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

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 2:52:49 PM)
OK, I'll play. * Can you affirm that Unoser exists? Yes * Can you deny that Unoser exists? Yes. Somebody will have to quote me for him to see this, I'm one of the Disappeared.

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 3:04:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather OK, I'll play. * Can you affirm that Unoser exists? Yes * Can you deny that Unoser exists? Yes. Somebody will have to quote me for him to see this, I'm one of the Disappeared.

CrazyCats -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 5:44:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Dear CrazyCats: You said that your nose exists. Not "maybe". That it exists. You decided to say it. Ah, it was a little late when I wrote that, so perhaps my point was not clear. The point was meant to be: as the victim of Unoser, I would not know the difference, therefore the answer is "yes, I have a nose." But it is only because I wouldn't know the difference that the answer would come out that way. I would have no knowledge of Unoser, nor would I have reason to suspect anything was different about my nose because the illusion is functionally the same. The analogy between the Unoser nose illusion and a movie of a cat has a pretty serious flaw: The observer can tell the difference between the cat and the film, but not between the nose and the Unoser illusion. Without the ability to spot the illusion, I as the victim would not know anything happened. I, as a player of this game rather than the victim of Unoser, would say "maybe" since neither alternative could be proven by the victim without Unoser revealing himself as the magician behind the illusion. If the victim learns of Unoser, then the victim would be left to wonder if his nose is real or not, since he still could not prove it either way. Unless Unoser can provide evidence that the nose is a false illusion to the victim, even with knowledge or rumor of the existence of Unoser, the question is unanswerable in any intelligent of a fashion. I think this is why Christians tend to say "God only knows!" at anything they don't know for certain. CC P.S. Note that I've only read up to your post at the time I wrote this response.

GotSteel -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 6:31:13 PM)
Oh hey, welcome back to the thread. So I answered your prayer question. The problem was a reading comprehension failure on your part. P.S. Nobody agrees with me about the Golden Rule...really nobody? That's an awful lot of people, how did you manage that survey?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 8:07:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wittynamehere You win, spanishmat. You play dirty, but you definitely win. Best regards. I do not understand you answer. Really. According to the rules (and to my personal opinion) the ones who learn are the ones who win. Read it in the OP. I win only if I learn. And I learn only if I was wrong. And the game is not over anyway, IMHO. Of course you can retire when you want. But if not, please answer the last question or the questions in the OP to start again (if you won the first round). If you do not continue with the game to the end, then do not wonder if none of us learned anything. Best regards.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 8:08:38 PM)
Ishtarr, please answer the first questions of the OP if you want to play. You are, like, moving the king if the first move of chess. You can't. This is a game, so please start with a valid move. Take in account that my first move will depend on yours. So do not use the second move to someone else's as starting point. Start with the beginning, please. Thank you.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 8:11:39 PM)
Dear CrazyCats: As I told, and for the reasons I told, please answer the question of the Post #77 if you want to continue with the game. BTW you said that you had a nose in your first move, before I came up with Unoser. So I do not understand your answer either. But simply answer the question in #77, please. Best regards.

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 8:49:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Ishtarr, please answer the first questions of the OP if you want to play. You are, like, moving the king if the first move of chess. You can't. This is a game, so please start with a valid move. Take in account that my first move will depend on yours. So do not use the second move to someone else's as starting point. Start with the beginning, please. Thank you. I don't see the point, but... Fine... quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster 1) Why are you agnostic? 2) Do you have a nose? 1) Because at the moment, the existence of God has neither been proven or disproven. 2) Yes

Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 8:51:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster I win only if I learn. And I learn only if I was wrong. If that's your perception of learning, that explains a lot...

HeatherSucks -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 9:54:48 PM)
quote: 1) Why are you agnostic? Because the existence of God is not a question of any importance to me, therefore I neither affirm or deny it. quote: 2) Do you have a nose? Yes

anniezz338 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/11/2011 11:01:44 PM)
lololol....so it begins

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 1:20:18 AM)
Dear Ishtarr: Yes, in the context of the game, I learn only if I was wrong. If I am right on X, I already knew it, so I learn nothing (or very few) by getting the confirmation that, yes, X is correct. I am glad that this explains a lot. Ok. My second move would be the same, yours also I hope, my third the same, yours also I hope. Now comes my fourth move. Let me now define Innoser a "A being who cannot be detected by us, and who actually removed your nose, without nobody noticing". That's all the definition. Note that I am using all the words with their normal, regular meaning. There is no reason for you to pretend that I am redefining any word, and I explicitly state that I am not. The questions in my fouth move are: Do you agree that I am not redefining any word (just defining a new one, Innoser)? Can you affirm that Innoser exists? Can you deny that Innoser exists? Do you agree that if Innoser exists, your nose does not? I will continue with this strategy until you recognize that I can define an indetectable being in such a way, that its existence means, that you have no nose. And this without redefining anything or applying any special "context", just normal plain English. I can use the "Matrix" paradigm or many others. In theory you may block all my attempts until I recognize that I cannot do this, but I really do not think that you will be successful on that. Still, if you want to try... be my guest... Thank you.

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 1:54:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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. I'm not sure whether this statement reflects ignorance or illiteracy. To say that our perception of reality is an illusion doesn't mean that one can go around jumping off tall buildings with impunity. If I show you a drawing in which one of two equal size squares appears to be larger than the other, the fact that this is an illusion doesn't mean that the squares aren't really there. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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. 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. Wow. Just wow. I may have this one bronzed. That "rubbish" comment is precious, given what follows it. One rarely encounter so great a disparity between someone's ability to reason and their opinion thereof. quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras We aren't talking about dead matter. Atoms have energy. I think I'll just go ahead and smoke this nice cigar. It seems clear that saving it for you would make no sense. K.

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 1:56:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Nobody agrees with me about the Golden Rule...really nobody? That's an awful lot of people, how did you manage that survey? Nobody did the last time you tried, but if you're in a mood to bend over you're welcome to try it again. However, I'll accept correction at least to this degree: "virtually" nobody. I suppose one has to admit that there might be somebody somewhere who would. K.

Anaxagoras -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 4:44:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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. I'm not sure whether this statement reflects ignorance or illiteracy. To say that our perception of reality is an illusion doesn't mean that one can go around jumping off tall buildings with impunity. If I show you a drawing in which one of two equal size squares appears to be larger than the other, the fact that this is an illusion doesn't mean that the squares aren't really there. More nonsense. Clearly an attempt to confuse the issue with the squares point but it isn't at all what we are speaking of but I'll play anyway. An illusion is a false perception. That is what the word means. If it doubt look it up. If we are to perceive two squares then truly there two squares whether one appears to be larger or not. That of itself is not an illusion. If we perceive that one is bigger than the other that is an illusion. Clearly the two are not mutually exclusive but for you to state that our perception of reality is of an illusion then it clearly suggests more weight on illusion than truth content, if not exclusively so, e.g. you stated the solidness of a chair is percisely an illusion, and that physics gives us greater insight into what the world truly is. I'm paraphrasing but that is what you essentially asserted in post 51. Such contentions clearly emphasise the non-truth element of our perception. Let me reiterate for you what the initial point was. Willbe was stating that it would be impossible to act in such a was as if everything was illusory. I agreed in Post 57 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3916651 to which you replied that Buddists do that very thing. The truth is that Buddists do not act in such a fashion. They are perhaps less materialistic than some religious groups but there is not a dramatic difference in the way in which they behave and those with other belief systems behave. If one is to truly believe that all is illusory then there is a radical paradigmatic shift in our way of thinking. There are no true consequences for any action. Hence you threw out the idea of jumping off a building. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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. 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. Wow. Just wow. I may have this one bronzed. That "rubbish" comment is precious, given what follows it. One rarely encounter so great a disparity between someone's ability to reason and their opinion thereof. What impresses (if that is quite the correct word) me is your singular inability to actually think through an opponent's argument. He was not asserting an absolute rule which would be indeed disproved by a single instance of contrary behaviour. It was a general assertion that if one truly believed all was illusion then it would be impossible to behave as if that truly were the case. That asserts a general principle about behaviour rather than an absolute. If you truly can't see the difference then you are simply as lost as I believe you to be. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras We aren't talking about dead matter. Atoms have energy. I think I'll just go ahead and smoke this nice cigar. It seems clear that saving it for you would make no sense. You really don't have a clue. I suspected that you were an expert at sounding smart without substance and this proves it. It is very very basic physics to know that an atom carries a charge (energy). The positrons within the nucleus carry a positive charge as the name suggests, whilst electrons at the periphery carry a negative charge. They are bonded into single entities that are incredibly strong even though they are more than 99% space. A remarkable amount of energy is required to split just one of these entities. Furthermore they are capable of bonding with other atoms. Hence the fact that a chair is 99+% space does not mean it isn't a solid object. BTW please go ahead and smoke 'em if you got 'em. Thats the one sensible opinion you have expressed on this thread. [:)] You incorrectly assumed I liked cigars.

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 7:13:13 AM)
Um hum... I especially like the bit about atoms being alive... quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras We aren't talking about dead matter. Atoms have energy. Thanks for elaborating on that. K.

Anaxagoras -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 7:59:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Um hum... I especially like the bit about atoms being alive... quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras We aren't talking about dead matter. Atoms have energy. Thanks for elaborating on that. K. I meant dead in the sense of possessing no energy whatsoever, and er... I made that clear in the post you quote from by stating quite unambiguously "Atoms have energy" rather than life. I also elaborated just above in post 115 by also stating they have an energy/charge. You are being deliberately disingenuous. Good to see some things remain a constant in these changing times! [:D] quote: It is very very basic physics to know that an atom carries a charge (energy). The positrons within the nucleus carry a positive charge as the name suggests, whilst electrons at the periphery carry a negative charge. They are bonded into single entities that are incredibly strong even though they are more than 99% space. A remarkable amount of energy is required to split just one of these entitieste]

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 8:30:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I meant dead in the sense of possessing no energy whatsoever... Oh, I see. You were speaking Anaxagorish. Silly me, I thought you were speaking English. Well then yes, I understand. The chair is really solid, and not 99.9+ percent empty space as I claimed, because energy is solid too. I shall update my Anaxagorish Dictionary and my notes on Anaxagorian Physics forthwith. K.

Anaxagoras -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 8:38:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras I meant dead in the sense of possessing no energy whatsoever... Oh, I see. You were speaking Anaxagorish. Silly me, I thought you were speaking English. Well then yes, I understand. The chair is really solid, and not 99.9+ percent empty space as I claimed, because energy is solid too. I shall update my Anaxagorish Dictionary and my notes on Anaxagorian Physics forthwith. Indeed silly silly silly you. We are not writing fucking theses' on the forum. I used the word "dead" loosely (in the same sense as a dead write, contact, battery) and I qualified very clearly what I meant. I meant it possesses energy. Your dishonesty and hatred of ever losing an argument results in your stupid catewaling in respnse to qualified opinions. The chair is solid because we were talking about the truth as opposed to illusion of perception. Atoms are the building blocks of matter. They present a unified object (due to the enegry the possess) in their own right despite being 99% space and at a higher lovel of observation (e.g. molecular), the substance they constitute is in effect solid.

Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 8:50:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras despite being 99% space Heh. [:D] By the way, I'm glad you don't like cigars. When you figure out the difference between experiencing things as solid (because of the strong force) and them actually being solid (using the English definition of the word) you may have a cookie instead. K.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625