RE: A question game for agnostics.

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

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

Message

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 6:44:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel 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... The distinction you are drawing here is between "figurative" language, which isn't literally true, and an "actual" truth, which is. So on what do you base your contention that a passage about moving mountains constitutes an "actual" (i.e., literal) truth claim? K.

GotSteel -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 7:47:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3498829 Here's another of those times where you really seem to miss the point I'm trying to make. We naturally possess the ability to calculate the needs and wants of others and the desire to see others thrive. The Golden Rule is not an accurate translation of this process into an intellectual algorithem. This can be demonstrated by running a number of test cases through it which fails. Is this distinction between a Christ based morality and an instinctive morality worth pointing out? Well considering the one twue way-ism that is and has been so prominent in Christianity, yes I think it is.

GotSteel -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 8:05:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The distinction you are drawing here is between "figurative" language, which isn't literally true, and an "actual" truth, which is. So on what do you base your contention that a passage about moving mountains constitutes an "actual" (i.e., literal) truth claim? I addressed why (in the part after the ...) regardless of whether you use that language figuratively or literally it must necessarily point to an actual truth claim about the supernatural power of prayer.

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 8:06:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Here's another of those times where you really seem to miss the point I'm trying to make. I understand the arguments you've presented. I just dispute that they have any basis. Have you never wondered, not even in private moments of reflection, why nobody else thinks the Golden Rule says what you interpret it to mean? K.

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 8:40:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I addressed why (in the part after the ...) regardless of whether you use that language figuratively or literally it must necessarily point to an actual truth claim about the supernatural power of prayer. You just keep jumping around don't you? From six days to mountains and now to prayer, and all without even a blink when I quoted you saying what you accused me of falsely claiming. But this last jump, in which we are told that the moving mountains passage "must necessarily point to an actual truth claim about the supernatural power of prayer" is the best. Very economical. Kinda makes several points all at once. And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. ~Matthew 17:20 Where do you see anything whatsoever about prayer in that passage? You don't. Guess why. Game over. K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 9:23:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrazyCats 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. If it is an illusion there is still nothing we can do about it, and any "suicides" would also be an illusion. "Entitlement" is as rigged a word as this ridiculous "test". For there to be "entitlement" there has to be some higher authority to grant that entitlement. Since there can be no human higher authority that "entitles you to think" the implication is that there is some being higher than humans. Petitio principii.

Anaxagoras -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 9:56:45 AM)
My reply was partly a test to see if you could reply to a post without insult as you will note I could have fired back comments about your obvious "hubris". You failed. I really think you need to grow up, and realise it isn't OK to treat others with contempt that have different views to your own. BTW in case you haven't heard sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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! Clearly sharper than you dear boy because you misunderstood what he was saying. You cited one example of being free to disprove his assertion when he was referring to a totality as a result of a belief rather than asserting an absolute rule. You do know the difference between the two? quote: 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. That's what they say they believe but do they act in a fashion befitting that belief. No of course not. Otherwise we would have a very great number of dead buddists. quote: 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. "Incapable" or "couldn't" - you're just nitpicking. It is in effect the same thing. quote: 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. Rubbish you couldn't argue your way out of a school for the mentally challenged. If he stated that we are incapable of acting as if everything is an illusion, then a single instance where a person acted in the opposite wouldn't disprove it. He is not saying we in every instance could not act a certain way but rather would be incapable of acting in a fashion befitting if we believed everything was illusion. He is talking about a totality of experience that cannot be reduced down to one instance to disprove its entirety. quote: 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. Good job, just dismiss the contention. The latter was a rhetorical question to illustrate a point about the former. You know zilch about physics. We aren't talking about dead matter. Atoms have energy. They form bonds and are extremely difficult to split even though they constitute 99% space. Thus an object being 99% space does not mean it isn't solid. quote: 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. You know very well that I used the word legitimate in contrast to illusion. Legitimate in this instance means having truth content. Need I suggest you take lessons in English? quote: 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. Rubbish. I suggest you look up the meaning of scientific paradigms with regard to high conceptual theorising which is often very far beyond any sensory derived apparatus.

GotSteel -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 12:02:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata You just keep jumping around don't you? From six days to mountains and now to prayer, and all without even a blink when I quoted you saying what you accused me of falsely claiming. But this last jump, in which we are told that the moving mountains passage "must necessarily point to an actual truth claim about the supernatural power of prayer" is the best. Very economical. Kinda makes several points all at once. And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. ~Matthew 17:20 Where do you see anything whatsoever about prayer in that passage? You don't. Guess why. Game over. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel 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. Actually if you review post 59 (the relevant portion is quoted above) you should notice that I was talking about the tree withering incident not the demon exorcism incident (though I'm also under the impression that demon exorcism is prayer based). So to answer your question "Where do you see anything whatsoever about prayer in that passage" well I've put it in bold for you. Mark 11:20-25 NIV 20In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!” 22“Havef faith in God,” Jesus answered. 23“I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.g”

CrazyCats -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 7:23:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: CrazyCats 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. If it is an illusion there is still nothing we can do about it, and any "suicides" would also be an illusion. "Entitlement" is as rigged a word as this ridiculous "test". For there to be "entitlement" there has to be some higher authority to grant that entitlement. Since there can be no human higher authority that "entitles you to think" the implication is that there is some being higher than humans. Petitio principii. Depends on the level of illusion, if they are all actual brains in jars rather than illusions, then the suicide would be an earnest attempt at least. If the others are themselves illusions, then yes, I completely agree. Good catch on that entitlement! It was not an angle I considered when using the original wording from the prior post. I can counter your logic, however. One can be self-entitled. Granted the entitlement by one's self, either with or without the authority to do so, is still entitlement. It's somewhat recursive, but an alternative reasoning to the authority granted entitlement.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 7:38:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrazyCats quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: CrazyCats 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. If it is an illusion there is still nothing we can do about it, and any "suicides" would also be an illusion. "Entitlement" is as rigged a word as this ridiculous "test". For there to be "entitlement" there has to be some higher authority to grant that entitlement. Since there can be no human higher authority that "entitles you to think" the implication is that there is some being higher than humans. Petitio principii. Depends on the level of illusion, if they are all actual brains in jars rather than illusions, then the suicide would be an earnest attempt at least. If the others are themselves illusions, then yes, I completely agree. Good catch on that entitlement! It was not an angle I considered when using the original wording from the prior post. I can counter your logic, however. One can be self-entitled. Granted the entitlement by one's self, either with or without the authority to do so, is still entitlement. It's somewhat recursive, but an alternative reasoning to the authority granted entitlement. Try entitling yourself to NOT think. [:D]

anniezz338 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 7:40:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster The game is for agnostics. For the case: I mean people who do not deny the existence of God, but also do not affirm that God exists. So basically: Does God exist? I feel there is no answer from an agnostic for this question. The question is the answer and the simplest definition of an agnostic. They just don't spend their time banging their head against the wall trying to answer the question.

CrazyCats -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 8:03:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Dear CrazyCats: 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? There in lies your catch 22. There is no room for a maybe in the absolute duality of yes or no. ~~~~~~~~ To answer your question, yes, I have a nose in that scenario. It's a possibly illusionary replacement nose, or a possibly real original nose, but a perfectly functional nose none the less. So, yes, I would have a nose. ~~~~~~~~ Since we are speaking of hypotheticals and philosophy/theology, I feel it is necessary to include a bit of explanation on my perspective. The reason I would say such in that event is because I would not have known the difference between the "illusion" nose and the "reality" nose if it is perfectly simulated. It would not have been possible for the victim to know anything had happened unless Unoser later reveals him/her/its self and displays the actuality of the illusion. Of course, at the point of revealing the illusion, one would be justified at thinking that Unoser took your nose at that point rather than earlier. Occam's ever popular brand of razors and all of that jazz. While having the belief that I have a nose gives an implication of the non-existence of unoser, I would not say if gives the certainty of non-existence. It is either the truth, or simply being wrong in one's assumptions about reality. Think of it like a magic act. If a magician made an elephant disappear in front of you but instantly replaced it with an illusion that fooled you, you are thus fooled into thinking that the magician failed and that the elephant never vanished... unless the illusion is broken in some what to reveal that the elephant is not, in fact, there at all! If the magician does not break the illusion, you are fooled and left to wonder what the point of the show was. The trick works the same way in making the object appear to vanish without having moved it... that is actually fairly frequently used in stage magic. However, there the point there is to maintain the illusion as reality rather than break it to show the illusion. If the illusion is broken, then the trick is ruined. It is revealed as an illusion and not reality, which disappoints the audience.

CrazyCats -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 8:08:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Try entitling yourself to NOT think. [:D] Easy! Lobotomy! [sm=duck.gif]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 8:23:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrazyCats quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Try entitling yourself to NOT think. [:D] Easy! Lobotomy! [sm=duck.gif] Even those lobotomized think. If you want to argue that you can "entitle yourself" to be totally brain dead, I would counter that you have taken it outside this discussion because his original contention of entitlement to think about reality ((a specific topic) presupposes the ability to think at all.

CrazyCats -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 8:55:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Even those lobotomized think. If you want to argue that you can "entitle yourself" to be totally brain dead, I would counter that you have taken it outside this discussion because his original contention of entitlement to think about reality ((a specific topic) presupposes the ability to think at all. Granted. I was going for self entitlement originally, but hey.... besides, there is another way to not think while still having the ability to do so.... meditation on emptiness or nothing to gain a measure of understanding about one's inner reality. Actively choosing to silence one's own thoughts for a period of time requires a great deal of focus, training, and the ability to understand the purpose of that stillness. Otherwise, you're just sitting there with your brain turned off for a while. A buddy of mine had the ability to just zone out and not think for a while. He wasn't meditating, so he didn't get anything out of it beyond relaxing his brain. For some shutting the incessant inner chatter up is a talent, for others it is a hard learned skill.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 9:50:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anniezz338 quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster The game is for agnostics. For the case: I mean people who do not deny the existence of God, but also do not affirm that God exists. So basically: Does God exist? I feel there is no answer from an agnostic for this question. The question is the answer and the simplest definition of an agnostic. They just don't spend their time banging their head against the wall trying to answer the question. If you want to play the game, please abide to the rules and answer the questions.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 9:55:26 PM)
Dear CrazyCats: There is place for "maybe", *but you did not say maybe when you answered about your nose. If you have answered "maybe" (an option which was NOT excluded) I would have made a different move in my turn. You said that your nose exists. Not "maybe". That it exists. You decided to say it. And you said that if Unoser exists, your nose does not. I quote you: "Correct, if he exists, I would have no nose". This way you spared me a long discussion about how can I define an illusion in a way that it is not the object represented. The image of a cat in a movie is not a cat. My photo in this forum is not my face. And an illusion of a nose can be defined in a way, so that it is definitely not a nose. But you saved me that discussion. You told "Correct, if he exists, I would have no nose". If you had not done this, I would have been forced to move on the discussion about illusions first. But you did. Therefore: - If you say that you have a nose. - And you say that if Unoser exists, you have no nose. Why exactly you cannot say that Unoser does not exist, on the same terms you used to say "I have a nose"?*

domiguy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 10:06:10 PM)
this is one of the greatest douche-offs of all time.

wittynamehere -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 10:12:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Hello, wittynamehere. Accepting a definition of God does not imply to accept that God exists. It only implies to accept a certain meaning for the word "God". Please answer again. Thank you. Why should I answer again? My answer had nothing to do with that part of your post, and I stated it clearly. I'll copy and paste it below to save you 4 seconds in glancing up the page: quote: ORIGINAL: wittynamehere quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster 1) Why are you agnostic? 2) Do you have a nose? 1) By the definition you gave above, which I was forced to comply with in order to get this far, I'm agnostic because I "do not deny the existence of God, but also do not affirm that God exists". 2) You didn't define what "nose" means, but if I can only pick yes or no, I'll go with "yes". Now what? It seems you only "play" with people who answer exactly as you want them to answer. I don't feel there's anything for me to learn here, but I'll give you one last shot. So... now what?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/10/2011 10:23:05 PM)
Hello, wittynamehere: I will also be patient, forgiving and understanding for the sake of the game... Ok. Now let me consider a being. I am not saying that he exists, I am only describing a being. Its name is "Unoser". He is an extraterrestrial and lives in a planet far beyond the reach of our astronomical instruments. In his planet, the civlization is more than one million years more advanced as the one of the Earth in technology (don't tell me that this is impossible because we won't survive that much, I am just trying to express things in a simple way, not writing a contract with the devil). So, their technology is so extreme that it looks like magic for us. He has a hobby: Around far planets with life, he looks for and internet and then for internet forums. And there, he looks for people whose alias in the forums is wittynamehere. Of course, he uses his extreme technology for this, as well as his extremely advanced mind (so advanced that we cannot even imagine his reasons to do this). And then, when he finds one, he substitutes their nose with an illusion. The substitution is made in such a way, that the technological devices he uses (which can be artificial intelligences far beyond our natural one) influence all the environment. When a victim tries to touch his nose, the mechanisms of the illusion care about that he feels the nose (interfering with the neural channels, maybe). They care that the victims sees the nose in the mirror. They care that a doctor can see it too (even if it is not there, they can also interfere with the doctor's perception). They can change the results of X-Ray analysis, etc, etc, etc... in other words... there is no way, for us, to discover the illusion. And still - it is an illusion. The victim has no longer a nose. And Unoser did found you some time ago. Before you wrote your first message in this thread. Please remember that I define Unoser this way. If something about the being is not like I described, he is no longer Unoser. Unoser is only Unoser if he accomplishes all this definition. My next questions are: * Can you affirm that Unoser exists? * Can you deny that Unoser exists? Best regards.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875