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. (11/12/2011 10:25:05 AM)

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.



[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/DUH/unoser.jpg[/image]



Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 11:23:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

  • 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?



    • 1) Yes
    2) No
    3) Yes
    4) Yes

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

    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...



    I've never denied that you can define and undetectable being in such a way that its existence means I have no nose.
    In fact, I've pretty much already agreed that you are capable of defining such a being in my first response.

    What I disagree with is fact that you can prove or disprove the existence of such a being to me, which would cause me to change my position.
    For every such being as you define, I will reply "maybe", and the same reason I gave to why I'm agnostic if asked if I believe such being exists or not.




    GotSteel -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 4:53:39 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Kirata


    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.

    Aww by nobody you actually meant you and two other people. I can't say I'll be loosing any sleep over that.

    "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same."
    George Bernard Shaw

    "The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by"
    Karl Popper

    "The Golden Rule, as Kant well knew, is a deeply misguided ethical principle. To see this, consider the following somewhat salacious example. The Horny Martin Example
     
     
     
          Suppose that Martin is 20 year-old college student. Suppose further that Martin has never been out on a date. The woman of his dreams finally agrees to go out with him. So Martin gets all dressed up and takes her out to a nice dinner, after which they drive up to Lookout Point. And...
     
          Martin does unto others as he would have done unto himself,
          with disastrous consequences."http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Categorical_Imperative.htm






    hardcybermaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 5:26:35 PM)

    good grief
    let me misquote an old philosophy question
    if a tree falls over in a forest and crushes both of smugmatmaster's legs but no one sees or hears it are his legs still broken?
    I don't know but I hope it happens so we can solve the problem
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

    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.




    Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 7:54:10 PM)


    I suppose it's possible that one or another of them might have meant his quip seriously. But I think it much more likely that you are failing to appreciate fine wit and dry humor.

    For thousands of years, people all over the world have understood the meaning of the Golden Rule. As the central principle of the "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic," it has been endorsed by Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Humanism, Platonism, and Native American traditions.

    When someone interprets something so concretistically that its meaning is stood on its head, it's almost always amusing. But if you seriously believe you have realized a truth that nearly everyone else has failed to see, Confucius, Christ, and Plato included, then I think you have a social obligation to try to convince mankind of its folly.

    I'll look forward to the thread. Can I expect it soon?

    K.





    Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 8:18:54 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster

    if a tree falls over in a forest and crushes both of smugmatmaster's legs but no one sees or hears it are his legs still broken?

    That depends. Did he have a leg to stand on in the first place? [:D]

    K.



    pyroaquatic -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 8:27:51 PM)

    1.) Logically it does not matter what I am.
    2.) I think I have a nose.



    SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 10:39:37 PM)

    Dear Ishtarr,

    please realise that I am not entering in any moment on the matter of what can be proven or disproved.

    Now you say that you can deny that Innoser exists.

    Next question:
    * Does Innoser exist?

    I just want to eliminate the "can", for the case that you meant "I can possibly, but I cannot possibly affirm that Innoser exists" for example because you have some kind of mental blockade which prevents you from affirming it even if you wanted. Or somebody pointing at your head who would shoot if you attempt to. Things like that.

    In other words, I just want to make sure that you actually deny the existence of Innoser. If you do not, then I must change my future strategy. If you say "maybe" I will ask you in the next move about why you did not say that you "maybe" had a nose. But let that be in the next move, please.

    Does Innoser exist?

    @pyroaquatic: I am sorry but I decide with whom I play. If you do not answer the two first questions properly, I will ignore your messages. Best regards.



    Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/12/2011 11:57:19 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

    * Does Innoser exist?



    No

    But if you want to eliminate wordplay responses, I'd be more careful about my phrasing of things if I where you.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

    A being who cannot be detected by us, and who actually removed your nose, without nobody noticing".


    If my nose had been removed, I'd know, because somebody would have noticed.
    Therefor, Innoser does not exist.




    Hippiekinkster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 3:07:12 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: anniezz338

    lololol....so it begins
    Channeling G'kar from "Babylon 5" are ye?

    Nice specs. Foxes who wear specs are hot.



    SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 3:15:48 AM)

    Thank you for the hint, Ishtarr, even if I do not see how it applies here.

    quote:

    If my nose had been removed, I'd know, because somebody would have noticed.


    Please explain why or how:
    a) Your nose being removed would mean inevitably that somebody would have noticed. Why exactly?
    b) Somebody noticing would mean inevitably that you would know. Why exactly?



    domiguy -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 8:29:54 AM)

    and the douche-off rolls on.



    Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 9:08:30 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

    1) Why are you agnostic?


    I am agnostic because I honestly don't know one way or the other. I don't know that God exists, nor do I know that God doesn't exist.

    I won't claim to know something if I don't actually know it. (I sometimes have had impressions and feelings about things regarded as spiritual or supernatural, but it's nothing can prove scientifically, so I generally keep silent about such things.)

    quote:


    2) Do you have a nose?


    Yes, although I have a very poor sense of smell.


    EDIT: And as for the bit about "unnoser," if some alien has the technology to replace my nose with a substitute nose which looks and feels like my own nose, then I would still have a nose. My answer to the question would still be the same, until such time that I look in the mirror and see that I have no nose (in which case it probably would wind up in someone's breakfast roll).

    The existence or non-existence of "unnoser" is irrelevant to the question.



    HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 9:12:35 AM)

    I would just put on my glasses. If they stay up unoser doesn't exist.



    Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 9:38:16 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

    Thank you for the hint, Ishtarr, even if I do not see how it applies here.

    quote:

    If my nose had been removed, I'd know, because somebody would have noticed.


    Please explain why or how:
    a) Your nose being removed would mean inevitably that somebody would have noticed. Why exactly?
    b) Somebody noticing would mean inevitably that you would know. Why exactly?



    a) Because by Innosers very definition, he couldn't have removed my nose without at least one person noticing the act of the removal.
    b) Because I consider it against all probability that at least one person witnessing and noticing the act of the removal of my nose wouldn't have reacted to it in some huge way, that even if they didn't tell me at the time, I'd know now by your line of questioning what happened.



    SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 12:33:42 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Ishtarr
    a) Your nose being removed would mean inevitably that somebody would have noticed. Why exactly?
    b) Somebody noticing would mean inevitably that you would know. Why exactly?
    a) Because by Innosers very definition, he couldn't have removed my nose without at least one person noticing the act of the removal.
    b) Because I consider it against all probability that at least one person witnessing and noticing the act of the removal of my nose wouldn't have reacted to it in some huge way, that even if they didn't tell me at the time, I'd know now by your line of questioning what happened.


    Ok, now please consider that:
    a) Contrary to Unoser, Innoser is not defined even as a person. It is a "being". Something existing. Therefore, can you tell me who exactly would be that person who would inevitably notice that you lost your nose?

    The second argument, I simply did not understand you. b) Why would one person inevitably wintess? b) Why would this person inevitably tell you that you actually have no nose now? c) And why would you inevitably believe him/her?

    I have the impression that you are trying to substitute a non sequitur with more non sequitur. Are you sure that you want to follow this line? We can end up with hundreds of unbased suppositions from your side, trying to defend your asswetion that if Innoser existed you would know.



    SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 12:38:40 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Zonie63
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

    1) Why are you agnostic?


    I am agnostic because I honestly don't know one way or the other. I don't know that God exists, nor do I know that God doesn't exist.

    I won't claim to know something if I don't actually know it. (I sometimes have had impressions and feelings about things regarded as spiritual or supernatural, but it's nothing can prove scientifically, so I generally keep silent about such things.)

    quote:


    2) Do you have a nose?


    Yes, although I have a very poor sense of smell.


    Thank you, Zonie. Ok...

    Now, let me consider a being. I am not saying that he exists, I am only describing a being.

    I will not enter in your (IMHO wrong) analysis of Innoser. I will just change the subject to avoid it:

    Its name is Azonier. It is a being such, that it existence implies that you have no longer a nose, even if nobody notices. It is also defined as an imperceptible being.

    Please note that the very definition says that if it existe you do not longer have a nose. It does not say anything else about the being, about how this happened, or about how do you still have sensations. Azonier could be the matrix, could be a magician, could be anything... but if he exists, you do not have a nose. As simple as this, and please do not redefine "nose" or anything else without warning beforehand.

    My next questions are:
    * Can you affirm that Azonier exists?
    * Can you deny that Azonier exists?




    Moonhead -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 12:39:53 PM)

    Who wouldn't notice if they lost their nose?
    Even Stevie Wonder might twig that his face is smarting a bit.



    anniezz338 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 12:46:54 PM)

    *blink* Are you even half serious?



    Moonhead -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/13/2011 12:53:19 PM)

    Careful: if you talk to him like that, he'll put you on ignore.



    Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




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