Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://conquerclub.com/forum/
I am heartened that you have decided to set down, for a moment, the pitchfork and torch, excuse yourself from the mob you were forming and once again swing the pendulum of cognition back to Reason.Metsfanmax wrote:Few evolution deniers actually believe the science is wrong without believing that because of their religion, and therein lies the rub. To deny the validity of the Bible is to deny the validity of Christianity - because if one doesn't believe in the set of stories presented in the Bible, then Christianity is simply a way, as George Carlin excellently put it, for people to gather and compare clothes once a week. It would be no different from any generic belief, and functionally no different from abiding by a set of moral rules which happened to coincide with the ten commandments. These people aren't just believers in a higher power; they're a member of a social group, which powerfully shapes their views.Queen_Herpes wrote:I don't understand why the evolution deniers don't just accept evolution and claim that God made it that way.
It is a logical fallacy to assume that emotion and logic are mutually exclusive. I may post emotionally, but everything I say is logically justified to the best of my knowledge.saxitoxin wrote:I am heartened that you have decided to set down, for a moment, the pitchfork and torch, excuse yourself from the mob you were forming and once again swing the pendulum of cognition back to Reason.Metsfanmax wrote:Few evolution deniers actually believe the science is wrong without believing that because of their religion, and therein lies the rub. To deny the validity of the Bible is to deny the validity of Christianity - because if one doesn't believe in the set of stories presented in the Bible, then Christianity is simply a way, as George Carlin excellently put it, for people to gather and compare clothes once a week. It would be no different from any generic belief, and functionally no different from abiding by a set of moral rules which happened to coincide with the ten commandments. These people aren't just believers in a higher power; they're a member of a social group, which powerfully shapes their views.Queen_Herpes wrote:I don't understand why the evolution deniers don't just accept evolution and claim that God made it that way.
(We'll see how long it stays this time before swinging back in the roller-coaster of emotion that marks Met posts.)
While I agree with Mets I, nonetheless, am infinitely amused by the use of situational selective logic, posited without any sense of self-awareness.
Oh no! After all this you're really still seeing these phantasms? We've demonstrated, repeatedly, your situational application of logic in ways that confound the imagination and accost the reasoned senses. But still you're convinced you are a purveyor of Reason?Metsfanmax wrote:It is a logical fallacy to assume that emotion and logic are mutually exclusive. I may post emotionally, but everything I say is logically justified to the best of my knowledge.saxitoxin wrote:I am heartened that you have decided to set down, for a moment, the pitchfork and torch, excuse yourself from the mob you were forming and once again swing the pendulum of cognition back to Reason.Metsfanmax wrote:Few evolution deniers actually believe the science is wrong without believing that because of their religion, and therein lies the rub. To deny the validity of the Bible is to deny the validity of Christianity - because if one doesn't believe in the set of stories presented in the Bible, then Christianity is simply a way, as George Carlin excellently put it, for people to gather and compare clothes once a week. It would be no different from any generic belief, and functionally no different from abiding by a set of moral rules which happened to coincide with the ten commandments. These people aren't just believers in a higher power; they're a member of a social group, which powerfully shapes their views.Queen_Herpes wrote:I don't understand why the evolution deniers don't just accept evolution and claim that God made it that way.
(We'll see how long it stays this time before swinging back in the roller-coaster of emotion ampthat marks Met posts.)
While I agree with Mets I, nonetheless, am infinitely amused by the use of situational selective logic, posited without any sense of self-awareness.
Who exactly is "we," and when did said "we" actually demonstrate that? I recall no post where you actually showed in any way that I apply logic only selectively. You've simply asserted that without proof, and apparently you've said it enough times that you actually believe it now.saxitoxin wrote:Oh no! After all this you're really still seeing these phantasms? We've demonstrated, repeatedly, your situational application of logic in ways that confound the imagination and accost the reasoned senses. But still you're convinced you are a purveyor of Reason?Metsfanmax wrote:It is a logical fallacy to assume that emotion and logic are mutually exclusive. I may post emotionally, but everything I say is logically justified to the best of my knowledge.saxitoxin wrote:I am heartened that you have decided to set down, for a moment, the pitchfork and torch, excuse yourself from the mob you were forming and once again swing the pendulum of cognition back to Reason.Metsfanmax wrote:Few evolution deniers actually believe the science is wrong without believing that because of their religion, and therein lies the rub. To deny the validity of the Bible is to deny the validity of Christianity - because if one doesn't believe in the set of stories presented in the Bible, then Christianity is simply a way, as George Carlin excellently put it, for people to gather and compare clothes once a week. It would be no different from any generic belief, and functionally no different from abiding by a set of moral rules which happened to coincide with the ten commandments. These people aren't just believers in a higher power; they're a member of a social group, which powerfully shapes their views.Queen_Herpes wrote:I don't understand why the evolution deniers don't just accept evolution and claim that God made it that way.
(We'll see how long it stays this time before swinging back in the roller-coaster of emotion ampthat marks Met posts.)
While I agree with Mets I, nonetheless, am infinitely amused by the use of situational selective logic, posited without any sense of self-awareness.
I was referring to the "pendulum of cognition" analogy you made. Since the bob on a pendulum can only be at one place at one time, that analogy implies that I cannot post using both reason and emotion at the same time.(BTW, with a tedious heart I feel it necessary to point-out your most recent logical fallacy. It's a logical fallacy - an amphiboly to be exact - to assume that "roller-coaster of emotion" equals "mutual exclusion of emotion and logic.")
Are you devolping my flying car? No?PLAYER57832 wrote:Developing a flying car requires understanding physics, aerodynamics, etc. While it is just barely possible to get those without knowledge upon which evolution is based, it is not possible to achieve much more without truly understanding science. Truly understanding science precludes believing young earth theories.DirtyDishSoap wrote:If it really was critical I'd rather focus on the now then our past, dismiss religion and the theories of how we came about and have people start working on my flying car.PLAYER57832 wrote:People who understand that science is critical to our society.DirtyDishSoap wrote:Who cares?
I want my flying car.
You don't have to know the constitution to know that you have rights in the US, but it helps!
That statement would have been correct if you had cut it off after the word communicate. You haven't said a single thing which makes any sense in the last two or three days; how do you expect me to understand the things you are supposedly trying to tell me? Every single one of your posts is an assertion without a warrant. That's no way to communicate to anyone.saxitoxin wrote:Mets, after multiple posts across multiple threads I don't know how else to communicate to you the rocket ship ride you've been on. It's time to disembark. Ride's over.
Dog doesn't explain to his chew toy why he's fun.Metsfanmax wrote: That statement would have been correct if you had cut it off after the word communicate. You haven't said a single thing which makes any sense [SAXI EDIT] to me [/SAXI EDIT] in the last two or three days; how do you expect me to understand the things you are supposedly trying to tell me? Every single one of your posts is an assertion without a warrant. That's no way to communicate to anyone.
Well, as anyone who understands basic logic knows, asserting that something makes sense to you does not mean it is logically correct (after all, if that were not true, we'd have a lot less of an argument against the religious folk). Since I'm apparently intellectually inferior to you, I'm just going to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about, since you are apparently incapable of explaining it. How can you fault a chew toy for making such an obviously unjustified assumption?saxitoxin wrote:Dog doesn't explain to his chew toy why he's fun.Metsfanmax wrote: That statement would have been correct if you had cut it off after the word communicate. You haven't said a single thing which makes any sense [SAXI EDIT] to me [/SAXI EDIT] in the last two or three days; how do you expect me to understand the things you are supposedly trying to tell me? Every single one of your posts is an assertion without a warrant. That's no way to communicate to anyone.
Chew toy doesn't need to know.
Chew toy just needs to squeak when bitten.
Confucius say: Maybe he should have cut it off before 'the' and only kept the last half?Metsfanmax wrote:That statement would have been correct if you had cut it off after the word communicate.
Maybe you should question the dog less and just squeak?Metsfanmax wrote:Well, as anyone who understands basic logic knows, asserting that something makes sense to you does not mean it is logically correct (after all, if that were not true, we'd have a lot less of an argument against the religious folk). Since I'm apparently intellectually inferior to you, I'm just going to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about, since you are apparently incapable of explaining it. How can you fault a dog for making such an obviously unjustified assumption?saxitoxin wrote:Dog doesn't explain to his chew toy why he's fun.Metsfanmax wrote: That statement would have been correct if you had cut it off after the word communicate. You haven't said a single thing which makes any sense [SAXI EDIT] to me [/SAXI EDIT] in the last two or three days; how do you expect me to understand the things you are supposedly trying to tell me? Every single one of your posts is an assertion without a warrant. That's no way to communicate to anyone.
Chew toy doesn't need to know.
Chew toy just needs to squeak when bitten.
Then buy (or reseve) it. You may have to work overtime; it's really expensive.DirtyDishSoap wrote:I want my flying car.
Oh wtf, I just read yesterday that it would cost $148,000. There goes my shot of getting ittzor wrote:Then buy (or reseve) it. You may have to work overtime; it's really expensive.DirtyDishSoap wrote:I want my flying car.
Terrafugia "First customer delivery is anticipated to be in Q4 2011. Refundable airframe reservations are currently being accepted to hold a place in production. Over 70 aircraft have been reserved, representing an order backlog of $14 million." You need a $10,000 deposit to reserve your flying car and the anticipated purchase price is $194,000.
I'll stick to my Prius.
Mets, seriously, are you okay?Metsfanmax wrote:
Well, as anyone who understands basic logic knows, asserting that something makes sense to you does not mean it is logically correct (after all, if that were not true, we'd have a lot less of an argument against the religious folk). Since I'm apparently intellectually inferior to you, I'm just going to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about, since you are apparently incapable of explaining it. How can you fault a dog for making such an obviously unjustified assumption?
You're asking if I'm okay? I'm the one who's basically called you a moron several times, each time with your concession and even enthusiasm. I'm having fun, really.saxitoxin wrote:Mets, seriously, are you okay?Metsfanmax wrote:
Well, as anyone who understands basic logic knows, asserting that something makes sense to you does not mean it is logically correct (after all, if that were not true, we'd have a lot less of an argument against the religious folk). Since I'm apparently intellectually inferior to you, I'm just going to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about, since you are apparently incapable of explaining it. How can you fault a dog for making such an obviously unjustified assumption?
I'd normally make some trite comment about how I might prescribe you fluphenazine if you were nearer but, honestly, you actually do have me a little worried at this point. PM me if you need to talk.
Ref:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p2676183
It appears you've committed a logical fallacy, Mets. What we refer to, in the Latin, as argumentum verbosium.Metsfanmax wrote:You're asking if I'm okay? I'm the one who's basically called you a moron several times, each time with your concession and even enthusiasm. I'm having fun, really.saxitoxin wrote:Mets, seriously, are you okay?Metsfanmax wrote:
Well, as anyone who understands basic logic knows, asserting that something makes sense to you does not mean it is logically correct (after all, if that were not true, we'd have a lot less of an argument against the religious folk). Since I'm apparently intellectually inferior to you, I'm just going to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about, since you are apparently incapable of explaining it. How can you fault a dog for making such an obviously unjustified assumption?
I'd normally make some trite comment about how I might prescribe you fluphenazine if you were nearer but, honestly, you actually do have me a little worried at this point. PM me if you need to talk.
Ref:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p2676183
Silence ground walker!tzor wrote:Then buy (or reseve) it. You may have to work overtime; it's really expensive.DirtyDishSoap wrote:I want my flying car.
Terrafugia "First customer delivery is anticipated to be in Q4 2011. Refundable airframe reservations are currently being accepted to hold a place in production. Over 70 aircraft have been reserved, representing an order backlog of $14 million." You need a $10,000 deposit to reserve your flying car and the anticipated purchase price is $194,000.
I'll stick to my Prius.
Thanks for the tip, moron.saxitoxin wrote:It appears you've committed a logical fallacy, Mets. What we refer to, in the Latin, as argumentum verbosium.Metsfanmax wrote:You're asking if I'm okay? I'm the one who's basically called you a moron several times, each time with your concession and even enthusiasm. I'm having fun, really.saxitoxin wrote:Mets, seriously, are you okay?Metsfanmax wrote:
Well, as anyone who understands basic logic knows, asserting that something makes sense to you does not mean it is logically correct (after all, if that were not true, we'd have a lot less of an argument against the religious folk). Since I'm apparently intellectually inferior to you, I'm just going to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about, since you are apparently incapable of explaining it. How can you fault a dog for making such an obviously unjustified assumption?
I'd normally make some trite comment about how I might prescribe you fluphenazine if you were nearer but, honestly, you actually do have me a little worried at this point. PM me if you need to talk.
Ref:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p2676183
(Not that you've missed one yet, but, FYI - this is your cue to squeak.)
It seems that the "mystery" of God is an all encompassing mysteriously indecipherable being, yet, when it comes to creation, the holy-rollers seem to "know" that God created "man" straight up without taking some time to develop the creature "that would become man." I mean, if you believe God created it all, and you believe God did it in 6 days, do you also believe that God was using a 24-hour clock?tzor wrote:(2 Peter 3:14-18)Therefore, beloved, since you await these things, be eager to be found without spot or blemish before him, at peace. And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability. But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory now and to the day of eternity. (Amen.)Queen_Herpes wrote:I don't understand why the evolution deniers don't just accept evolution and claim that God made it that way.
In other words they twist the "literal" words and miss out on the deeper more important lessons of the scriptures.
Bah, flying is overrated. If I want to go to space, I'll take the elevator.DirtyDishSoap wrote:Silence ground walker!
Tzor... there is actually a theory that they were in fact dark... or darker than it was before or after.tzor wrote:Consider (sp) the term "Dark Ages." Where they really dark? I mean, look at anchient man and modern man.
I now vote Saxi as obviously the funniest poster on CC.saxitoxin wrote:Dog doesn't explain to his chew toy why he's fun.Metsfanmax wrote: That statement would have been correct if you had cut it off after the word communicate. You haven't said a single thing which makes any sense [SAXI EDIT] to me [/SAXI EDIT] in the last two or three days; how do you expect me to understand the things you are supposedly trying to tell me? Every single one of your posts is an assertion without a warrant. That's no way to communicate to anyone.
Chew toy doesn't need to know.
Chew toy just needs to squeak when bitten.
Why not a rocket? Go to space in style!tzor wrote:Bah, flying is overrated. If I want to go to space, I'll take the elevator.DirtyDishSoap wrote:Silence ground walker!
It appears you've committed a logical fallacy, Mets, what we refer to in the Latin as argumentum ad misericordiam.Metsfanmax wrote:Thanks for the tip, moron.saxitoxin wrote:It appears you've committed a logical fallacy, Mets. What we refer to, in the Latin, as argumentum verbosium.Metsfanmax wrote:You're asking if I'm okay? I'm the one who's basically called you a moron several times, each time with your concession and even enthusiasm. I'm having fun, really.saxitoxin wrote:Mets, seriously, are you okay?Metsfanmax wrote:
Well, as anyone who understands basic logic knows, asserting that something makes sense to you does not mean it is logically correct (after all, if that were not true, we'd have a lot less of an argument against the religious folk). Since I'm apparently intellectually inferior to you, I'm just going to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about, since you are apparently incapable of explaining it. How can you fault a dog for making such an obviously unjustified assumption?
I'd normally make some trite comment about how I might prescribe you fluphenazine if you were nearer but, honestly, you actually do have me a little worried at this point. PM me if you need to talk.
Ref:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p2676183
(Not that you've missed one yet, but, FYI - this is your cue to squeak.)