Click to expand
Level -103 Content: others can't stand you
OfflineSend mail to butthurtmachine Block butthurtmachine Invite butthurtmachine to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||7/28/2013|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Comment Thumbs:||103 total, 101 , 204|
|Content Level Progress:|| 6.77% (4/59) |
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 0% (0/1) |
Level -203 Comment: developing wizard powers → Level -202 Comment: developing wizard powers
|Total Comments Made:||169|
latest user's comments
|#6347517 - no i want specifically them not others MAY GOD HELP MY SOUL||10/24/2013 on Autism Board||-1|
|#6347488 - I want to have a sexual intercourse with a brony I don't k… [+] (4 new replies)||10/24/2013 on Autism Board||0|
|#6346065 - no leave i am not reptile but love you||10/24/2013 on Autism Board||+1|
|#6346040 - did u know his for none confidence is value of life of food of… [+] (1 new reply)||10/24/2013 on Autism Board||0|
|#6346014 - technical humanity is not war it 99 self of 54 but we are war itself [+] (3 new replies)||10/24/2013 on Autism Board||+2|
|#6346001 - I am madly in love with you pls show your body||10/24/2013 on Autism Board||0|
|#44463 - No, the fedora phase has ended||10/24/2013 on Religion Board||0|
|#44461 - >mfw 99.99999999% here are fedora wearing faggots and are l… [+] (32 new replies)||10/24/2013 on Religion Board||0|
#44485 - rebornpooper (10/24/2013) [-]
There were some Christfags here, but most of them stopped coming since all the atheishits did was start to resort to name calling and repeat the same drivel over and over again no matter how many times the Christfags proved them wrong, and the only reason why they "didn't" prove the Athetits wrong is because of fallacious-loaded, cliche and dumbass bullshit like "absence for evidence is the same thing as evidence of absence".
#44487 - rebornpooper (10/24/2013) [-]
Butthurt thumbs down? Surprising as ever, metalmind.
Actually, it's not.
Let's take the case that: Absence of evidence = Evidence of Absence
And, since we're attacking the claim that both are equal: Evidence of Absence = Absence of Evidence
Next, let's take a sentence: "Only faggots don't differentiate the two."
Now, let's run a few tests to prove the flaw in this logic.
If we look for a certain arrangement of characters in the sentence that spells the word "donkey", then we can see that the pattern shows no occurrence in the sentence. This can extend beyond simple "we can't see donkey there" by asserting a few cases that prove to be true: all words in the sentence that begin with 'd' do not end with 'y'. There are only 2 words in the sentence (don't and differentiate) that begin with a d, yet we see that none of them end with a 'y'. As such, donkey can not be a word in the sentence because we have proven that such a case is not possible. This is evidence of absence in the word "donkey".
Next, let's say that a number is written on a sheet of paper I have sitting on my lap. Any case that regards whether the number is odd or even has just as much evidence as the opposite. A lack of evidence in any statement occurs, so in order for a confirmation to be presented, a wider scope of the topic to be presented is needed before judgement is confirmed or made.
There you go. Simple, untwisted logic. "Technically", the argument is bullshit because it's flawed. If you want, you can try to prove me wrong, get butthurt and thumb me down followed by a name-call, or whatever, but repeating some bullshit from whatever anti-theist blog seems to be floating around these days doesn't change anything except for the amount of delusion this board faces.
#44491 - Sethorein (10/25/2013) [-]
I'm really trying to understand your comment... if you write the word donkey it exists because there is clear evidence of its existence sitting right there on the screen... I doubt you'll find many atheists claiming the word "god" does not exist. However, if you were to ascribe the term "donkey" to a live donkey you would be saddled with the burden of proof. You would need to find some way to prove that the donkey described in text really is/was real. Did your argument refute that? I couldn't really figure it out...
#44514 - rebornpooper (10/25/2013) [-]
Resubmitted to include better spacing.
1. Stop twisting the logic around to fit some retarded "burden of proof" argument. You're not smart because you can selectively read.
2. "If we look for a certain arrangement of characters in the sentence that spells the word "donkey", then we can see that the pattern shows no occurrence in the sentence." Stop using selective reading to try to ignore this bluntly-stated introduction to create some fucktarded thesis that holds no water. We can the prove that there is an absence of the word "donkey" in the experimental area (the sentence) even though we know the requirements for the testing subject (donkey). This proves that the evidence of absence does not need to be, and is thus not reliant on the absence of evidence since we can confirm this without using the evidence that "I don't see where 'donkey' is typed in the sentence". As such in the case two, the lack of evidence as to which number is written on the paper on my lap is not evidence that there is no number on a sheet of paper on my lap. That's stupid, since all that it takes to disprove that claim is a timestamp that the paper exists with a blurred photo effect to mask the number written on it. Once that happens the credibility of previous claim-maker is brought into question.
3. We don't need to prove that a donkey is real in order for the case to be valid. Why would we need to? Stop trying to do the logical equivalent of cramming your dick into a pile of poop and then say that you lost your virginity by doing anal with le sexi woman. We can say that the word "two" exists in the sentence provided without explaining what "two" refers to and still be logically, and because we can test the validity of the claim that "two" exists in the sentence, scientifically correct. We're not talking about a donkey, you stupid shit, we're talking about a word instance of "donkey".
4. Your response doesn't refute my argument because it's retarded as fuck.
#44602 - reliquishedpooper (10/26/2013) [-]
Sees something he doesn't agree with...
Thumbs it down like mad.
Can't even defend the viewpoint outside of retarded "shut up".
Go ahead faggot, if you think what I'm saying is wrong, then by all means challenge it. Just do a better job at it than your little pow-wow who's still stuck at getting offended by insults on the internet.
#44610 - reliquishedpooper (10/26/2013) [-]
"Tainted this website"
Lol. You mad. This website's been shit for years.
"But that's basically besides the point in this particular case."
Like how you can't handle whenever somebody tells you the truth about a broken string of logic? Go ahead and use the broken thumb system all you want. The thing is that you and I aren't so different. I recognize that I'm a cancer to this site. Once upon a time though, you are too. Stop preaching this "holier than though" lulzy bullshit, and actually leave this board, multimedia.
#44625 - azumeow (10/26/2013) [-]
Why does it matter so much if I show up every once in a while? All I did was thumb you down. If anything, YOU'RE the buttmad one, not me. Literally all I did was insult you, but here you are insisting that I'M the angry one.
And by the way, diminishing your own shittiness by saying the whole website is shit doesn't make it any better for you. You're basically just making an excuse for it.
And "broken string of logic"? You insulted seth because he genuinely couldn't follow your comment up there. I couldn't follow it either, mainly because wordplay is far from my strong suit. I'm better with numbers. Hah, now I'M making excuses. Fine, I'll say it plain as day: I suck at debating, which is why I usually ignore it. I admit as much.
#44630 - reliquishedpooper (10/26/2013) [-]
It's not a surprise that the posts criticizing an atheist get thumbed down, surprisingly, by an atheist with a history of getting overwhelmed by the drama of this board. If I'm the mad one, then why do I constantly need to resort to the most drastic of insults followed by a block? This is a new low, even for you multimedia, especially since the thumb count I get for this account is meaningless to me (this is hardly my first or my main account). You've always been over-emotional in your debating... resorting to name-calling, blocking users who call you out on your bullshit. How expected, and but the joke is just starting to grow stale.
And yet, Seth's fault for not comprehending the comment was his own, if it were convincing that he had asked non-rhetorically. He skipped through and didn't read the comment through as proved later in the argument (if you had read it instead of getting buttmad), and followed up the brutal clarification with an obvious loaded question that had little to do with the discussion and instead attacking theists when there was no call for. At this point, his agenda had changed, engagement was created, and he deserved what had come to he.
Now, for the life of me I don't really give a shit about your personal excuses or any other sympathy bullshit like that because you need an excuse to not have read a simple logic trail, especially since you've shown me again that you on a personal level are too immature to consider identity in debate to be of any worth (and this is coming from someone with a name with "pooper" in it).
So go ahead, now that it's all out on the field and you most likely won't respond to it in a formal, or even worthy flame manner, you're just going to give the usual? A generic and/or weak insult and a block? Me smile since we'll do this later on, when I make you mad again. Stupidity and cancer are resilient; you and I spawn of those two things respectively.
#44645 - azumeow (10/27/2013) [-]
I block you because normally you don't exhibit this level of calmheadedness. Normally you just seem like any other dumbass shitposter.
Maybe I misunderstood what you're like. But I still think your reasoning is flawed and your argument is presented in an unclear and VERY poor format.
And seriously, is stupid the only thing you can call me? I've literally been in the top 5% of my classes up until last year, and get a full ride at my university (which is over $40k a year in tuition so clearly everybody else sees something there that you don't.
#44533 - rebornpooper (10/25/2013) [-]
Found BETTER better pic
>Let's try to state it in under 12 sentences
What's the matter, not used to reading more than elementary school "John the Deer Goes to Bed" short story bullshit? Can't take 12 sentences? You really are worth a novel of insulting, you know that? Anyone who can't sit down and read for 30 seconds has any place discussing anything regarding the deep philosophical, scientific, and logical topics that religious discussion can bring up.
Well, since you're as stupid, short-sighted, and ignorant enough to think that selective reading, the worst logic I've seen since I had to attend to our local special needs recess, and general autism counts as a good comeback here's five sentences since you're too much of an ADHD child to read the relatively short character limit:
We are not talking about whether or not God exists now, stop changing the topic. We are talking about the validity of the logic that is "technically correct" (bullshit). Your entire first sentence is a weak straw-man, and a bullshit one at that because Christfags do bring up philosophical and logical pieces of evidence, yet, once again, this and the validity of said evidence has nothing to do with whether or not absence of evidence is equal to evidence of absence. Stop trying to change the topic because you can only give a rat's-ass of a response, and stop assuming that I am a Christfag. You are a huge, god-damn (pun intended), fucking idiot, and no amount of pseudo-intellectual bullshit that you spew is going to change that as long as you act as logical as a morbidly obese second grader trying to convince his worried-for-her-son's-weight mommy that he should get a candy bar.
No, pinning a response on the insults doesn't change anything about the validity of the challenge to my argument. All it does is create a cheap attempt to evade the point.
#44540 - Sethorein (10/25/2013) [-]
and you just wasted another 2000 or so odd characters trying to make me upset. Goodness you're an angry person.
My point from the start has always been a case of "do you have evidence for god?". Not bullshit philosophy, but physical evidence that can be quantified and replicated or at the very least recorded with an objective tool. You get so hung up on this silly mathematical equality that you've derived from the phrase "absence of evidence = evidence of absence". I'll agree with you, the phrasing of that is poor. "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is a bit better. It's not flippable. It is just looking at whether evidence is present and if there is no evidence then there is no object. Simple concept, no?
By the way, I asked for under 12 sentences because almost everything you say in your petty rants are personal attacks with no development of your argument whatsoever.
Any time you want to stop attacking me, go ahead.
#44558 - reliquishedpooper (10/25/2013) [-]
If your only reply follows the logic of "it isn't because it isn't" without any proof what-so-ever, then turn around and demand evidence, then congratulations, you're a hypocritical little smugfag. "Then there is no object" is simply nothing more than baby logic. You are on the intellectual level of babies at this point. Let that sink in for a moment before processing that a concept is limited to a scope of knowledge. If this was a scientific fact that all evidence for any given item is present, then we run into fucktarded shit like Schrodinger's Cat. Here's the thing though, not everything exists in the universe to care for pissy little humans. Under the same logic, hydrogen didn't exist because there wasn't proof of it for people of ancient times, and aliens are non-existent because we have not found solid evidence for life outside of Earth in 2012. If I hold a non-transparent bag of sealed cat litter, then obviously cat litter does not exist in the bag. Even though the bag says "cat litter", there needs to be solid, undeniable proof of cat litter. Weight, complexion? Those could just be beads, not cat litter. It could be, but I'm not sure of it, so it isn't, because cat litter doesn't exist in there. No logically mature being states this while shopping for cat litter, but this same logic is thrown around by athetits all over this board. Of course it's a simple concept, similar to a simple claim that clean water is red. Both are simple. Both are bullshit.
"No development of your argument whatsoever"
Please don't make me laugh harder than I am.
"pinning a response on the insults doesn't change anything about the validity of the challenge to my argument. All it does is create a cheap attempt to evade the point."
Of course, reading would actually prevent such a pussy display of gaining an upper moral hand. Hell, that would be if you had anything worth saying. You do not. Your logic actually polarizes to that previous simile about the fatass child who wants candy.
#44562 - Sethorein (10/25/2013) [-]
finally some progress. Btw, for someone accusing me of logical fallacies you use an awful lot of ad hominem.
If you came to me with an unlabeled bag and said it had cat food in it I wouldn't believe you. If the bag had a logo like Iams on it, then suddenly I have some evidence, but still, I cannot conclude that it is cat food. Perhaps after a series of other tests I can have cats eat the content of the bag and if its nutritional value is on par with the theoretical data associated with cat food, then maybe I can conclude that the objects contained in the bag were indeed cat food. Not before verification though.
That's not immature, it's bloody scientific. If you believed everyone who handed you an unlabeled bag and told you it was cat food, you'd have a lot of dead cats.
Even Schrodinger's cat had evidence as to its probability of being alive or dead. The issue lay in the fact that there was exactly 50% chance of both states occurring and neither could be verified which forced the conclusion that the cat is both alive and dead until observation proves otherwise by verifying the state.
Why do we not need to verify God?
#44564 - reliquishedpooper (10/25/2013) [-]
Don't even play this card with me. I can list off dozens that you've given me, but I'll just start off with fallacy by fallacy (ignoring everything I said because it contains a fallacy, specifically ad hominem. Your hugbox post confirms this)
>trip about cat food
Except that there's just as much evidence to suggest that it's cat litter as much as it's crystals that experience combustion when exposed to oxygen. And, of course we run into the fucktarded problem with Schrodinger's cat. The cat's existence is not dependent on whether or not someone looks into the box. That's just a stupid ego-centered philosophical bullshit.
>It's bloody science
No, it's infantile object permanence. Look it up. Science doesn't say that the universe is created only whenever humanity can see it. By making an assumption that entity example doesn't exist, you're committing the opposite in direction, but not in flaw of scientific approach by acting without evidence. Science recognizes whenever more evidence is needed and tries to work towards getting more evidence for entity example. If entity example can not exist because of true statements, then science confirms that entity example is not possible, therefore does not exist.
"Why do we not need to verify God?"
We're not talking about theism/atheism, we're talking about whether or not the absence of evidence is the same thing as the evidence of absence. That topic is irrelevant.
#44575 - reliquishedpooper (10/25/2013) [-]
1. I did not mention that in an already established thread to change the topic.
2. I recognize the irony here, but at the same time want to seek opinion of those with a random bias regarding atheism/theism.
3. I was able to cite where you did the actions described, without rephrasing them to skew their original meanings.
4. I did so in a response to your hugbox.
5. I did not create the hugbox in observation to the fact that opposing party could not post.
6. I did not bluntly misinterpret the opponent's argument in the hugbox opening, I simply restated what opposing party had done.
For someone who loves fallacies so much, you sure don't have a tough time playing tu quoque, autistic squirrel fucker.
#44579 - Sethorein (10/25/2013) [-]
and yet you only provided the source when someone else asked... originally you just skewed my points and rephrased them. Oh and I'm pretty sure you didn't want the opinions of people unbiased on the topic. In fact when someone called you out on the reality of the situation by saying "I think the point went over his head..." which is ACTUALLY what started this you outright denied his point. I was genuinely confused by your point and wanted clarification before you went off on a rant.
#44587 - reliquishedpooper (10/26/2013) [-]
"Only presented evidence when asked."
Red Herring point. The responses I provide ride the character limit as is, and I leave a full disclaimer that I can and will cite my sources on request. I am not afraid to, because (often unlike you) I can actually back up the bytes of shit that I type.
"originally you skewed my points and rephrased them"
The difference is that I can go through, highlight what I pulled from, then put it side-by-side to compare your bullshit statements and get summaries of most of your comments. The "equation" bullshit and other things I mathematically calculated (and given you slack) to contain what was explained. In addition, you've proven throughout the argument to not have fully read (or comprehend) my posts before making judgement. I can cite this, and asking me to in a smug fashion doesn't constitute a victory, it's just a cheap attempt at diffusing the opponent's credibility. Let me explain why that strategy doesn't work: because if the opponent can cite it, the citation works to strengthen the argument of the opponent and weaken the credibility of the presenter by challenging the resources he/she has left to resort to.
"someone called you out on the reality"
Lol. You expect that (ironically) unsupported garbage to be the "reality" of the two concepts whenever not only is the claim seeking trouble in acceptance outside of the atheist community (atheists alone do not compose of the primary authorities in formal logic ruling), but it has again no actual source, either logical or authoritative. I think the reverse is true here.
"I was genuinely confused"
1. Again, rereading the first sentence of the first real paragraph answered that completely.
2. A question of confusion doesn't need the smugfag elaboration you continued with.
3. The moment you started with the "so you don't think you're required to provide evidence" strawman(!) bullshit, you were already offering your autistic opinions to be ridiculed.
4. You're a huge fucking idiot.
#44565 - Sethorein (10/25/2013) [-]
the concept of absence of evidence being evidence of absence is an argument to do with verifying God. There is nothing irrelevant about asking why it is wrong to want to verify God. I AM pursuing more evidence as I clearly keep asking for evidence of God. I am not saying schrodinger's cat does not exist I'm saying its state of living or dead is unknown until we observe it. This is similar to how the position of electrons cannot be known unless observed so we assume they occupy all of their potential areas when plotting Molecular Orbits.
This isn't object permanence. I don't deny that things that I've seen that I no longer see stop existing. I am saying that we ought to see the thing first before we go and presume it existed. The opposite phrase: presence of evidence is evidence of presence. If you provide evidence, the claim that something exists becomes much more valid.
#44585 - reliquishedpooper (10/26/2013) [-]
Yes, it is irrelevant. We are talking about the logical validity of the statement, and whether or not the method should be taken as formal logic. Yet, you've continually tried to stray from this topic (don't even bother with this "prove it" bullshit, I can cite where you've done it and, if you're not a complete retard, you can too) to a more favorable one that somehow makes you less full of shit than you are now.
"is unknown until we observe it"
And yet the life of the cat is not dependent, in reality, on human observation. The cat does not disappear from the universe because it can not be observed. Yet, using the logic presented, the cat is non-existent until the box is re-opened. Congrats, we now have a retarded double standard.
"Before we presume it existed"
NEGATIVE CLAIMS ARE STILL CLAIMS AND THUS REQUIRE EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THEIR POSITIVE COUNTERPARTS. BEING A GRAMMATICAL INVERSE DOES NOT MAKE IT A SCIENTIFIC INVERSE. HOW MUCH MORE SIMPLE DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOUR ARROGANT, SMUG, CHILDISH ASS? I'VE HAD EASIER TIMES TEACHING DOGS TO POOP IN A LITTER BOX. YET YOU'D MISREAD THAT AS POOP IN CAT FOOD. IT WOULD BE EASIER TO TRAIN A DOG TO POOP IN CAT FOOD WITHOUT EATING IT THAN GETTING THIS CONCEPT THROUGH YOUR DENSE WASTE OF A SKULL. I THINK I'LL GO TRY IT.
|#14552 - >2013 >Sports wooooooooo autism||10/24/2013 on Sports - sports news, news...||-9|
|#6345935 - hi [+] (2 new replies)||10/24/2013 on Autism Board||0|