Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

justatest    

no avatar Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to justatest Block justatest Invite justatest to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:12/25/2010
Last Login:9/19/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 50 total,  126 ,  76
Comment Thumbs: 3152 total,  3715 ,  563
Content Level Progress: 91.52% (54/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 51% (51/100)
Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 232 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:0
Content Views:20541
Times Content Favorited:16 times
Total Comments Made:634
FJ Points:3214

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 1274
    Thumbs Up 34 Thumbs Down 9 Total: +25
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 03/10/12
    old reatost old reatost
  • Views: 4742
    Thumbs Up 17 Thumbs Down 11 Total: +6
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 07/15/12
    fap fap
  • Views: 796
    Thumbs Up 4 Thumbs Down 0 Total: +4
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 01/31/12
    Found it and Lol`d Found it and Lol`d
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

  • Views: 1219
    Thumbs Up 8 Thumbs Down 13 Total: -5
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 07/08/12
    same how morbid same how morbid
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

user favorites

latest user's comments

#216 - well that was some new ideas for me. Ok so as for the world be… 02/12/2014 on Religion... 0
#205 - I understand that you are athiest, but while you were playing …  [+] (2 new replies) 02/12/2014 on Religion... 0
User avatar #213 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
For the record, I am completely aware of what a logical fallacy is, and was well aware of that long before this argument. The fact that you were able to pick up on all of them means I accomplished my goal. The problem when arguing against someone who's religious, is that religion does not operate as a science. Religions are so successful because they exploit the human brain's natural tendency to embrace fallacies like bandwagon or an appeal to tradition. The biggest problem when attempting to argue against religion, is that the majority of religious texts do not adhere to the principle of falsifiability. Now do you see why the burden is on us? If everyone believes that the earth is flat, we have to show them why it's not with unquestionable proof. The same goes for the existence or lack of a higher power. The burden of proof has always fallen to those making bold new claims, and while atheism may not seem new to you or I, we're going up against thousands of years of traditional belief, much of which will never be quelled, because like it or not, we will never be able to definitively make the claim that there is no god, because while we adhere to the principle of falsifiability, others do not.
#216 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
well that was some new ideas for me. Ok so as for the world being flat it`s a claim that can be tested, as for a god you can`t proof a negative. So it`s kind of a dead end, and my only way out as i see it with logic.
#203 - for example your first given example is apeal to emotion falla…  [+] (4 new replies) 02/12/2014 on Religion... 0
User avatar #204 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
Ah got it, well, while I don't disagree that it's an appeal to emotion, the fact remains that the explanations presented in religious texts are long lasting explanations for the existence of life and so forth. Even though I personally don't accept scripture as a valid explanation, religious texts have been so ingrained in society that a large chunk of the world's population still accepts them as proof. Therefore, I firmly believe that the burden of proof is placed upon those who disagree with traditional theological explanations, as we're the new kids on the block, and just like with every other new scientific theory, we must create a complete explanation of things before I'll be willing to call those who disagree with me "stupid."
#205 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
I understand that you are athiest, but while you were playing devils advocate you made so much more logical fallacies that you made my head spin... appeal to tradition, burden of proof, appeal to common practice, bandwaggon, appeal to popularity... you need to work with you reasoning skills... for the record the burden of proof lies on the person how made the claim.
User avatar #213 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
For the record, I am completely aware of what a logical fallacy is, and was well aware of that long before this argument. The fact that you were able to pick up on all of them means I accomplished my goal. The problem when arguing against someone who's religious, is that religion does not operate as a science. Religions are so successful because they exploit the human brain's natural tendency to embrace fallacies like bandwagon or an appeal to tradition. The biggest problem when attempting to argue against religion, is that the majority of religious texts do not adhere to the principle of falsifiability. Now do you see why the burden is on us? If everyone believes that the earth is flat, we have to show them why it's not with unquestionable proof. The same goes for the existence or lack of a higher power. The burden of proof has always fallen to those making bold new claims, and while atheism may not seem new to you or I, we're going up against thousands of years of traditional belief, much of which will never be quelled, because like it or not, we will never be able to definitively make the claim that there is no god, because while we adhere to the principle of falsifiability, others do not.
#216 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
well that was some new ideas for me. Ok so as for the world being flat it`s a claim that can be tested, as for a god you can`t proof a negative. So it`s kind of a dead end, and my only way out as i see it with logic.
#200 - well what`s were knowing your logical fallasies help to sepera…  [+] (7 new replies) 02/12/2014 on Religion... 0
User avatar #202 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, could you rephrase that? I'm not sure that I follow.
#203 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
for example your first given example is apeal to emotion fallasy. It`s a logical fallasy and you can google it to understand more. Sorry for not to be clear but english is not my first language.
User avatar #204 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
Ah got it, well, while I don't disagree that it's an appeal to emotion, the fact remains that the explanations presented in religious texts are long lasting explanations for the existence of life and so forth. Even though I personally don't accept scripture as a valid explanation, religious texts have been so ingrained in society that a large chunk of the world's population still accepts them as proof. Therefore, I firmly believe that the burden of proof is placed upon those who disagree with traditional theological explanations, as we're the new kids on the block, and just like with every other new scientific theory, we must create a complete explanation of things before I'll be willing to call those who disagree with me "stupid."
#205 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
I understand that you are athiest, but while you were playing devils advocate you made so much more logical fallacies that you made my head spin... appeal to tradition, burden of proof, appeal to common practice, bandwaggon, appeal to popularity... you need to work with you reasoning skills... for the record the burden of proof lies on the person how made the claim.
User avatar #213 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
For the record, I am completely aware of what a logical fallacy is, and was well aware of that long before this argument. The fact that you were able to pick up on all of them means I accomplished my goal. The problem when arguing against someone who's religious, is that religion does not operate as a science. Religions are so successful because they exploit the human brain's natural tendency to embrace fallacies like bandwagon or an appeal to tradition. The biggest problem when attempting to argue against religion, is that the majority of religious texts do not adhere to the principle of falsifiability. Now do you see why the burden is on us? If everyone believes that the earth is flat, we have to show them why it's not with unquestionable proof. The same goes for the existence or lack of a higher power. The burden of proof has always fallen to those making bold new claims, and while atheism may not seem new to you or I, we're going up against thousands of years of traditional belief, much of which will never be quelled, because like it or not, we will never be able to definitively make the claim that there is no god, because while we adhere to the principle of falsifiability, others do not.
#216 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
well that was some new ideas for me. Ok so as for the world being flat it`s a claim that can be tested, as for a god you can`t proof a negative. So it`s kind of a dead end, and my only way out as i see it with logic.
#201 - admiralshepard has deleted their comment.
#197 - is logical fallacies stupid?  [+] (9 new replies) 02/12/2014 on Religion... 0
User avatar #199 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
Well, it depends on how you define stupid, since no part of that statement can be disproved at this time. Sure, we can disprove a young earth theory, or a strict interpretation of the Bible, but for people who are not comfortable with the explanation of "well, we can't answer that yet" an intelligent design theory could be very viable.
#200 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
well what`s were knowing your logical fallasies help to seperate good reasoning from bad and your argument examples is a clear cut.
User avatar #202 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, could you rephrase that? I'm not sure that I follow.
#203 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
for example your first given example is apeal to emotion fallasy. It`s a logical fallasy and you can google it to understand more. Sorry for not to be clear but english is not my first language.
User avatar #204 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
Ah got it, well, while I don't disagree that it's an appeal to emotion, the fact remains that the explanations presented in religious texts are long lasting explanations for the existence of life and so forth. Even though I personally don't accept scripture as a valid explanation, religious texts have been so ingrained in society that a large chunk of the world's population still accepts them as proof. Therefore, I firmly believe that the burden of proof is placed upon those who disagree with traditional theological explanations, as we're the new kids on the block, and just like with every other new scientific theory, we must create a complete explanation of things before I'll be willing to call those who disagree with me "stupid."
#205 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
I understand that you are athiest, but while you were playing devils advocate you made so much more logical fallacies that you made my head spin... appeal to tradition, burden of proof, appeal to common practice, bandwaggon, appeal to popularity... you need to work with you reasoning skills... for the record the burden of proof lies on the person how made the claim.
User avatar #213 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
For the record, I am completely aware of what a logical fallacy is, and was well aware of that long before this argument. The fact that you were able to pick up on all of them means I accomplished my goal. The problem when arguing against someone who's religious, is that religion does not operate as a science. Religions are so successful because they exploit the human brain's natural tendency to embrace fallacies like bandwagon or an appeal to tradition. The biggest problem when attempting to argue against religion, is that the majority of religious texts do not adhere to the principle of falsifiability. Now do you see why the burden is on us? If everyone believes that the earth is flat, we have to show them why it's not with unquestionable proof. The same goes for the existence or lack of a higher power. The burden of proof has always fallen to those making bold new claims, and while atheism may not seem new to you or I, we're going up against thousands of years of traditional belief, much of which will never be quelled, because like it or not, we will never be able to definitively make the claim that there is no god, because while we adhere to the principle of falsifiability, others do not.
#216 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
well that was some new ideas for me. Ok so as for the world being flat it`s a claim that can be tested, as for a god you can`t proof a negative. So it`s kind of a dead end, and my only way out as i see it with logic.
#201 - admiralshepard has deleted their comment.
#191 - Ok those are really bad arguments, i grant you that... 02/12/2014 on Religion... 0
#154 - can the points made be more stupid then a religious claim? rea…  [+] (13 new replies) 02/12/2014 on Religion... 0
User avatar #190 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
"I choose to believe in a higher power because I find the prospect of an afterlife far more comforting than the finality of death. Also, it's heart warming to see the beauty of the world and think that a higher being that loves me created it all." - As an atheist, I don't find this stupid at all . . . .
#197 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
is logical fallacies stupid?
User avatar #199 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
Well, it depends on how you define stupid, since no part of that statement can be disproved at this time. Sure, we can disprove a young earth theory, or a strict interpretation of the Bible, but for people who are not comfortable with the explanation of "well, we can't answer that yet" an intelligent design theory could be very viable.
#200 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
well what`s were knowing your logical fallasies help to seperate good reasoning from bad and your argument examples is a clear cut.
User avatar #202 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, could you rephrase that? I'm not sure that I follow.
#203 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
for example your first given example is apeal to emotion fallasy. It`s a logical fallasy and you can google it to understand more. Sorry for not to be clear but english is not my first language.
User avatar #204 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
Ah got it, well, while I don't disagree that it's an appeal to emotion, the fact remains that the explanations presented in religious texts are long lasting explanations for the existence of life and so forth. Even though I personally don't accept scripture as a valid explanation, religious texts have been so ingrained in society that a large chunk of the world's population still accepts them as proof. Therefore, I firmly believe that the burden of proof is placed upon those who disagree with traditional theological explanations, as we're the new kids on the block, and just like with every other new scientific theory, we must create a complete explanation of things before I'll be willing to call those who disagree with me "stupid."
#205 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
I understand that you are athiest, but while you were playing devils advocate you made so much more logical fallacies that you made my head spin... appeal to tradition, burden of proof, appeal to common practice, bandwaggon, appeal to popularity... you need to work with you reasoning skills... for the record the burden of proof lies on the person how made the claim.
User avatar #213 - admiralshepard (02/12/2014) [-]
For the record, I am completely aware of what a logical fallacy is, and was well aware of that long before this argument. The fact that you were able to pick up on all of them means I accomplished my goal. The problem when arguing against someone who's religious, is that religion does not operate as a science. Religions are so successful because they exploit the human brain's natural tendency to embrace fallacies like bandwagon or an appeal to tradition. The biggest problem when attempting to argue against religion, is that the majority of religious texts do not adhere to the principle of falsifiability. Now do you see why the burden is on us? If everyone believes that the earth is flat, we have to show them why it's not with unquestionable proof. The same goes for the existence or lack of a higher power. The burden of proof has always fallen to those making bold new claims, and while atheism may not seem new to you or I, we're going up against thousands of years of traditional belief, much of which will never be quelled, because like it or not, we will never be able to definitively make the claim that there is no god, because while we adhere to the principle of falsifiability, others do not.
#216 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
well that was some new ideas for me. Ok so as for the world being flat it`s a claim that can be tested, as for a god you can`t proof a negative. So it`s kind of a dead end, and my only way out as i see it with logic.
#201 - admiralshepard has deleted their comment.
#166 - testaburger has deleted their comment.
#191 - justatest (02/12/2014) [-]
Ok those are really bad arguments, i grant you that...
#13 - Picture 10/05/2013 on It's been hard on us all!... +5
#10 - Picture  [+] (5 new replies) 10/05/2013 on It's been hard on us all!... +5
#11 - mr skeltal (10/05/2013) [-]
Um ok? I don't want you to be mad... you still seem to think that i'm a troll when i'm not. Obviously you don't agree with me but how about instead of just shouting TROLL you try to form some kind of constructive argument against what I said. That's what big boys do you see.
User avatar #15 - CallMeCrisco (10/05/2013) [-]
"constructive argument"
" I'm sorry that i'm not paranoid and think the world is out to get me... fucking nutcases"

0/10
#24 - carrotpotato (10/05/2013) [-]
His message contained a lot more than just that phrase. You or justatest on the other hand have made no counterargument. I'm not saying that I agree with anon here but he sure is doing much better job in arguing than you two.
#14 - mr skeltal (10/05/2013) [-]
Dude, wait... what if you're the one being trolled... Run! Before trollception gets you!
#13 - justatest (10/05/2013) [-]
#6 - Picture  [+] (7 new replies) 10/05/2013 on It's been hard on us all!... +5
#7 - mr skeltal (10/05/2013) [-]
What the fuck? Don't give me a grade like i'm some kind of troll... i'm being completely serious. People are allowed to disagree, you realize that right? And the person you disagree with isn't automatically a troll you fucking idiot.
#10 - justatest (10/05/2013) [-]
#11 - mr skeltal (10/05/2013) [-]
Um ok? I don't want you to be mad... you still seem to think that i'm a troll when i'm not. Obviously you don't agree with me but how about instead of just shouting TROLL you try to form some kind of constructive argument against what I said. That's what big boys do you see.
User avatar #15 - CallMeCrisco (10/05/2013) [-]
"constructive argument"
" I'm sorry that i'm not paranoid and think the world is out to get me... fucking nutcases"

0/10
#24 - carrotpotato (10/05/2013) [-]
His message contained a lot more than just that phrase. You or justatest on the other hand have made no counterargument. I'm not saying that I agree with anon here but he sure is doing much better job in arguing than you two.
#14 - mr skeltal (10/05/2013) [-]
Dude, wait... what if you're the one being trolled... Run! Before trollception gets you!
#13 - justatest (10/05/2013) [-]

user's channels

Join Subscribe fucking-boobs
Join Subscribe morbid-channel

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)