Very good article.  This goes for "I beLIEve" as well.  It doesn't matter if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3.  Oh do

 

you believe that 2 + 2 = 5?  Well too bad, it's still wrong.

 

Did you say 5?  I guess you never heard of the 5th anomaly.  If I use the same method of deducing my answer, then theoretically the principle of mathematics would prevent  me from effecting the same solution.  Using your 2 + 2 = 5, if 2 + 2 = 5 then 5 - 2 would equal 2 which it doesn't.   Likewise if 3 x 12 = 36, the 36 divided by 3 would equal 12, or if divided by 13 would equal 3.  

 

So what is 5% of 45?  I will presume that you will say that the answer is 9.  Moreover, that 9 is the only principled answer that is correct.

 

But what if my answer is 18, would it  be wrong?  If I divide 45 by 5 and then multiply the answer by 5 then if it equals 45 then it would right, no?  

 

Here is a link that will explain it better than I can.   LINK    You tube

 

Justus doesn't understand 5th grade math involving percentages.

 

He's a funny guy.

 

 

 

He might have been joking.  The link he provided was certainly a joke.

[Fweethawt]

It is my opinion that carrying to absurdity a simple statement and point that everyone understands just for the sake of argument is not useful.

Thank you. And bless your fucking heart.

[Justus]

 

 

Very good article.  This goes for "I beLIEve" as well.  It doesn't matter if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3.  Oh do

 

you believe that 2 + 2 = 5?  Well too bad, it's still wrong.

 

Did you say 5?  I guess you never heard of the 5th anomaly.  If I use the same method of deducing my answer, then theoretically the principle of mathematics would prevent  me from effecting the same solution.  Using your 2 + 2 = 5, if 2 + 2 = 5 then 5 - 2 would equal 2 which it doesn't.   Likewise if 3 x 12 = 36, the 36 divided by 3 would equal 12, or if divided by 13 would equal 3.  

 

So what is 5% of 45?  I will presume that you will say that the answer is 9.  Moreover, that 9 is the only principled answer that is correct.

 

But what if my answer is 18, would it  be wrong?  If I divide 45 by 5 and then multiply the answer by 5 then if it equals 45 then it would right, no?  

 

Here is a link that will explain it better than I can.   LINK    You tube

 

Justus doesn't understand 5th grade math involving percentages.

 

He's a funny guy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very good article.  This goes for "I beLIEve" as well.  It doesn't matter if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3.  Oh do

 

you believe that 2 + 2 = 5?  Well too bad, it's still wrong.

 

Did you say 5?  I guess you never heard of the 5th anomaly.  If I use the same method of deducing my answer, then theoretically the principle of mathematics would prevent  me from effecting the same solution.  Using your 2 + 2 = 5, if 2 + 2 = 5 then 5 - 2 would equal 2 which it doesn't.   Likewise if 3 x 12 = 36, the 36 divided by 3 would equal 12, or if divided by 13 would equal 3.  

 

So what is 5% of 45?  I will presume that you will say that the answer is 9.  Moreover, that 9 is the only principled answer that is correct.

 

But what if my answer is 18, would it  be wrong?  If I divide 45 by 5 and then multiply the answer by 5 then if it equals 45 then it would right, no?  

 

Here is a link that will explain it better than I can.   LINK    You tube

 

Justus doesn't understand 5th grade math involving percentages.

 

He's a funny guy.

 

 

 

He might have been joking.  The link he provided was certainly a joke.

 

 

Common on, Ma & Pa Kettle they're hilarious.   The 5th anomaly, LOL, but actually it does work for all 5% of number divisible by 5.

 

Here another perception twister, while riding on a two wheel vehicle when do you turn right to go left, or left to go right?  or would you always turn left to go left and right to go right?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-g5ptad8l4

[Fweethawt]

 

 

 

Very good article. This goes for "I beLIEve" as well. It doesn't matter if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3. Oh do

 

you believe that 2 + 2 = 5? Well too bad, it's still wrong.

Did you say 5? I guess you never heard of the 5th anomaly. If I use the same method of deducing my answer, then theoretically the principle of mathematics would prevent me from effecting the same solution. Using your 2 + 2 = 5, if 2 + 2 = 5 then 5 - 2 would equal 2 which it doesn't. Likewise if 3 x 12 = 36, the 36 divided by 3 would equal 12, or if divided by 13 would equal 3.

 

So what is 5% of 45? I will presume that you will say that the answer is 9. Moreover, that 9 is the only principled answer that is correct.

 

But what if my answer is 18, would it be wrong? If I divide 45 by 5 and then multiply the answer by 5 then if it equals 45 then it would right, no?

 

Here is a link that will explain it better than I can. LINK You tube

Justus doesn't understand 5th grade math involving percentages.

 

He's a funny guy.

 

 

 

Very good article. This goes for "I beLIEve" as well. It doesn't matter if you believe that 2 + 2 = 3. Oh do

 

you believe that 2 + 2 = 5? Well too bad, it's still wrong.

Did you say 5? I guess you never heard of the 5th anomaly. If I use the same method of deducing my answer, then theoretically the principle of mathematics would prevent me from effecting the same solution. Using your 2 + 2 = 5, if 2 + 2 = 5 then 5 - 2 would equal 2 which it doesn't. Likewise if 3 x 12 = 36, the 36 divided by 3 would equal 12, or if divided by 13 would equal 3.

 

So what is 5% of 45? I will presume that you will say that the answer is 9. Moreover, that 9 is the only principled answer that is correct.

 

But what if my answer is 18, would it be wrong? If I divide 45 by 5 and then multiply the answer by 5 then if it equals 45 then it would right, no?

 

Here is a link that will explain it better than I can. LINK You tube

Justus doesn't understand 5th grade math involving percentages.

 

He's a funny guy.

 

He might have been joking. The link he provided was certainly a joke.

Common on, Ma & Pa Kettle they're hilarious. The 5th anomaly, LOL, but actually it does work for all 5% of number divisible by 5.

 

Here another perception twister, while riding on a two wheel vehicle when do you turn right to go left, or left to go right? or would you always turn left to go left and right to go right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-g5ptad8l4

I believe anything over 15 mph on a bike causes you to have to steer the opposite direction you want to go. This screws up a lot of people during slow maneuver training.

[Paul]

The fact is, we do not have a linear existence.  It goes against the laws of physics. Argue against it as long as you may, but you are arguing against physics.

 

The Ring is the truth. Plays, legends, transportation, nature (hydrologic cycle), music (circle of fifths), the Solar System, Cycle of Seasons, Day and Night. What atheists offer is a broken ring. One that cannot be worn or be of any use. It is a ridiculous, nonsensical idea. For if it were true then we would not have night and day, we would not have seasons. The water cycle would not work. The broken ring violates all the laws of the universe. It is a disgrace and a gross offence against the Great Architect. You think you know better than your Creator? Then why can you not build a perpetual machine?  Oh, I hear you say. Nothing created the universe. Nothing set it into motion. Then why not try it yourself? Put a ball in the centre of your living room. Stand with your back against the wall. Now try to move the ball without throwing something at it or touching it with a stick, or asking someone else to move it. Or, sit in your car and wait for it to start itself.

 

You think the Flood is also a ridiculous idea. Tell me, how would you propose to alleviate the problem of human overpopulation and unsustainability from time to time without destroying the planet?

 

Best wishes,

Paul.

[disillusioned]

The fact is, we do not have a linear existence.  It goes against the laws of physics. Argue against it as long as you may, but you are arguing against physics.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to when you say "linear existence".

 

The Ring is the truth. Plays, legends, transportation, nature (hydrologic cycle), music (circle of fifths), the Solar System, Cycle of Seasons, Day and Night. What atheists offer is a broken ring. One that cannot be worn or be of any use. It is a ridiculous, nonsensical idea. For if it were true then we would not have night and day, we would not have seasons. The water cycle would not work. The broken ring violates all the laws of the universe. It is a disgrace and a gross offence against the Great Architect. You think you know better than your Creator? Then why can you not build a perpetual machine?  Oh, I hear you say. Nothing created the universe. Nothing set it into motion. Then why not try it yourself? Put a ball in the centre of your living room. Stand with your back against the wall. Now try to move the ball without throwing something at it or touching it with a stick, or asking someone else to move it. Or, sit in your car and wait for it to start itself.

 

See, here you try to explain what you said above, but it doesn't really make sense.

 

Yeah, some things are cyclic. The earth goes around the sun, and rotates on its axis. These things give us day and night (due to the rotation of the Earth on its axis), and seasons (due to the tilt of the Earth and its revolution about the Sun). The water cycle has to do with the fact that we live on a planet in which water exists in all three states (due to our atmosphere and position in space with respect to the Sun). There is no water cycle on Mercury, for example.

 

A perpetual motion machine violates conservation of energy. As soon as the machine starts doing work, it's using energy. This energy must either be replaced, or the machine will eventually stop. I don't see what this has to do with the above,  however.

 

As for the universe creating itself, this is a much more complex question. I've never actually argued that this, precisely, is the case. Most people that I know don't argue this either. What I argue is that it is possible that the Universe does not require a creator. I'm happy to go into more detail on this if you would like, but for now I will simply say that your examples here fail because they are attempts to apply your understanding of the laws of the Universe to the Universe. The laws of the Universe apply to objects within the Universe. They need not apply to the Universe as a whole. If you wish to argue that they must, then you must provide evidence to this effect, but I don't see what form that evidence could possibly take.

 

You think the Flood is also a ridiculous idea. Tell me, how would you propose to alleviate the problem of human overpopulation and unsustainability from time to time without destroying the planet?

 

Best wishes,

Paul.

 

Now that you mention it, that's a good point. I guess the holocaust was also helpful in this regard. So was Rwanda. Hmm. I guess even ISIS is doing their part. But they're clearly not doing enough, seeing how as we currently have the worst case of overpopulation in history, and we're already destroying the planet.

 

If you want people to take you seriously, you might want to dial back the support of genocide. Most decent people find it repulsive.

[mymistake]

The fact is, we do not have a linear existence.  It goes against the laws of physics. Argue against it as long as you may, but you are arguing against physics.

 

The Ring is the truth. Plays, legends, transportation, nature (hydrologic cycle), music (circle of fifths), the Solar System, Cycle of Seasons, Day and Night. What atheists offer is a broken ring. One that cannot be worn or be of any use. It is a ridiculous, nonsensical idea. For if it were true then we would not have night and day, we would not have seasons. The water cycle would not work. The broken ring violates all the laws of the universe. It is a disgrace and a gross offence against the Great Architect. You think you know better than your Creator? Then why can you not build a perpetual machine?  Oh, I hear you say. Nothing created the universe. Nothing set it into motion. Then why not try it yourself? Put a ball in the centre of your living room. Stand with your back against the wall. Now try to move the ball without throwing something at it or touching it with a stick, or asking someone else to move it. Or, sit in your car and wait for it to start itself.

 

You think the Flood is also a ridiculous idea. Tell me, how would you propose to alleviate the problem of human overpopulation and unsustainability from time to time without destroying the planet?

 

Best wishes,

Paul.

 

 

Well if it isn't the AposTROLL Paul.  Willful ignorance is not fact, Paul.

[Paul]

I have given all the evidence I need. It stares you in the face every day of your life: the seasons, day and night, your moods, everything. The ring is perfect and never ending. Your broken ring is flawed and imperfect. And it ends. Well then, why doesn't the hydrologic cycle have an end?

 

Your citations of genocide were created by 1) the Nazis, a collection of people who despised Christianity and followed the ideals of the superman put forward by Nietzsche, and  2)  ISIS, a collection of bloodthirsty, disaffected pseudo-Muslims who are learning the Koran on the hoof. But if you are talking about the Flood, then yes, perhaps cleansing of the planet is necessary from time to time to ensure the continued existence of the planet. You are thinking too much like a human and not like a Deity. As I see it, the Bible is not covering the entire history of the earth, but a cycle of it. The Ring again.

 

Best wishes,

Paul.

[mymistake]

I have given all the evidence I need. It stares you in the face every day of your life: the seasons, day and night, your moods, everything. The ring is perfect and never ending. Your broken ring is flawed and imperfect. And it ends. Well then, why doesn't the hydrologic cycle have an end?

 

Your citations of genocide were created by 1) the Nazis, a collection of people who despised Christianity and followed the ideals of the superman put forward by Nietzsche, and  2)  ISIS, a collection of bloodthirsty, disaffected pseudo-Muslims who are learning the Koran on the hoof. But if you are talking about the Flood, then yes, perhaps cleansing of the planet is necessary from time to time to ensure the continued existence of the planet. You are thinking too much like a human and not like a Deity. As I see it, the Bible is not covering the entire history of the earth, but a cycle of it. The Ring again.

 

 

 

See what I mean?  He is a troll.

 

 

 

"I am indeed just a troll who wants to argue. I don't want to 'win souls' for Jesus, and I have no evidence that God is real. I have a massive ego and it likes to be massaged from time to time."

 

-Paul,  post 61, "The Real God" thread

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/68874-the-real-god/page-4#.VcNdiXjT55g

[Paul]

I see, I am a troll because I digress from the mutual backslapping club of ex-Christian.net?

 

 

Best wishes,

Paul

[disillusioned]

 

I have given all the evidence I need. It stares you in the face every day of your life: the seasons, day and night, your moods, everything. The ring is perfect and never ending. Your broken ring is flawed and imperfect. And it ends. Well then, why doesn't the hydrologic cycle have an end?

 

Your citations of genocide were created by 1) the Nazis, a collection of people who despised Christianity and followed the ideals of the superman put forward by Nietzsche, and  2)  ISIS, a collection of bloodthirsty, disaffected pseudo-Muslims who are learning the Koran on the hoof. But if you are talking about the Flood, then yes, perhaps cleansing of the planet is necessary from time to time to ensure the continued existence of the planet. You are thinking too much like a human and not like a Deity. As I see it, the Bible is not covering the entire history of the earth, but a cycle of it. The Ring again.

 

 

 

See what I mean?  He is a troll.

 

 

 

"I am indeed just a troll who wants to argue. I don't want to 'win souls' for Jesus, and I have no evidence that God is real. I have a massive ego and it likes to be massaged from time to time."

 

-Paul,  post 61, "The Real God" thread

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/68874-the-real-god/page-4#.VcNdiXjT55g

 

 

Yup, He's a troll. But that's ok, because apparently he "thinks a Deity", unlike you and I MM. We're only lowly humans. Clearly such things are beyond us.

[Paul]

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

 

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

 

Best wishes,

Paul.

[RogueScholar]

Paul, how exactly are we arguing against physics? Are you looking at using thermodynamics and kinetics arguments? I actually had to learn and use a bit of thermodynamics when I studied undergraduate chemistry. I am curious to see what kind of argument you are using. However if you are wanting to discuss this in a robust and serious manner I would expect you to understand the basic quantitative aspects of thermodynamics.