|06 July 2003 at 04.11.57 ZuluTime
Posted by Hunter [188.8.131.52 - 12-211-202-152.client.attbi.com] on 06 July 2003 at 04.11.57 ZuluTime:
In Reply to: im sorry i think the atheist posted by Dawud on 05 July 2003 at 06.34.27 ZuluTime:
Since this is obviously copypasted, this must be the paper you're now claiming you weren't posting. Good... I'll be commenting in brackets [like this].
I'll be commenting in brackets [like this].
The question of the existence of God yields only problematic proofs and answers.[Lead in sentence is flat, and a little to blunt. Lacks interest or creativity, and is likely just your paper title with a few more words tacked on. Also, there's no logical transition between the first and second sentence; in fact, your second sentence seems to change the topic entirely.] Since atheists might claim that they know nothing about God then let us [You mean 'let me', and 'me' is inappropriate in a paper like this. Generally, in fact, pronouns such as this are inappropriate. By the way, YOU are asserting; WE aren't. You cannot make your general audience 'assert' something.] just assert one characteristic of Him['Him' does not need to be capitalised. By doing so, you're showing a bias.]. God is infinite[Did you not learn what a transition was? Or do you think that nothing transitional, even in writing, exists? You cannot go around topic jumping like this; it's just not proper.]. Boom there it is[This entire sentence is inappropriate in this paper.]. That's all you need to know[This sentence is inappropriate as well; it's painfully inappropriate. In fact, you've essentially just ended your paper here, and you've failed.]. On his deathbed, Thomas Aquinas admitted that all his work to explain God could be equivalent to that of “straw,” meaning there is no complete or concrete answer defining God and His works[And yet ANOTHER change of topic without transition even between sentences. This would at LEAST have to be a new paragraph.]. For theists, these lack of answers are consoled by ones faith[Wow; you almost got a transition in. It's a shoddy copout of a transition, but it almost works.]. Faith is infinite[You're making a habit of choppy sentences. It's very horrid, and it shows your literacy level. And when did this paper become about 'faith' instead of your misunderstanding of atheists, or Aquinas, or whatever it was a few sentences ago?]. It solves all the questions you may have, you just say, "I believe," and problem solved[So you've gone from choppy sentences to inappropriately punctuated sentences. [The faith of the theist] solves all the questions you may have.
You just say, "I believe," and problem solved.. Problem solved is inappropriate; find a new way to end the sentence. For that matter, 'You' is also inappropriate for the paper. I don't know who taught you that this writing style would get you by in the world with anything better than burgerflipping, but, well, I'm sure they're just spawning a proud line of burgerflippers....]. However, F[f, not F. Letters do not get capitalised after a comma.]or atheists these lack of answers define their argument for God’s non-existence[Minus half total points for poor research into your jump-around topic.]. Here in [Herein, not Here in. Herein means "In" or into this"; herein may be inappropriate for this sentence.] lies my own theory [Appropriately, this sentence would be preceeded by a reason, and followed by your theory. You're not much for propriety, though, are you?].The question of God’s existence is presumably a “yes or no” answer[No quotes, although if you were to use quotes, they would go around "yes" or "no". And your presumption is false. Anyone of any measurable intelligence can see more than just a 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question. Yes, no, maybe, no comment, no opinion....]. Yes, God does exists says theists[And here you presume that all theists worship your one true deity. I'm tempted to deduct points again for your lack of research into your topic, and your obvious bias.]. No, God doesn’t exist says atheists[This sentence justifies my taking off of points for your lack of research into the topic.]. Give me a break [Inappropriate personal emotional exclamation in. Inappropriately punctuated, too.]He either does or He doesn't! [Given that you've allowed for no other option even before this, this exclamation is again inappropriate, not only in the paper but in the context of the paper.] sheeesh, anyway...["sheesh" is not a word; the entire comment is wholly inappropriate, and nearly justifies throwing out the paper entirely. Also, your ellipsis is improper.] Therefore if we can agree on what I said before that if God was anything He would be infinite;[RUN ON! Assuming the exclusion of the emotional bullshit between this sentence and the last...the use of 'therefore' is still inappropriate. Therefore needs a comma after it. The rest of the sentence defies logic and attempts at rearranging it into logic. The semicolon is also inappropriate, since the entire sentence -- the entire paper even -- needs to be tossed out and redone, with a new topic.] our proof of His existence will always be finite["Our" is inappropriate. Also, basing your paper on forcing your reading audience into 'assuming' something for the sake of your paper is wholly inappropriate. You should not HAVE to force them into assuming; you should be able to present enough evidence so that this assumption is not necessary.] for our proof can only be perceived by that which is finite, in our case, human beings[Run on again. And largely illogical. Since, basd on your forced assumption of this deity, humans too would be infinite. Or have you forgotten that your assumption leads directly into your forced belief of Heaven or Hell, and the infinite afterlife of 'eternity in torment' or 'eternity serving god'? Again, this evidences your poor research into your subject.]. This is why one will never find a “complete” answer in explaining God[Save for the theists who have found a complete answer and use their assumed complete answer to justify their faith. Invalid statement that does not follow that which is implied by everything you've stated beforehand.]. I will explain this later[I certainly hope this is an accidental note-to-self left in. It's inappropriate. In fact, I hope it's a note-marker that was going to let you know that you had to come back and put your explanation HERE, because not having an explanation here is a bad thing. The explanation is REQUIRED here. Not that you've paid any attention to requirements prior to this.]. But what if solving this “yes or no” question can be answered by disproving one side[Sentence out of place. No "But" necessary. Possibly new paragraph, except starting a paragraph with a 'what if' statement is inappropriate, and rather trite.]. In other words, I cannot fully prove “yes” but I can fully disprove “no.” ["I" statements; inappropriate.] Yes cannot exist with out no and if one is eliminated, then all that will remain is the opposite [Illogical, and you've just trapped yourself. If yes cannot exist without no, then by eliminating one side, both sides cease to exist.]. In this case, if it’s not one, it’s the other[Except that you've chosen a nonexisting 'one side' to oppose the side you're arguing for. Does anyone know what that's called? Class? Anyone?]. Let me first state that it is not my intention to take atheist beliefs out of context or to explain their side of the story with any sort of bias[First off, throw this sentence out. It's another "I statement". Secondly, you're demonstrating bias by failing to research both sides of the argument fully, and by assuming that your option is the only option. Shiva would not be pleased. Also: by stating that atheists have 'beliefs' in or against your specific deity, you're not only taking their 'beliefs' out of context, but you're ascribing 'beliefs' where there are none. You're taking a group, as a whole, stereotyping them according to your BELIEF of them, and using that. You might as well be writing about niggers, chinks, kikes, gooks, or bok wai.]. The following information I took from “popular” atheist web sites, so I will make the mistake of assuming that this is the consensus of popular atheistic belief[I statement again. And if you're assuming it's a mistake, you shouldn't be putting it in the paper.]. First off, what is an atheist? [Inappropriate.] An atheist is quite simply someone who does not believe in the existence of God/Gods or anything supernatural for that matter[Does not believe. Lacks belief. Good. You got something right. Not that you got it completely right; you failed on the punctuation aspect; you also failed to take into account that 'god/gods' doesn't even begin to refer to your specific deity ONLY.]. They believe (or disbelieve) that we do not have a soul that survives the death of the body so essentially everything is comprised of matter [They lack belief in a soul; it's the same thing as the previous comment, with 'soul' in the place of 'deities'. Here you begin to twist the atheists' lack of beliefs into something that fits your assumption of them.]. Ideas such as moral codes and meanings in life seem to vary and are not genuinely consistent[Just a side note: "moral codes" are not constant. Societal propriety is not constant.]. Some hold a Nihilistic point of view that claims there is no reason for anyone to behave morally and everyone should take what they can when they can[You obviously lack an understanding in nihilism. Points off for failure to research.]. Some perhaps few maintain a viewpoint similar to that of Lucretius, a Roman philosopher, who criticized pursuits of physical pleasure and instead encouraged a simple way of life as to achieve “serenity.”[Now you're dancing toward entirely different philosophies. More points off for failure to research.] These are perhaps the two extreme views of atheism but atheists do share a common pragmatic viewpoint of reality in that they all consider themselves “free thinkers.” [Actually - and again, points off for research - while one who holds no belief in a deity would indeed be atheistic, having philosophies on top of that -- whether they be disbelieving in the whole of reality, or Buddhism, or anything else -- does not make them 'extremes of the 'atheist' views. Such philosophies make them whatever philosophy they hold, atheistic or not.] The following are quotes (1,2) taken from a web page concerning how atheists find “meaning” in life. [Improper quoting; improper punctuation; lack of citation.](1)“Many atheists live a purposeful life. They decide what they think gives meaning to life, and they pursue those goals. They try to make their lives count, not by wishing for eternal life, but by having an influence on other people who will live on. For example, an atheist may dedicate his life to political reform, in the hope of leaving his mark on history.” [Okay, found it: infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html. Which makes me wonder why you have such an inappropriate view of atheists. This page seems to get it fairly right.](internet text) [Inappropriate citation.]This person then goes on to say [Pathetic attempt at quote inclusion, following up a previous pathetic attempt at quote inclusion.](2)“It is a natural human tendency to look for "meaning" or "purpose" in random events. However, it is by no means obvious that "life" is the sort of thing that has a "meaning".” (internet text)I find nothing but contradiction in quotes (1) and (2). The first quote says, “live a purposeful life” and “meaning to life.” [This quote should have been a continuation of the first quote.]Then the second turns around and says, “it is by no means obvious that "life" is the sort of thing that has a "meaning".” [This is not a 'turn around'. A 'turn around' would imply that the person was contradicting itself. There is no contradiction there. It is, literally, NOT OBVIOUS that life has meaning, other than that which people desperately attempt to place upon it. Read further: "What is the meaning of this cup of coffee?"] To clarify, quote (1) describes finding meaning and purpose in ones life and quote (2) says life does not have a meaning, which is inconsistent. [Wrong, but that doesn't surprise me at all. I suppose the author of the article you're quoting should have assumed that the reader wouldn't be smart enough to understand the words, and written it accordingly.] Now it is said that just because something is true for “the parts”(an individual’s life) does not mean it is necessarily true for “the whole,”(life in general) but I don’t think that fallacy necessarily applies here [No, description of composition does not have a damned thing to do with anything. If that's indeed what you just cited. Fallacies generally don't have any proper place anywhere. That's why they're called 'fallacies'.]. I think this person has unknowingly pointed out a very probable explanation to the meaning of life and that is, the meaning of life can be to find meaning in life[...since it's a normal human reaction to desperately seek for 'meaning'...as they stated. Just because we search for meaning does not mean that there is an overall definite 'meaning'. Reading comprehension was a prerequisite, you know....]. Isn’t this essentially what everyone ends up doing anyway in life? This is simple but consistent, for finding “meaning” in life is something atheists and theists all do alike. Such becomes the meaning if there is no meaning at all. [This last group of sentences doesn't even need me to pay attention to it; the entire thing needs rewritten anyway. You're quite lucky you got a teacher that didn't actually read papers, or likely didn't know a damned thing about English Comp. Or reality.]
This next quote clarifies atheist beliefs on morality. [Wow; you found out how to make a new paragraph, but you used it inappropriately!]
“If you mean "Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?” then the answer is no. Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how a person will behave. Most atheists follow many of the same "moral rules" as theists, but for different reasons. Atheists view morality as something created by humans, according to the way humans feel the world 'ought' to work, rather than seeing it as a set of rules decreed by a supernatural being.” (internet text) [Again an improper citation....]
So atheists follow the same moral codes as theists. Atheists would say, “No we made up these codes ourselves.” [Strawman. Obvious strawman, especially with the quote right n front of you. And I'd even call into question that an atheist follows anything resembling what a theist follows, except that an atheist is far less likely to break the law. You don't see a whole hell of a lot of atheists running around blowing up abortion clinics for god, do you? The moral code set down for theists isn't even remotely similar to the morality of the atheist. That, of course, is obvious, since no two people will have the exact same 'moral code'. But this is obviously something you failed to understand.] Theist would say, ”God gave us these codes to live by.” [Actually, a theist would say "God gave us these rules to live by" and then turn around and say "God told me to" when they break one of these rules. At least, they have...not that this matters. Obviously, you're the only one who knows anything about reality, aren't you? Failure to research both sides of position; obvious bias.] The question is who is leading whom here? [No, actually, there was no question here.] Through out[Throughout, not 'through out'.] history the majority of mankind (population and government) has always been theist [Appeal to popularity. Blatant, utter fallacy.] so whether they like it or not atheists have been following theist codes this whole time [Assumption based on appeal to popularity. False assumption.], which in turn, were apparently sent from God.[See previous comment] Ironically, Atheists follow these codes only because they seem to make sense for some reason [Um, I don't think that's irony.... Oh yeah, and, need for new paragraph coming up.]. What makes an atheist happy? [Needs new paragraph. Needs new paper. The happiness of atheists is an entirely seperate topic.]Life doesn’t seem to have as much worth if one is not happy and content [Invalid assumption; personal opinion. Does not matter.]. What gives them comfort? [Happiness and comfort are two seperate things.] Once again I apologize if this is not how all atheists feel[If you think it's wrong, then you shouldn't state it. Again.]. When asked the question, “"So how do atheists find comfort in time of danger?" the response was, “There are many ways of obtaining comfort: Your family and friends, Pets, Food and drink, Music, television, literature, arts and entertainment, Sports or exercise, Meditation, Psychotherapy, Drugs, Work.” (internet text)[Again, you've copied directly from the same source without citing it.]
This is saddening because according to this, this person will never truly be happy for all their “comforts” and sources of happiness are dependant on external things that will never last (meditation being the exception)[Perhaps it saddens you, but then, you have a desperate need to pretend there's something better after this, because you're discontent with your curent life, and feel no need to change it. The problem here lies not with us, but with you.]. Your friends and family are gonna die["gonna" is not a word. But then, so are you. Death is a part of life; accept it and move on. I have. I've had plenty of friends and family die, yet I'm capable of living on without pretending that I'm going to see them again someday. It's true: I can see them again someday. In pictures, in video, in my own memories. But that's quite enough. They've lived their lives; I'm living mine. I see no need to focus on the end of my life, and the assumed 'afterlife' where I may be able to 'see' them, if it's the afterlife I'm assuming it is.], you're gonna eventually eat all the food in your house [Again with the 'gonna'. And food can be replaced. Food is a renewable commodity. Oh, drat, I've eaten all of my potato chips? Well, gee, I'll just go get more.], your guitar is going to break a string [So restring it? Strings aren't that expensive; and it's not that hard to restring a guitar.], and so on...[Improper use of an ellipsis. Everything you've just stated, by the way, is an illogical, unrealistic view of reality. Yes, things end, but just because your tyre goes flat doesn't mean that there are no other tyres on the planet. It also doesn't mean that you haven't got two good legs to walk on. Or the ability to drag yourself by your fucking tongue if need be.] the point is these things are FINITE ["The", not "the". And while things may be finite, they're not nearly as finite as you pretend they are]. they dont last[Yet they can be replaced. Weird, huh?]. there for [Therefore. Needs comma.] if one derives happiness from things that fade [comma....] then that persons happiness is goin[g] to fade in the same way[Why does that reek of logical fallacy?]. that person is gonna be lookin for the next thing to come along...[Or they're just going to fix the thing that broke. Or not. You're assuming quite a bit about your little strawman here.] oh that would really suck if you lived in a poor country and didnt have anything....[People in poor countries find happiness in things they don't know about? Or do they find happiness in having a good crop, and having a good hunting trip....] i guess it's good to be rich. [So poor people are unhappy? Or are all atheists rich? Pick a conclusion. Pick a fallacy. Pick a topic. Pick anything, since you're not sticking with reality.] the thing is people want to be happy...[Improper ellipsis. Also, why do people want to be happy? What do you base this assumption on? Can you demonstrate ] that is an unalienable trait of human beings [If it were undeniable, would I be able to deny it?]. would you choose to sit on a cactus rather than a chair?[I can safely say that I'd much rather sit on this than this. So yes, I'd much rather sit on a cactus -- of a variety of my choosing -- than a chair -- again, a variety of my choosing.] you are goin against your nature as a human being if you are goin out of your way to be unhappy [I'm just going to give up on commenting on the many, many mistakes you keep making. I should, however, note that one cannot possibly 'go out of their way' to be unhappy, since 'unhappiness' -- or rather 'depression' -- happens within one's own brain, and generally in a manner that a person cannot control. You understand nothing of the subject matters you speak on; you should cease, because you sound like an idiot.]. so is it safe to say theists are more happy than atheists? [No. Just more deluded. More unrealistic. Invalid argument, anyway. You cannot arbitrarily decide that theists are happier than atheists; you cannot, and have not, justified this question, nor have you justified your answer.] i think so... [No, it's fairly obvious that you don't think at all....] well just for starters if a theist is dying, more than likely they are content and axious to meet their God. [Content and anxious are two seperate things. One cannot be content AND anxious at the same time. I think it's safe to say that you've never been around someone who suspects that they may be dying.] an atheist might ( this is my perception) start thinking about the things they didnt get to do [Again, youv'e never been around a dying person, have you? A literally dying person, that is. You once again show that you've failed to research your topic.]. rememeber dust to dust.["Ashes to ashes, dust to dust" is from The Book of Common Prayer; it's from a religious burial rite based on Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.. "Ashes to ashes; dust to dust" has nothing to do with atheism.] and who is more likely to be selfish, a theist or an atheist? [You might want to think about this logically before you even dare pose this question....]a theist is taught to give and give and give till it hurts.. [A theist is taught that it's good for them to give, yet that 'good deeds' do not save them. Theyr'e taught contradictory things in that, but you'll find that a majority of theists who do good works do them to benefit their own salvation. This is very nearly the epitome of selfishness.]look at mother teresa... [Yes let's look at Mother Teresa. Wow. Look what I can support with just five minutes, and the internet....]ever done something nice for an atheist who u are a complete stranger to? [Actually, when I do something for someone, their religion never comes into question. Religion or lack thereof, if I do something for you, I do something for you. And if someone does something for me, and I don't know them, a "Thanks" is usually all that's required.] they look at you like you have other motives. they might be thinking, "hmmm i wonder what's in it for him" [Blatant fucking strawman. I know for a fact you've never seen this. Nobody acts like this unless 1. they're the type of person to do things and expect something in return, or 2. someone who knows you and knows that YOU only do good things when YOU expect something in return.]
ok one more thing.... there are infinite more things i could say...
I doubt that; there's a finite number of things you could possibly say with your vocabulary....
an atheist would say well if God is there let him show Himself, then I would believe...
Actually, an atheist would state "If there's a deity, then said deity should show itself. If said deity does show itself [and I say 'said deity', and not 'God', because there's far more than just The Holy Trinity, Inc. out there to consider. This is something you've failed to consider. You and I are both the same; I just fail to believe in one more god than you do. And I'm not nearly as fucking retarded....], then I shall ACCEPT that this deity exists.
HAHAHAHAAHAH sorry but that is A LIE!!!
No, it was a strawman; slight difference, you bombastic little fuck.
if God showed Himself to an atheist that person is more likely to be like "OH SHIT, I MUST BE TRIPPING!"
Actually, no, I would never say that, as I've never done any drugs that result in 'tripping'. And, well, I'd have to assume that 'tripping' involves a few more things than just seeing a 'deity'. Or I should hope so, because if not, why bother with hallucinogenics? Who the hell says "Oh shit, I must be tripping" anyway? Aside from you, that is....
than beleive and respond like a theist saying "My Lord and My God."
Oh, I sincerely doubt that if a deity appeared, you'd be saying "My Lord and My God." You'd likely resort to the former, and doubt it. But then, that's your nature -- to deny reality....
the whole point is to BELIEVE.
The whole point is to expect, suppose, assume? To have faith in the validity of something, even against all available evidence? Sorry, no. That's not the 'whole point' of 'everything ever', as you're making it out to be. Belief is not the meaning of life. You've already decided that life has no meaning other than the meaning you personally give to it; you cannot now decide that the whole point to life is to believe....
if u need a sign to believe in God then you are a NON BELIEVER in the first place!
You, obviously, needed a sign; you obviously saw the sign. Whatever that sign may be.
sorry for yelling
No, you're not.
i would also like to appologize for any steroe types i might have made
Apologies don't work when you're arguing from willful ignorance that could've been corrected had you just read and comprehended.
im sure u have plenty about me...
A stereotype is a generalisation about a group of people. Are you -- singular person that you are -- a group of people?
carry on... if u want email me and tell me im a moron...
I make all my responses out in the open where everyone can see them. I'm not a coward.
by the way this is not a college paper like someone might have said..
You mean that bit that was word for word the same as the 'college paper' you were going to copypaste from in the room is now not a college paper? That's very dishonest of you.
this is for this site.
Except: "horselessryder : im gonna be cutting and pasting from a paper i wrote in college"
again i would like to appologize, im sure i would have been alot kinder if i was explaining this in person to you the reader but as things are i feel like im just talking to myself and venting my frustrations.
No, I'm sure you wouldn't have; you certainly weren't in the room. You were just as bombastic. You willfully ignored every comment made, and blamed it on your inability to 'keep up'. When offered a chance to post here, you ranted about how I couldn't give you a 'logical reason' for posting here. You're really rather pathetic. Can you come up with an excuse for that?
any sorry if i have judged anyone... IM A JERK.
Again, you're not sorry. If you were 'sorry', you wouldn't have done it in the first place. Moreover, you wouldn't have jumped at the chance in the room, with your first line....
There are things that exist that are unseen that u cannot perceive with your five sences...
Things that are proven to exist that cannot be percieved by any of the five senses -- ANY of them? Not a one? Name ten.
can you hear your intellegence?
Yes. I can hear my intelligence. I can hear my intelligence in my words. I can hear my intelligence in the words of others, by hearing them and being able to understand them.
can you smell you memory?
Yes. I can smell a memory. I can have a memory of a smell, and smell it from memory, and a smell can trigger a memory attached to the smell. That would be 'smelling my memory'.
there are so many things i could say but later...
That you "could" say? I doubt that.... ~Hunter PS: Here's your grade.... Now go cook my burger right this time.... -H
PS: Here's your grade....
Now go cook my burger right this time.... -H