Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: A question game for agnostics.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A question game for agnostics. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/11/2011 2:52:49 PM   
HeatherMcLeather


Posts: 2559
Joined: 5/21/2011
From: The dog house
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by HeatherMcLeather -- 11/11/2011 3:00:30 PM >

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/11/2011 3:04:43 PM   
Ishtarr


Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________


Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt

Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!

(in reply to HeatherMcLeather)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/11/2011 5:44:26 PM   
CrazyCats


Posts: 116
Joined: 2/15/2009
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

quote:

Niccolo Machiavelli
Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed out drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.


(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/11/2011 6:31:13 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline 		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?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/11/2011 8:07:01 PM   
SpanishMatMaster


Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 11/11/2011 8:13:06 PM >

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to wittynamehere)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/11/2011 8:08:38 PM   
SpanishMatMaster


Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 11/11/2011 8:14:21 PM >

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to Ishtarr)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/11/2011 8:11:39 PM   
SpanishMatMaster


Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 11/11/2011 8:30:56 PM >

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/11/2011 8:49:07 PM   
Ishtarr


Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline
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


< Message edited by Ishtarr -- 11/11/2011 8:51:53 PM >

_____________________________


Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt

Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/11/2011 8:51:38 PM   
Ishtarr


Posts: 1130
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline
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...

_____________________________


Du blutest für mein Seelenheil
Ein kleiner Schnitt und du wirst geil
Egal, erlaubt ist, was gefällt

Ich tu' dir weh.
Tut mir nicht Leid!
Das tut dir gut.
Hör wie es schreit!

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/11/2011 9:54:48 PM   
HeatherSucks


Posts: 3
Joined: 6/10/2011
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

"He that is not with me is against me" ~Jesus
"O con noi o contro di noi" ~ Benito Mussolini
"If you're not with us, you're against us," ~ Gaston
"If you're not with me, then you're my enemy." ~ Darth Vader

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/11/2011 11:01:44 PM   
anniezz338


Posts: 1183
Joined: 8/17/2010
Status: offline 		lololol....so it begins

_____________________________

I had become insane, with horrific lapses of sanity. Edgar Allen Poe

(in reply to HeatherSucks)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/12/2011 1:20:18 AM   
SpanishMatMaster


Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 11/12/2011 1:35:10 AM >

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to Ishtarr)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/12/2011 1:54:00 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by Kirata -- 11/12/2011 2:45:30 AM >

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/12/2011 1:56:37 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 11/12/2011 1:59:30 AM >

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/12/2011 4:44:11 AM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/12/2011 7:13:13 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/12/2011 7:59:41 AM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
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!

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]


< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 11/12/2011 8:05:35 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/12/2011 8:30:31 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/12/2011 8:38:49 AM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/12/2011 8:50:15 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

despite being 99% space

Heh.

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.

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A question game for agnostics. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109