Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum

JSKANDkjansdjknk

Forum Member
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Relatively Unknown

About JSKANDkjansdjknk

  • Rank
    Penguin

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

About My Character

  • RuneScape Status
    Retired
  • RuneScape Version
    I Don't Play
  • RuneScape God
    Don't Care
  • Combat Type
    Balanced
  1. I no longer use this account and don't need to keep it around, since I'm not active on this website. Is there an admin I can contact to help me delete this account?
  2. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    Proof Of God

    I wasn't... I was using the Crusades as an example. Now it works more like "Hmm... We want petrol... But how? Oh yeah... TERRORISTS!" OK, my mistake. Goodbye.
  3. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    Proof Of God

    "People are disproving my beliefs, and I am so closed minded that I don't even want to hear another person's opinion." -You Hahaha You couldn't be more wrong, or more rude and disrespectful which was the same reason I said I wouldn't be debating here anymore. Besides I was the ONLY one still debating that there was a God and I did it for a decent amount of time, I am not close minded. The line that offended me was this one: the most. Some others offended me because of them saying there isn't a possibility and that they are correct (a lot of the word IS was used). Kwinted you are thoroughly offensive. It offended you because...? That's what happened. If you don't like history you can ignore it. And perhaps I said that his existence IS quite improbable because that's just how it IS? I can back it up with a laaaarge number of arguments, and you can counter it too if you want. I didn't say he is not POSSIBLE, I said he is not PROBABLE... The same way a sperm whale falling from the sky is possible but improbable. The thing when I say that something IS and so on, is because I am thoroughly convinced of this because of lines of reasoning I agree with, and I'm not going to use some conjunctive verbal tense just because you don't agree with my line of thought. Instead of saying I was not respectful, while I think I was since I did NOT EVER direct my words at you directly, you could try and do some debating. If we say all miracles ARE plausible, it's because they perfectly are, all the documentation of so-called miracles (the believable ones, not the ones that involved some really weird stuff that really have no witnesses) directs us to say they ARE. I used an argument, I used an example too, with the prize awarded to people who discover a phenomenon that breaks any of nature's laws. I speak with a base, with fundaments. So when I say stuff IS, and not WOULD be, and I fundament myself, it's because that's pretty damn true! In the same way I could say "It is NOT possible to travel faster than light" while using physics as my base instead of saying "It may NOT be possible to travel faster than light". I was NEVER uneducated to you, I NEVER presented hypothesis without an example, or actual fact, as a base. And Dawn, that defines what I said about God's existence not having a 50/50 probability just because you can't prove he exists or that he doesn't, in the same way I can't prove if fairies exist or don't, but I think every reasonable person would agree they aren't very likely to exist. That's my main argument, and that's the argument to back up my claim to say GOD IS NOT PROBABLE. I suggest Bblu1 to look up probable and possible in the dictionary and draw his own conclusions on the different meaning of those words. You didn't direct your words at me and I wasn't directing my words 100% at you either. There are people just saying that it is not possible on this thread. I really don't get how you thought everything I said was directed at you when you could figure out that you didn't direct your post to me. I am done on this debate now, I was the only one keeping it alive so it is now pretty much dead unless everybody decides to continue responding to my posts and get off topic (like this argument was, it went from proof of God to arguing about the people that were forced to believe in God (which has nothing to do with existence) ). I'm done on this debate, so this debate it OVER. Nobody that believes in God was fighting but me so now that I'm leaving, means that until somebody takes my place this thread is just going to collect dust. P.S When you said you were talking about TODAY, not in ancient history. So that IS OFFENSIVE. I also never said you were not being educated or that you didn't give examples, you just offended me with your harshness which you even said you put in that post. And besides you are not the only reason I am leaving. Please don't respond to this, I am getting quiet tired of my post saying I was leaving turning into an argument. In my opinion you're very disrespectful to people that don't believe in God. And, OBJECTION, I did not call you a retard. I have respect for your beliefs, you can have respect for mine too. Some religious people like to use the word 'offensive' a little too much when it comes to debating the existance of a god. And if you can't stand more people not supporting your logic and therefore have to leave, then I'll gladly show you the way out. I can respect that post, I don't know how I offended you but unlike certain people on the forum I will not go crazy and say I didn't, I will just take it as it is. I do respect your belief's, and I am glad you respect mine.
  4. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    Your Favourite Music Player?

    I use iTunes. I've never had any problems with it.
  5. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    File Sharing

    Other people's opinions are not my own. I like to think for myself thank you. Yes but you shouldn't get the WHOLE album to sample it. And besides you do get a sample from every album, it's called a single. A single is a taste of what you are going to buy. I am alright with piracy in one sense, I ordered an album off of Amazon a little while ago and I couldn't wait to listen to it. So I downloaded it, but I have bought a copy legally so that isn't really bad.
  6. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    Proof Of God

    "People are disproving my beliefs, and I am so closed minded that I don't even want to hear another person's opinion." -You Hahaha You couldn't be more wrong, or more rude and disrespectful which was the same reason I said I wouldn't be debating here anymore. Besides I was the ONLY one still debating that there was a God and I did it for a decent amount of time, I am not close minded. The line that offended me was this one: the most. Some others offended me because of them saying there isn't a possibility and that they are correct (a lot of the word IS was used). Kwinted you are thoroughly offensive. I am not disrespectful towards christians or any religion. All I'm saying is, you're a hypocrite. You're allowed to say that there IS a god, but we're not allowed to say that it's very probable there isn't, because that would be 'offensive' and 'disrespectful'? I never said in a single one of my posts that there IS a God. And I never said that you can't say it isn't probable that there isn't a God. EVER. I just find how harsh and blunt people put things offensive, I even said in one of my posts that the Bible may not even be true. Keep in mind my use of words there, MAY, that is a word I haven't been seeing for responses to anything I post. People come back with "all miracles ARE plausible". I would be absolutely fine with "all miracles could be plausible". You are disrespectful to people that believe in God, I posted something saying I was leaving and you posted something saying I was a close-minded retard. If I had been saying there is no God there would be no response from you. And if you still think you aren't offensive, I wonder why I am offended? It's like playing dodge ball with 1 person on 1 team and 50 people on the other team. I would expect the person fighting alone to quit at some point. I would like you to find a post where I said "there IS a God and you can't say there isn't!". If you found it I would edit it in a second. "People are disproving my beliefs, and I am so closed minded that I don't even want to hear another person's opinion." -You Hahaha You couldn't be more wrong, or more rude and disrespectful which was the same reason I said I wouldn't be debating here anymore. Besides I was the ONLY one still debating that there was a God and I did it for a decent amount of time, I am not close minded. The line that offended me was this one: the most. Some others offended me because of them saying there isn't a possibility and that they are correct (a lot of the word IS was used). Kwinted you are thoroughly offensive. I usually stay away from religious debates, but your post is just ridiculous. Yes, you are close-minded. Other people say that there may be no God. They also provide facts. You take their very probable hypothesis and regard it as a "bashing of people's beliefs", while at the same time "bash atheists' beliefs," as you put it. Also, the part about using God to legitimize shoddy stuff is actually true. Just take the Crusades for an example. I never said the legitimize God stuff wasn't true, I just said how I find it offensive how Jose pretty much said that is the only thing God is used for. Besides that ONLY time when I even said the word bash was when Meidou posted a response to my post and quoted only certain parts of it to change what I was saying so when he had to spread his opinion he didn't have to put it in a "random post". If you can find one post (other than the one where Meidou changed what I was trying to say so he wouldn't put a post out of nowhere) that I did that I would be happy to edit it. My leaving has nothing to do with other people thinking different things, It has to do with me being offended.
  7. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    Proof Of God

    "People are disproving my beliefs, and I am so closed minded that I don't even want to hear another person's opinion." -You Hahaha You couldn't be more wrong, or more rude and disrespectful which was the same reason I said I wouldn't be debating here anymore. Besides I was the ONLY one still debating that there was a God and I did it for a decent amount of time, I am not close minded. The line that offended me was this one: the most. Some others offended me because of them saying there isn't a possibility and that they are correct (a lot of the word IS was used). Kwinted you are thoroughly offensive.
  8. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    Proof Of God

    I'm done on this debate, it's too disrespectful and rude for believers here. Goodbye.
  9. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    File Sharing

    I fixed it for you. Artists also get profit from their music being sold. It isn't all to the record label, the record label gets more but the artist also gets a decent amount. If so people that don't tour and make music wouldn't have lots of money. Except for the fact that the artist should be getting more money because they produced it. I definitely agree with you there, it is quiet unfair that they take most of the money.
  10. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    Proof Of God

    Thats half right. They used God as an excuse to invade a country for there land/resources just like America uses terrorists as an excuse to invade the middle east. None the less that doesn't change the fact that the converted countries did not as a whole want to convert because they loved god they converted because they didn't want to get a pike through the heart. It was the norm back then and i don't hate christians for anything they did hundreds of years ago i'm just saying its a religion that was spread through some very unchristian ways. Those leaders who believed in god felt they were excused from hell because they were flying gods flag during there slaughters and therefore they were doing nothing wrong infact they felt god appreciated there work because they were saving the heathens from hellish banishment. Once again they thought (at the time) it was normal for them to invade. They did use God as strong motivation to invade a country at the time but when asked about it I'm sure they didn't just say "It was for God, which makes it right!". They thought it was good for them to be doing and decided to dedicate it to God because that is another thing that they found good.
  11. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    File Sharing

    I fixed it for you. Artists also get profit from their music being sold. It isn't all to the record label, the record label gets more but the artist also gets a decent amount. If so people that don't tour and make music wouldn't have lots of money. Friend 1: Hey i got this new song by Hannah Montana on my Ipod. Friend 2: Oh thats neat can i listen to it? Friend 1: Sure! Friend 2: Oh this is cool! Friend 2 Starts to buy Hannah Montana CDs attend concerts and watch her attrocious disney show thus resulting in profits. Its all about exposure thats why some (smart) artists have Youtube channels that they upload there videos onto. I am fine with people who have the rights to uploading music to YouTube doing that but I was talking about (and said) people that upload music illegally. It's not like you have to listen to the entire album before purchasing it, you can check out reviews like I do. And if you listen to a really hyped up album illegally you won't be very excited to buy and and most likely will not buy it. Piracy is not "trying out" music. And how would people listening to music illegally help make more money for artists? Besides, it's not YouTube's choice to mute videos, if they didn't they would be charged with copyright infringement and it would be closed down. Actually it's because the record label is greedy. The former contract was that for every video uploaded with one of their songs they would be compensated the royalties. They wanted to change it to everytime the video was watched they would be compensated. And to be honest I'm surprise many bands aren't holding out to break their contracts with WMG as the result. Umm it seems that the record label got what they wanted because WMG has videos for their music on YouTube and not EVERY artist uses a record label that does this. A decent amount of record labels don't want their music played for free on YouTube. So this still keeps what I did say correct, if YouTube hosted videos that they didn't have the rights to and refused to remove them they would be closed down.
  12. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    Proof Of God

    You would be false then. Some individuals did convert willingly but the majority of most christian countries populations were scared to christ. Countries that wern't converted were simply sacked and overtaken by the Christian invaders who annihilated the lands native populus.(places like Mexico) As for Raping it was just a bit of a joke inside a serious opinion. Rape and Pillage is another way of saying an Invasion. The term originated from the Vikings (or atleast is best known from the Vikings) Who would Pillage villages and in some instances rape women which was infact a common practice in the past (and still prominent in less developed lands today) and although i have no proof to back it up i feel it's pretty likely there were atleast a few rapes occuring during the crusades. But whether it did or not i was talking about invading a country and not neccesarily any of the specifics i mentioned. And there always will be because us as human beings would have to be Omniscient and be immortal in order to explain everything that happened on this planet. We have however learned that every event in the universe has an explanation that just needs to be found and we just need to keep picking off supposed miracles and find the explanations to them one by one so we can better understand and purhaps recreate the circumstances in which the miracle occured. In the past everybody was invading countries and land and such and when a country was invaded it's people living in it usually get treated pretty badly and are forced to say things that they do not believe. This isn't the way of the Christians as much as it is-or let me say was the absolute norm back in that time. And as I said before I am quite sure that it wasn't a bunch of Christians gathering together saying that they hate this place because they worship something they don't. I believe it was a country of people that was mostly Christians deciding to take more land and even people that believe in God would find no problem in this because this was the norm.
  13. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    File Sharing

    Piracy is not "trying out" music. And how would people listening to music illegally help make more money for artists? Besides, it's not YouTube's choice to mute videos, if they didn't they would be charged with copyright infringement and it would be closed down.
  14. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    Proof Of God

    This. I'm not sure if you felt i was attacking your post or not but i wasn't it just made a convenient thing for me to "counter" in order to get my point across more interestingly rather then simply posting an opinion out of nowhere. Not really. Americans and most other mostly christian countries are simply convertee's that have chosen to follow a single mans opinion nd beliefs. As i said i could just as easily make up a story about a flying yellow hippo and go on a "soul saving" crusade threatening foreign lands with death and condemn them to a fiery prison for eternity and eventually in few hundred years people would believe me. Now were not living in the 1200's so obviously i can't go around on a horse with a spear stabbing those who do not wish to be saved but you get my point. Most european countries wern't originally Christian they were just threatened with death for generations until they began to legitimately believe what they were being told. To give you a specific example Ireland used to be a Druidic culture however the land was invaded, raided, raped and pillaged by catholics (along with other people) until eventually Ireland became a predominately catholic country and now most irish don't even know there was a time that they wern't catholic. Also we aren't just talking about America here and christianity is in fact a minority mainstream religion globally. @Bolded: Just because its not plausible now doesn't mean it won't be plausible some day in the future. We are learning things we never thought were conceivable everyday. Saints are very well intentioned people and i'm sure they do wonderful things but the chances of them being "acts of god" are very slim. @Underlined: Oooooh Wikipedia! That was a little mean but you shouldn't trust wikipedia on these matters although its information is usually accurate it often omits important information. It's been a while since i read through the bible but it's quite obvious many of the stories in the old testament are simply fictional stories used to get a message across to the reader also known as a moral of the story. Things like David And Goliath (though this is more likely to have happened then other stories in the bible) is a story used to tell its readers basically the bigger they are the harder they fall or size isn't everything or something along those lines. The same can be said for many stories in the bible. I understand your first response to me now, err well a little more I still feel you should have thought about what I was trying to say instead of making me sound like somebody who is just enforcing God onto everybody. I don't think that "most" countries were "forced" to believe in God, maybe some but this wouldn't be by true followers of God and would most likely be done by people who are trying to spread false ideas of God. Also, most people that believe in God do not "rape" countries to make them think what they do, maybe other people or another country that may have happened to contain believers of God but it's not like a bunch of Catholic people just decided to take over a country. And even if people did force the belief of God on people, it would be impossible to keep the story of the "rapings" away from the children of people that were forced to believe and the children would just decide not to believe because of it being forced upon people. They may not know now that they weren't mostly Catholic but a story as terrible as you describe it doesn't go on untold, and if you somehow know this than it hasn't been kept a secret, that or it never happened. @Bolded:It also doesn't mean that it will be discovered in the future, I know not all miracles will be discovered in the future. Maybe some scientists will discover flaws in certain things but there will be at least a few miracles untouched. @Underlined: Some Bible stories have been created on moral values and not on fact, that I can easily admit. But that doesn't mean they all are, and I looked further into the matter and I can't find HALF of the Bible is based on legends. I can find priests and other religious icons saying that some stories are not true and are only here to tell people their side of "right from wrong".
  15. JSKANDkjansdjknk

    Proof Of God

    The Bible is just a book written by some old geezers. The Old Testement is half Jewish history half Jewish legends. I think the odd he quoted was just to show how he feels insignificant the chance of a god is. And those miracles are not explainable but they are plausable. You can overcome cancer without treatment but exactly how we do it is a bit of a mystery. Rather than just calling it a miracle I'd prefer to try and work out how it happened. Not all miracles are plausible. To become a saint there has to be some miracles that the people that the miracle happened to believe was done by the person becoming a saint. This miracle has to be 100% NOT plausible, and since there are saints I believe that what you said isn't fully correct, because it can't be worked out and figured out. I don't think what you said about the old testament is right either, because the Wikipedia doesn't say anything about it being based on legends and even if it was it would be almost impossible to figure that out because of how old the old testament is.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.