Does Cortana have a soul?

#321Sniper_BrosefPosted 11/28/2012 12:24:45 PM
Linctagon7 posted...
Facts don't change every two years. The very fact that they keep changing their "facts" proves to me that they don't really know what they are talking about. And what exactly are these "facts" based on? What exactly proves these "facts"? Telescope and satelite images who according to science are millions of years outdated? Or the meanderings of men who have yet to accertian why humans need to sleep and where energy comes from? I'm sorry but that just doesn't work for me.

Science is full of cantradictions. Not only the ecer changing "facts" and backpeddaling but also that different "schools" of science seem to directly disagree with the principles of the other.

"Nothing can act upon itself without an outside force of factor." - "The universe created itself."

"90% of the universe is undiscovered or dark matter." - "The universe is saddle shaped."

"Protons and neutrons cannot be created or destroyed." - "Energy comes from nowhere (literally the word used; nowhere)."

"All matter strives toward its perfect form" - "Everything is coincedence."

The list goes on and on. When it comes right down to it, true facts do not contradict themselves. So to me all this talk beyond their ability to even see is a load of balls. As I said, I'm into practical science. The freezing point of water, that is a fact. I can prove it to you right before your very eyes with experiments that can be physically concluded and repeated. The fact is canstant and never changes. The universe is saddle shaped, go ahead and prove that one to me in the same fashion. Impossible. Like Stephen Hawking saying that the universe literally created itself from nothingness, while not even existing yet. And when challenged on where energy originated from to enable this process he said "The energy came from nowhere." Nowhere? Seriously? That seems like the words of a man with no other explenation and no way to prove his statement.

But enough of this. You and I both know that no ammount of arguing is going to change my beliefs or your beliefs. We can argue back and forth untill we are blue in the face but it accomplishes nothing other than derailing the thread and wasting both my and your time. So I say we just leave it at that and agree to disagree. This is the more reasonable and mature route to take than persuing this pointless debate.

You have your beliefs and I have mine. Deal?


I completely agree with everything you just said. In fact, i stated this all to a couple friends of mine and they called me an idiot...their motto seems to be "to each their own unless you dont think the way i do"
---
Detroit Sports Rule!!! - Millen is gone forever!!!!!!!!!!
R.I.P. Keith.....I loved you man.....you will be sorely missed.
#322Raider0996Posted 11/28/2012 12:33:58 PM
Sniper_Brosef posted...

Not only are you saying religions condone killing but that they practice it regularly?!? Give me some examples please. By the way im not talking about a mercy killing by a father. Im talking an official letter or statement by the church that condones murder... Ill save you the time, you wont find one unless your looking into satanic/demon worshippers. I think we can both agree that they dont really fall into the same category.

You must have forgotten about the Crusades, Buddhist Burma, the Inquisition, Witch Hunts, and pretty much all of the middle ages to name a few. There you go, there is a wide variety of religions at different points in time committing sanctioned killings.

Maybe you are the one lacking in critical thinking then. When you go out of your way to state that someone is "obviously lack[ing] any critical thinking skills whatsoever," then youre insulting them...plain and simple

Incorrect. I laid out my entire point quite nicely and plainly for anyone to view. The point was that religion and science are not the same and they are not supposed to be; I even further explained a few reasons why. Which are self-evident to anyone who actually knows what the two distinct things are. So, no, you have no basis for your claim nor do you provide one.

I also explained how I am confused that people are insulted over character observations and that a reasonably prudent person is someone who would try to clarify the meaning and intent if they do not agree or understand before they act. You have not done this, and thus I believe you to be very insecure. To say nothing of the fact that an insult wasn't actually provided on my part. We have words that are specifically designated as insults and it is their primary or sole purpose; no such words were used.
---
GamerTag: SirEzhno
#323RobborboyPosted 11/28/2012 12:45:37 PM
Raider0996 posted...
Sniper_Brosef posted...

Not only are you saying religions condone killing but that they practice it regularly?!? Give me some examples please. By the way im not talking about a mercy killing by a father. Im talking an official letter or statement by the church that condones murder... Ill save you the time, you wont find one unless your looking into satanic/demon worshippers. I think we can both agree that they dont really fall into the same category.

You must have forgotten about the Crusades, Buddhist Burma, the Inquisition, Witch Hunts, and pretty much all of the middle ages to name a few. There you go, there is a wide variety of religions at different points in time committing sanctioned killings.

Maybe you are the one lacking in critical thinking then. When you go out of your way to state that someone is "obviously lack[ing] any critical thinking skills whatsoever," then youre insulting them...plain and simple

Incorrect. I laid out my entire point quite nicely and plainly for anyone to view. The point was that religion and science are not the same and they are not supposed to be; I even further explained a few reasons why. Which are self-evident to anyone who actually knows what the two distinct things are. So, no, you have no basis for your claim nor do you provide one.

I also explained how I am confused that people are insulted over character observations and that a reasonably prudent person is someone who would try to clarify the meaning and intent if they do not agree or understand before they act. You have not done this, and thus I believe you to be very insecure. To say nothing of the fact that an insult wasn't actually provided on my part. We have words that are specifically designated as insults and it is their primary or sole purpose; no such words were used.


You shouldn't waste your time of day on him. His is obviously poorly educated or oblivious to facts. Either way it isn't worth the effort of the keystrokes required to reply.
#324Sniper_BrosefPosted 11/28/2012 12:46:50 PM
Raider0996 posted...
Sniper_Brosef posted...

Not only are you saying religions condone killing but that they practice it regularly?!? Give me some examples please. By the way im not talking about a mercy killing by a father. Im talking an official letter or statement by the church that condones murder... Ill save you the time, you wont find one unless your looking into satanic/demon worshippers. I think we can both agree that they dont really fall into the same category.

You must have forgotten about the Crusades, Buddhist Burma, the Inquisition, Witch Hunts, and pretty much all of the middle ages to name a few. There you go, there is a wide variety of religions at different points in time committing sanctioned killings.


I havent forgotten these...I suppose i shouldve been more clear as i was talking about RECENT events.... but you proved my point that religions CHANGE...


Raider0996 posted...
Sniper_Brosef posted...
Maybe you are the one lacking in critical thinking then. When you go out of your way to state that someone is "obviously lack[ing] any critical thinking skills whatsoever," then youre insulting them...plain and simple

Incorrect. I laid out my entire point quite nicely and plainly for anyone to view. The point was that religion and science are not the same and they are not supposed to be; I even further explained a few reasons why. Which are self-evident to anyone who actually knows what the two distinct things are. So, no, you have no basis for your claim nor do you provide one.

I also explained how I am confused that people are insulted over character observations and that a reasonably prudent person is someone who would try to clarify the meaning and intent if they do not agree or understand before they act. You have not done this, and thus I believe you to be very insecure. To say nothing of the fact that an insult wasn't actually provided on my part. We have words that are specifically designated as insults and it is their primary or sole purpose; no such words were used.



because your character observation is offensive! Is this so hard to understand? If your wife/GF wasnt looking especially flattering i suppose youd be as blunt as you are to posters here...Its called respect, people are insulted because your "character observations" show a distinct LACK of respect...
---
Detroit Sports Rule!!! - Millen is gone forever!!!!!!!!!!
R.I.P. Keith.....I loved you man.....you will be sorely missed.
#325Sniper_BrosefPosted 11/28/2012 12:49:59 PM
Robborboy posted...

You shouldn't waste your time of day on him. His is obviously poorly educated or oblivious to facts. Either way it isn't worth the effort of the keystrokes required to reply.


LOL, ok buddy...
---
Detroit Sports Rule!!! - Millen is gone forever!!!!!!!!!!
R.I.P. Keith.....I loved you man.....you will be sorely missed.
#326Raider0996Posted 11/28/2012 12:58:34 PM(edited)
Robborboy posted...
Either way it isn't worth the effort of the keystrokes required to reply.

I <3 u

Sniper_Brosef posted...
I havent forgotten these...I suppose i shouldve been more clear as i was talking about RECENT events.... but you proved my point that religions CHANGE...

Firstly you did not specify any time-frame nor do you even now present one. Secondly this only proves that churches continue to do whatever they want throughout history so long as it benefits them or they believe it benefits them. Not all of these killings are malicious as, in cases like Burma, they honestly believe they are doing the correct thing; however they are still mass sanctioned killings. Thirdly, the entire inception of Israel and the conflict with Palestine that still exists to this day is the perfect example of modern religious ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Jewish population which encroached upon Palestine primarily because the British started sending them all there began slaughtering Palestinians and driving them out of their own country around 1948 and continue to do this today.

because your character observation is offensive! Is this so hard to understand? If your wife/GF wasnt looking especially flattering i suppose youd be as blunt as you are to posters here...Its called respect, people are insulted because your "character observations" show a distinct LACK of respect...

If you find character observations to be offensive then I do not know how you can possibly survive in a modern society. As I said previously, a reasonable person who disagrees with something would attempt to understand the reasoning and intent so that they might either disprove the perception or that they might actually acknowledge a flaw to which they may have been unaware and grow from it. Your responses appear to be emotionally driven, not logically driven.
---
GamerTag: SirEzhno
#327Sniper_BrosefPosted 11/28/2012 1:15:36 PM
Raider0996 posted...

Sniper_Brosef posted...
I havent forgotten these...I suppose i shouldve been more clear as i was talking about RECENT events.... but you proved my point that religions CHANGE...


Firstly you did not specify any time-frame nor do you even now present one. Secondly this only proves that churches continue to do whatever they want throughout history so long as it benefits them or they believe it benefits them. Not all of these killings are malicious as, in cases like Burma, they honestly believe they are doing the correct thing; however they are still mass sanctioned killings. Thirdly, the entire inception of Israel and the conflict with Palestine that still exists to this day is the perfect example of modern religious ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Jewish population which encroached upon Palestine primarily because the British started sending them all there began slaughtering Palestinians and driving them out of their own country around 1948 and continue to do this today.


I already said that was my fault. There was no way for you to know that i was referring to recent history and that was "mea culpa."

As to the bolded part: You are talking about religious extremists, they exist in every "group" and aren't just seeded in religion. NTM the state of Israel was created after WW2, they werent just sent there by the british to kill Palestinians to acquire their country.

Also you said there are still mass sanctioned killings but listed no examples....do you have any?

Raider0996 posted...

Sniper_Brosef posted...
because your character observation is offensive! Is this so hard to understand? If your wife/GF wasnt looking especially flattering i suppose youd be as blunt as you are to posters here...Its called respect, people are insulted because your "character observations" show a distinct LACK of respect...


If you find character observations to be offensive then I do not know how you can possibly survive in a modern society. As I said previously, a reasonable person who disagrees with something would attempt to understand the reasoning and intent so that they might either disprove the perception or that they might actually acknowledge a flaw to which they may have been unaware and grow from it. Your responses appear to be emotionally driven, not logically driven.


You show zero respect towards others and then dont understand why they become offended? You can throw as many insults toward me as you like, it wont affect my day at all! Im just telling you why people become offended when you post the way you do, it shows a clear lack of respect toward others. A lack of respect is offensive...Im just going to leave this part of our discussion here, youll never convince me to use disrespect as a tool in an argument.
---
Detroit Sports Rule!!! - Millen is gone forever!!!!!!!!!!
R.I.P. Keith.....I loved you man.....you will be sorely missed.
#328rabidpencilPosted 11/28/2012 1:21:48 PM
Linctagon7 posted...
Facts don't change every two years. The very fact that they keep changing their "facts" proves to me that they don't really know what they are talking about. And what exactly are these "facts" based on? What exactly proves these "facts"? Telescope and satelite images who according to science are millions of years outdated? Or the meanderings of men who have yet to accertian why humans need to sleep and where energy comes from? I'm sorry but that just doesn't work for me.

Science is full of cantradictions. Not only the ecer changing "facts" and backpeddaling but also that different "schools" of science seem to directly disagree with the principles of the other.

"Nothing can act upon itself without an outside force of factor." - "The universe created itself."

"90% of the universe is undiscovered or dark matter." - "The universe is saddle shaped."

"Protons and neutrons cannot be created or destroyed." - "Energy comes from nowhere (literally the word used; nowhere)."

"All matter strives toward its perfect form" - "Everything is coincedence."

The list goes on and on. When it comes right down to it, true facts do not contradict themselves. So to me all this talk beyond their ability to even see is a load of balls. As I said, I'm into practical science. The freezing point of water, that is a fact. I can prove it to you right before your very eyes with experiments that can be physically concluded and repeated. The fact is canstant and never changes. The universe is saddle shaped, go ahead and prove that one to me in the same fashion. Impossible. Like Stephen Hawking saying that the universe literally created itself from nothingness, while not even existing yet. And when challenged on where energy originated from to enable this process he said "The energy came from nowhere." Nowhere? Seriously? That seems like the words of a man with no other explenation and no way to prove his statement.

But enough of this. You and I both know that no ammount of arguing is going to change my beliefs or your beliefs. We can argue back and forth untill we are blue in the face but it accomplishes nothing other than derailing the thread and wasting both my and your time. So I say we just leave it at that and agree to disagree. This is the more reasonable and mature route to take than persuing this pointless debate.

You have your beliefs and I have mine. Deal?


Best post I've seen on GameFAQs (ReligionFAQs?). Ever.

On a side note, as a previous poster in this topic, it seems like some people are arguing against points that aren't being made. For example, in the argument that spawned the quoted post, the poster was making the point that the "scientific" explanation of the universe was theory, not fact (and the same was true about religion). The person being argued with seemed to think that the point was that God definitely existed and created the Universe. It's hard for people to have a legitimate discussion when they don't agree on the subject of said discussion.
---
Gamertag - Jacobino
#329Sniper_BrosefPosted 11/28/2012 1:23:58 PM
rabidpencil posted...
Linctagon7 posted...
Facts don't change every two years. The very fact that they keep changing their "facts" proves to me that they don't really know what they are talking about. And what exactly are these "facts" based on? What exactly proves these "facts"? Telescope and satelite images who according to science are millions of years outdated? Or the meanderings of men who have yet to accertian why humans need to sleep and where energy comes from? I'm sorry but that just doesn't work for me.

Science is full of cantradictions. Not only the ecer changing "facts" and backpeddaling but also that different "schools" of science seem to directly disagree with the principles of the other.

"Nothing can act upon itself without an outside force of factor." - "The universe created itself."

"90% of the universe is undiscovered or dark matter." - "The universe is saddle shaped."

"Protons and neutrons cannot be created or destroyed." - "Energy comes from nowhere (literally the word used; nowhere)."

"All matter strives toward its perfect form" - "Everything is coincedence."

The list goes on and on. When it comes right down to it, true facts do not contradict themselves. So to me all this talk beyond their ability to even see is a load of balls. As I said, I'm into practical science. The freezing point of water, that is a fact. I can prove it to you right before your very eyes with experiments that can be physically concluded and repeated. The fact is canstant and never changes. The universe is saddle shaped, go ahead and prove that one to me in the same fashion. Impossible. Like Stephen Hawking saying that the universe literally created itself from nothingness, while not even existing yet. And when challenged on where energy originated from to enable this process he said "The energy came from nowhere." Nowhere? Seriously? That seems like the words of a man with no other explenation and no way to prove his statement.

But enough of this. You and I both know that no ammount of arguing is going to change my beliefs or your beliefs. We can argue back and forth untill we are blue in the face but it accomplishes nothing other than derailing the thread and wasting both my and your time. So I say we just leave it at that and agree to disagree. This is the more reasonable and mature route to take than persuing this pointless debate.

You have your beliefs and I have mine. Deal?


Best post I've seen on GameFAQs (ReligionFAQs?). Ever.

On a side note, as a previous poster in this topic, it seems like some people are arguing against points that aren't being made. For example, in the argument that spawned the quoted post, the poster was making the point that the "scientific" explanation of the universe was theory, not fact (and the same was true about religion). The person being argued with seemed to think that the point was that God definitely existed and created the Universe. It's hard for people to have a legitimate discussion when they don't agree on the subject of said discussion.


Very true...
---
Detroit Sports Rule!!! - Millen is gone forever!!!!!!!!!!
R.I.P. Keith.....I loved you man.....you will be sorely missed.
#330Triguns VashPosted 11/28/2012 1:27:07 PM
Sniper_Brosef posted...
Linctagon7 posted...
Facts don't change every two years. The very fact that they keep changing their "facts" proves to me that they don't really know what they are talking about. And what exactly are these "facts" based on? What exactly proves these "facts"? Telescope and satelite images who according to science are millions of years outdated? Or the meanderings of men who have yet to accertian why humans need to sleep and where energy comes from? I'm sorry but that just doesn't work for me.

Science is full of cantradictions. Not only the ecer changing "facts" and backpeddaling but also that different "schools" of science seem to directly disagree with the principles of the other.

"Nothing can act upon itself without an outside force of factor." - "The universe created itself."

"90% of the universe is undiscovered or dark matter." - "The universe is saddle shaped."

"Protons and neutrons cannot be created or destroyed." - "Energy comes from nowhere (literally the word used; nowhere)."

"All matter strives toward its perfect form" - "Everything is coincedence."

The list goes on and on. When it comes right down to it, true facts do not contradict themselves. So to me all this talk beyond their ability to even see is a load of balls. As I said, I'm into practical science. The freezing point of water, that is a fact. I can prove it to you right before your very eyes with experiments that can be physically concluded and repeated. The fact is canstant and never changes. The universe is saddle shaped, go ahead and prove that one to me in the same fashion. Impossible. Like Stephen Hawking saying that the universe literally created itself from nothingness, while not even existing yet. And when challenged on where energy originated from to enable this process he said "The energy came from nowhere." Nowhere? Seriously? That seems like the words of a man with no other explenation and no way to prove his statement.

But enough of this. You and I both know that no ammount of arguing is going to change my beliefs or your beliefs. We can argue back and forth untill we are blue in the face but it accomplishes nothing other than derailing the thread and wasting both my and your time. So I say we just leave it at that and agree to disagree. This is the more reasonable and mature route to take than persuing this pointless debate.

You have your beliefs and I have mine. Deal?


I completely agree with everything you just said. In fact, i stated this all to a couple friends of mine and they called me an idiot...their motto seems to be "to each their own unless you dont think the way i do"


Speaking hypothetically, there is nothing wrong with putting forward "Maybe intelligent design is another explanation to abiogenesis."

The issue comes with making the claim, with only strawman arguments and cherry-picked philosophical rhetoric (not science) to back it up in place of evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An 'intelligent designer' might be easier for a layman to accept, but that doesn't mean that the idea has any merit to it. Anybody is free to design experiments or to pursue the truth towards that hypothesis. Very little, or nothing, has come of it so far.

Additionally, the hypothesis of intelligent design is often associated with religious baggage, which puts it at odds with well-established theories like evolution and genetics.
---
You haven't lived until you've had a coma.