RE: A question game for agnostics. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Real0ne -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 8:13:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I explained in depth in my thread where I posted the supreme court determination that atheism it in fact a religion.


I call bullshit!

That's not quite correct. You posted a news article which blatantly misrepresented the supreme court ruling. In your thread I posted the actual supreme court ruling and pointed out the section where the supreme court referred to atheism as non-religion.



I dont think so.  I would be very surprised if I had missed soemthing like that.  got that case handy?

quote:

The page cannot be found The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Please try the following:
  • Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
  • If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
  • Click the Back button to try another link.



GotSteel -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 8:15:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
 I recall you once arguing that the Golden Rule was cruel nonsense because it recommends that somebody who enjoys being whipped should go around whipping people.

False. That's not my position.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 8:22:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

oooh, everything might be an illusion. How profound. Hint: it doesnt change fuckall even if it is.

Yes it does. It changes how much we are entitled to think we know about reality.

K.


No it doesnt. Just as is the case with denying that you have free will, you are incapable of acting as if you dont have free will whether you do or not, and you are incapable of acting as if everything is an illusion whether it is or not.

You arent "entitled" to think, "entitled" to know, thats a ridiculously egocentric statment.



Real0ne -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 8:26:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

You arent "entitled" to think


theyre working on that.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 8:29:01 PM)

Ok, provfivetine.

According to the very own definition of Unoser, if he exists, then immediately that would mean, that you would have no nose. Please remember that to his definition belongs, that he has found you, etc.

Question: Do you agree with this?



CrazyCats -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 8:32:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Dear CrazyCats:

If Unoser did exist, you would have no nose. This is a direct result of the definition of Unoser, and it cannot be avoided. Well, I must add to the definition of Unoser that he found you too :) but you get the concept.

Question: Do you agree with this?

Please try to stick to the point. Do you simply agree that, if Unoser exists, your nose does not?



Correct, if he exists, I would have no nose, however, without any evidence to the contrary, I would not even know anything had happened.

This logic track is the classic brain in a jar argument: there is no way to prove that you are not in fact, just a brain in a jar being fed external stimuli that perfectly simulates your current reality, rather than a being with a body going through life's experiences. Nor is it possible to prove the reverse of the prior sentence without some flaw in the illusion to grant an actual external perspective on the situation.

In the end, all we have to go on is our senses. If they are all confirming a nose, then for all intents and purposes, it is a nose. Without a reason to alter the assumption that our senses are wrong, we must proceed as if they are correct, with the knowledge that they maybe wrong so as not to fall prey to conformational bias.

One could also delve into the semantics of what is a "nose" if it can be perfectly recreated with an "illusion" that fools all of our senses and technical detection devices. This logic line would lead to a lot of talk about quantum mechanics and particle physics, since perception solidifies reality from probability at the atomic level, often in rather strange ways.



CrazyCats -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 8:45:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

oooh, everything might be an illusion. How profound. Hint: it doesnt change fuckall even if it is.

Yes it does. It changes how much we are entitled to think we know about reality.

K.


No it doesnt. Just as is the case with denying that you have free will, you are incapable of acting as if you dont have free will whether you do or not, and you are incapable of acting as if everything is an illusion whether it is or not.

You arent "entitled" to think, "entitled" to know, thats a ridiculously egocentric statment.


Without some indication that it is an illusion, then yes, one should act as though his or her experiences are genuine. If we figure out that it is an illusion, if we can do anything about it, we would. If we cannot, then it may make suicide rates spike, but otherwise nothing would change.

No, we are not entitled to know anything, but by having the ability, we are entitled to thought. (Having the ability is debatable, though!) If we were entitled to know, we would. Not may people are arguing that a priori exists these days.

Philosophically speaking, there is not much of an argument again egocentrism. We can only subjectively verify that we exist, not that anyone or anything else does.



Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 9:08:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I recall you once arguing that the Golden Rule was cruel nonsense because it recommends that somebody who enjoys being whipped should go around whipping people.

False. That's not my position.


http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3498829
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: GotSteel
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

    In any instance I think it is a good idea to simply do onto others as you would like others to do onto your self.

    This is not true and I wish that people would stop saying this on a site full of masochists. It would be horrible to convince a number of people on this site that your statement was true.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3499020
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: GotSteel

    For example convincing the forced fantasy and rape crowds to do onto others what they want done to them would be a terrible plan. I don't even want to think about what would happen with the castration people

K.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 9:25:02 PM)

Dear CrazyCats:

I am really interested on your explanations but at a given point. Please remember the "Rule #5: Answer as concisely and to the point as you can."

I keep then your "Correct" and let the rest be for now.

So, we have established that:
a) You say, that you have a nose.
b) You say, that you cannot tell, that Unoser does not exist.
c) You understand, that if Unoser exists, you have no nose.

Now, the problem is that, by moduls tolendo tolens, if you have a nose (and you said you have), then Unoser does not exist.

So, I will ask you again... and please be as brief as you were, when I asked you if you have a nose.

Question: Does Unoser exist?

Again... right now, it is irrelevant which adjective you put to your assertion. It is irrelevant, if you said "I have a nose" with "some level of certainity", if you rejected "absolute truths", if you spoke "until proven otherwise" or any other consideration. They are interesting, but please simply answer the question in a normal way, in the same way you would answer if a doctor asked you by telephone if you have a nose. You would not send him a speech about philosophy. You would simply say "yes". The reasons are irrelevant, the consideration about absolute truth are (in that moment) irrelevant. You simply inform your doctor that you have a nose.

When I asked you "do you have a nose?" you answered "Yes, because...".

So, being that you having a nose directly implies that Unoser does not exist... answer directly. If you cannot say "No, because..." o simply "no", please explain why you use a differente expression and/or level of security for an assertion A, as for another assertion B which is directly implied by A.

I am sorry if I look a bit insistent or inflexible, but in my experience people here try to escape logic using any possible means, and reject a simple plain normal frigging' answer [;)] .

So... does Unoser exist?



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 9:34:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
Seriously, since you have 75% of collarme on hide, who do you think is going to play your game?

- Not more than 40%
- Three people, and counting [sm=thanks.gif]
Oh, and hidden, for trolling and off-topic comments. But I had a laugh, point given. [sm=rofl.gif]
Best regards.



Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 9:44:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

you are incapable of acting as if everything is an illusion whether it is or not.

Nonsense. If I want to act as if everything is an illusion, I'm perfectly free to jump off a tall building any time I like. But I'm not using the word illusion to mean "not real" (and just for the record, that's not what it means).

Look at your chair. It appears to be a solid object of a particular color, etc. But it's not, it's amost entirely -- 99 point some-number-of-9s -- empty space. Its representation in consciousness as a "solid" object of a particular "color" is precisely an illusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

You arent "entitled" to think, "entitled" to know, thats a ridiculously egocentric statment.

I'll make a note of your psychoanalytic expertise. But "entitled" in the context of my statement means to have a claim to. And we can't claim to know the reality behind an illusion if we don't know it's an illusion.

As it happens, modern physics has shown us much about the nature of the reality underlying our perceptions. But our instruments are extensions of our senses, and we don't know where the illusion ends.

You may think you do, of course. But that's not an illusion, that's hubris. [:D]

K.



HannahLynn -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 9:46:40 PM)

only 40%? fuck people, get on the ball here.



Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 9:48:11 PM)

nm



rulemylife -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 9:49:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadAxeman

Well you can pick your God, but you can't...

Fuck it


I'm going with Thor.

Always kind of liked that guy.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 9:53:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Your reasoning in both cases suffers from an extraordinarily concretistic bent of mind.

Most posters here would call that a Strawman Fallacy argument. (most have no knowledge of Latin, so it's an easy fallback).

You correctly identify it as an Argumentum ad Cementum. Outstanding. [8D]



rulemylife -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/9/2011 10:01:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynn

only 40%? fuck people, get on the ball here.


Can I become part of the 40%?

Because my balls are seriously blue.



Anaxagoras -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 4:20:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
you are incapable of acting as if everything is an illusion whether it is or not.

Nonsense. If I want to act as if everything is an illusion, I'm perfectly free to jump off a tall building any time I like. But I'm not using the word illusion to mean "not real" (and just for the record, that's not what it means).

If I understand Willbe's point correctly, it is an assertion that we are incapable of acting as if everything is an illusion. Whether it is an illusion or not, you are free to jump off a building. In reality however, it may end badly for you depending on the height. A single act notwithstanding, it is difficult to see how anyone could act consistently in a manner befitting a belief that all is illusion.

quote:


Look at your chair. It appears to be a solid object of a particular color, etc. But it's not, it's amost entirely -- 99 point some-number-of-9s -- empty space. Its representation in consciousness as a "solid" object of a particular "color" is precisely an illusion.

Why would an object not be solid if it is principally empty space? How come 1% control the 99% according to those lurvely OWS folks? If it is representated in our reality (consciousness) as solid then why can't it be truly solid?

Just because we cannot perceive down to an atomic level does not necessarily make our perception an illusion, which is defined as a false perception. My own view is that human perception qualifies as another legitimate view of said object rather than an illusion. Colour may be even more subjective since it even varies between species but again it isn't necessarily an illusion unless one holds the view that there is one absolute true perception but that seems an impossibility since to perceive is to be a subject that perceives from a particular focal point. It would seem each perception is by necessity limited.

quote:


As it happens, modern physics has shown us much about the nature of the reality underlying our perceptions. But our instruments are extensions of our senses, and we don't know where the illusion ends.

A reliance on instrumentation derived from human perception wouldn't be thorough for all fields of physics. One example is quantum mechanics which is extremely counter-intuitive.



Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 5:43:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
you are incapable of acting as if everything is an illusion whether it is or not.


If I understand Willbe's point correctly, it is an assertion that we are incapable of acting as if everything is an illusion.

What a sharp fellow you are!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

A single act notwithstanding, it is difficult to see how anyone could act consistently in a manner befitting a belief that all is illusion.

Actually, it's quite easy. Buddhists do it.

But he didn't say that we couldn't consistently act as if everything is an illusion. He said we are incapable of acting as if everything is an illusion. And if it is claimed that we are incapable of acting as if everything is an illusion, then a single act is sufficient to disprove that claim. It's exactly the same as if I were to say that all of the arguments in your post are idiotic. A single intelligent argument would suffice to disprove that claim.

Let's see if we can find one, shall we?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

Why would an object not be solid if it is principally empty space? How come 1% control the 99% according to those lurvely OWS folks?

Well, no luck so far.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

My own view is that human perception qualifies as another legitimate view of said object rather than an illusion...

Of course our perceptions are "legitimate". But if you knew the meaning of the word, you could not hold the view that their legitimacy puts them at odds with being an illusion nonetheless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

A reliance on instrumentation derived from human perception wouldn't be thorough for all fields of physics. One example is quantum mechanics which is extremely counter-intuitive.

If physics relied on instruments that were not extensions of our senses, we would never know the results.

But hey, I'll put a cigar aside for ya. Maybe next time.

K.



GotSteel -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 6:02:00 AM)

Sure there's plenty of figurative language and parables in the Bible but quite a bit of it is written as actual truth claims. Take the passage about moving mountains that we've discussed before, sure it clearly doesn't just mean mountains, since Jesus is smiting a tree at the time it clearly must also apply to trees. Jesus with his statement is making a bold claim for the incredible supernatural power of prayer among those who have faith. You can't get away from that with any sort of intellectual honesty. Looking at the society Christianity formed in, looking at the writings of early Christians, looking at the beliefs of modern Christians, these people believe in the supernatural power of prayer. The Bible is overflowing with incredible examples of the supernatural power of prayer.

Trying to twist that passage into a meaningless platitude just doesn't fly. One: because of the context.  Two: because there would be no point in praying if it was just a meaningless platitude. 



crazyml -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 6:08:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



Thats not quite correct.

You run into a snag when because unless they are knowledge-less of the subject they fall under some belief one way or the other which gets us into faith etc etc as I explained in depth in my thread where I posted the supreme court determination that atheism it in fact a religion.





You're not referring to the "belief process" abomination you tried to pass off are you? The same one you were good enough to post a dozen times? Because I'm quite sure that one had the arse properly fucked out of it on that thread, so it would be an unkindness to bring its cold, dead corpse in here for in order for for it to get another going over!




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875