Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (2 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

not-that-bright..so now u've changed wat they've done to their influence on mankind to their achievements for mankind..
it is kinda diffiucult to reply to ur question when they keep changing

Well isn't something you've done an achievement?

accomplishment: the action of accomplishing something

 

[funnybunny]

"
k.... i was referring to you about your tiff about not-that-bright's post"

my bad...i WAS tlkaing about not-that-bright's post
"maybe the impact of pray five times a day or burn in hell. But i dont see any beneficial impact"

i believe that not-that-bright was asking about any impact on mankind ..he didnt specifiy if it was postive or negative

 

[funnybunny]

read ur 2 previous posts:

"So you count achievement by the ammount of impact it makes?"

"Well isn't something you've done an achievement?"
it seems 2 clash doesnt it?...i would assume that anything some does has an impact on something/someone else

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i believe that not-that-bright was asking about any impact on mankind ..he didnt specifiy if it was postive or negative

Well when I said 'done something for man kind' I think it's fairly logical to assume i'm talking about doing something for the benefit of man kind, not something for man kind that is to its detriment.

"So you count achievement by the ammount of impact it makes?"

"Well isn't something you've done an achievement?"
it seems 2 clash doesnt it?

I was asking you whether you count achievement by the ammount of impact it makes... the use of the word count signifies that i'm talking about achievement as something with increments, when you do something you can do it to different degrees. So then when you say 'you've changed the words' i point out that an achievement means doing something - I don't see the clash. Do I have to write a mile long essay to explain the exact semantics of my posts every single time, or can you begin to put things together and actually answer my questions?

 

[funnybunny]

"Well when I said 'done something for man kind' I think it's fairly logical to assume i'm talking about doing something for the benefit of man kind, not something for man kind that is to its detriment."

i guess benefits to mankind is a matter of perspective....hitler would be considered a benefit to mankind by Nazis...eradication of jews would be likewise

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i guess benefits to mankind is a matter of perspective....hitler would be considered a benefit to mankind by Nazis...eradication of jews would be likewise

I'm aware of that, but I am asking you for your answer of how these people have benefitted mankind.

 

[funnybunny]

"So you count achievement by the ammount of impact it makes?"
by saying that ur implying that achivement does not necessarily mean any impact on mankind..then later u continue 2 say ""Well isn't something you've done an achievement?", implyin that everythin u do is an achievenment....therefore u hav contradicted urself

As for "I was asking you whether you count achievement by the ammount of impact it makes... the use of the word count signifies that i'm talking about achievement as something with increment....."
i have NO idea watsoever wat ur on about...could any other user please explain this 2 me?

and sasha...plz keep out of this..we're tryin 2 hav an intelligent conversation, ..ur ruining it by throwing in steretypical comments

 

[Not-That-Bright]

"So you count achievement by the ammount of impact it makes?"
by saying that ur implying that achivement does not necessarily mean any impact on mankind..then later u continue 2 say

I was asking you a question, I wasn't implying anything just getting all the premises sorted out.

 

[funnybunny]

well...muslims would say that islam has given them an insight into how the world works, etc and given them a code to live by - which they would believe as been benefical to them..

 

[Not-That-Bright]

well...muslims would say that islam has given them an insight into how the world works

So people have read the koran - and then gone on to use the korans teachings about something to discover something new in the world? Or have all the things discovered just been about um... things we couldn't actually test i.e. how god operates etc? Like do you have an example of a muslim reading something in the koran and then going on to make some scientific discovery about some natural mechanic of the world that was described in the koran?

 

[withoutaface]

the muslim religion itself has more impact on the lives of believers than any other religion

Who says that impact is positive?

 

[funnybunny]

"I wasn't implying anything"
in the same way, i say that u werent implying that u meant benefical impacts on mankind when u said "done for mankind"

 

[funnybunny]

"Who says the impact is positive?"
i never said that....its impact is dependant on ur perspective

 

[SashatheMan]

funnybunny learn to use [QUOTE ] [/QUOTE ] ttags. its much easier to read

 

[Not-That-Bright]

in the same way, i say that u werent implying that u meant benefical impacts on mankind when u said "done for mankind"

Well asking a question doesn't imply anything at all, however saying that something has been done for man kind is generally a positive sentence... you're doing something for someone.. the opposite being doing something against someone, or 'in spite of'...

However lets get over that semantical debate.

 

[funnybunny]

"things we couldn't actually test.."
EXACTLY.....so how can u accuse such scholars of being useless when u cannot prove the things they've discovered as incorrect?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

EXACTLY.....so how can u accuse such scholars of being useless when u cannot prove the things they've discovered as useless/incorrect?

So they've only discovered things that are unprovable? Personally I don't find discovering unprovable things all that awesome - but you know, it's all subjective lol

 

[funnybunny]

sasha, it's much easier for me to use " " ... i dont care if it's harder for u

 

[funnybunny]

i would believe that u can only throw things out as incorrect if you can prove that it's incorrect by proving without doubt that a competing theory is correct...
i dont think darwin's theory is 100% full-proof
the scholars discoveries hav had a huge impact on mankind...whether u want 2 believe it or not

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i would believe that u can only throw things out as incorrect if you can prove that it's incorrect by proving without doubt that a competing theory is correct...

Well you can never provide 'without doubt' that another theory is correct.. and of course any theory which uses a supernatural power cannot be disproven (it's impossible) nor can they be even provisionally proven - so they are essentially useless.

i dont think darwin's theory is 100% full-proof

I agree that the modern theory of evolution isn't 100% full-proof - no theory is and evolution is no exception, I think we'll find out more about evolution in the future just as we have in the past.

the scholars discoveries hav had a huge impact on mankind...whether u want 2 believe it or not

Yet their discoveries are unprovable? thus I don't see how they've actually done anything (until you can prove their discovery) other than make an impact on mankind, which isn't actually doing something for mankind... it's no achievement for mankind to make an impact - it begs the question.