RE: Agnosticism (Full Version)

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



Message


webcamchastity -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 5:05:22 PM)

is super moronic muppet's life so empty that he creates these bizarre philosophical debates with his own rules that are unknown to the rest of us, then wins the arguement, in his own tortured mind, and thus feels in some way superior to everyone else?




tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 5:07:14 PM)

I wouldnt know. The evidence suggests such, but we have limited knowledge, yet again.




webcamchastity -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 5:09:15 PM)

I just hope the good folks here get some credit on the off chance he actually passes his degree in philosophy




Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 5:12:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: webcamchastity

bizarre philosophical debates

All I saw was a magic act.

K.




webcamchastity -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 5:13:40 PM)

are you certain?




Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 5:14:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: webcamchastity

are you certain?

Absolutely [:)]

K.




tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 5:17:30 PM)

I have to admit there is more proof that he is an idiot than there is that there is no Santa or God.




webcamchastity -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 5:18:29 PM)

that's a first for this thread, now prove it in over 10000 words but only within super mario's rules as they exist in your understanding
(that was to K)




MadAxeman -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 5:55:11 PM)

Wise words Tazzygirl




Ishtarr -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 5:57:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I have to admit there is more proof that he is an idiot than there is that there is no Santa or God.



[sm=agree.gif]




pyroaquatic -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 10:02:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

Quantum Mechanics states that God exists and does not exist at the same time. [:D]



Uhhhh, want to point me to any physics book that says that? If youre trying to extrapolate quantum wave functions to include "God", thats your own doing, not any physicists that I have read.


God, Dogs, Energy, same difference.

le sigh....

God's Debris by Scott Adams (the dilbert guy)...
Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Evolution of Spirit by Ken Wilber
Reason and Existenze by Karl Jaspers

Question: Does the Point in Space have the same exact dimension for as many perspectives as it may have?




SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 10:50:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

Quantum Mechanics states that God exists and does not exist at the same time. [:D]

Nah, he is for sure not, that was a joke.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 10:52:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

Quantum Mechanics states that God exists and does not exist at the same time. [:D]



Uhhhh, want to point me to any physics book that says that? If youre trying to extrapolate quantum wave functions to include "God", thats your own doing, not any physicists that I have read.


God, Dogs, Energy, same difference.

le sigh....

God's Debris by Scott Adams (the dilbert guy)...
Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Evolution of Spirit by Ken Wilber
Reason and Existenze by Karl Jaspers

Question: Does the Point in Space have the same exact dimension for as many perspectives as it may have?



I said physicists, not cartoonists and philosophers.

A point is a geometric concept, not a physics concept, and is defined to have no dimension.




GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (11/30/2011 3:50:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic
God, Dogs, Energy, same difference.


Pyro, even though there's an experiment called Schrödinger's cat it doesn't actually work on cats, dogs either.

But to be fair to Pyro he's referring to an apologetics argument not just pulling this idea out of his ass.

The argument is basically that:

Premise 1.) Minds are self-collapsing wave-functions. (Penrose's Orch-OR thesis)
Premise 2.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing. (Because there is by definition no physical objects outside of it that can measure it)

Conclusion: Therefore the wave-function of the universe is a mind.





pyroaquatic -> RE: Agnosticism (11/30/2011 4:58:13 AM)

There is a continuance in our physical interpretations of our universe that transfer into memories as we experience new data. The event horizon is consistantly expanding while entropy chases our tails. I find it more comfortable to simply appreciate the delicate little intricacies that populate our fractured kosmos now.




Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (11/30/2011 5:23:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
We can visit the North Pole and explore our own planet sufficiently to reasonably confirm the absence of any elves or Santa Claus, but when we're talking about "god" and its myriad interpretations, then there's no way that any reasonable person can express certainty.


You've talked about the checking the North Pole in reference to Santa a couple of times now but is that what you actually did?

I used to believe in Santa like most of you probably did. When I got a little older and became skeptical I figured out a test for Santa Claus like most of you probably did. So here's the question, did anybody test for Santa by pouring over aerial photos or mounting an expedition to the North Pole or did you come up with a way of testing for Santa where you didn't even have to leave your living room?


To be honest, I don't remember exactly what I did. I do recall a few conversations with other kids about the subject, and part of what I recall is that ceasing one's belief in Santa Claus was part of maturing and growing up. When I got presents which said "From Santa Claus" in handwriting which looked an awful lot like my grandmother's handwriting, then I started to figure out that someone was pulling the wool over my eyes. But I didn't mind all that much, since I got presents out of the deal. Of course, when seeing multiple Santas in different places around town, I initially fell for the old "those are Santa's helpers" line.

I think I actually did ask my dad some questions about expeditions to the North Pole in relation to Santa Claus. When I realized that he couldn't come up with any straight answers, I was sensing that the whole Santa Claus routine was BS. I didn't actually pore over aerial photographs, although I did have an avid interest in geography and maps at a young age. In the TV program "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer," they showed representations of Santa's workshop and the surrounding area showing rock caves, mountains, and trees at the North Pole, which do not exist there, since it's above the tree line and there's no actual land; it's all ice. So, at that point, the story shifted to where Santa's Workshop wasn't actually at the North Pole, but somewhere in northern Alaska. It was also during the Cold War, so I was looking at maps which showed the DEW line, prompting even more questions about that.

Another aspect of this also related to my early religious influences, and the fact is, believing in Santa Claus is really just an indulgence the Church allows for small children. Once you reach a certain age, the Church would expect its adherents to cease believing in Santa Claus, just as they demand disbelief in Zeus, Apollo, Thor, and other such "false gods" as deemed by the Church authorities. I find that somewhat ironic in that the Church not only tells us what to believe, but what to disbelieve as well. That may be one reason why atheists tend to ridicule religious beliefs by equating it with beliefs in Santa Claus, although I'm not sure if it has the desired effect, since it's really apples and oranges.







Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (11/30/2011 5:39:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

  • I have shown you the difference between a simple claim and a claim of absolute certainty. But you decide to ignore it.

  • I don't recall ignoring that, and in fact, that's the main bone of contention we have right now.

    Granting your kind choice of words, there isn't much basis for "contention". He's just batshit. To be certain means to be without doubt. Unqualified. Not "reasonable doubt" or any other nonsense. Without doubt, period. "Absolute certainty" is just a figure of speech. The appearance of there being two rabbits on the pedestal in front of the man with the top-hat is an illusion. There is only one.

    K.



    The thing is, I can sort of understand where he's coming from, although I would object to his calling it "pure logic," when it really isn't.

    I can understand the sentiment behind saying "there is no god." One atheist I've talked to said he's actually more at peace with the universe by not ascribing any intelligence or supernatural force behind it. If our existence is just a series of random events without any rhyme or reason, it becomes much easier to accept and be at peace with oneself and the world around us. If I believed that there was some intelligent being with the ability to control and manipulate events on Earth, then I would become quite angry with that being. If I believed what Christians tell us, that "God loves us," that "God is watching over us," or that "God has a plan for us," then I would be even more pissed off at God.

    So, I can see why someone would say "there is no god" in response to the usual parade of Christian platitudes we often hear. But I see that more as a response to what people say in society, not necessarily as a carefully considered statement about human origins and the nature of the universe in which we live. It seems far more politically motivated than anything that can be attributed to science or logic. Not that there's anything wrong with having political motives, but only as long as the argument is framed that way.






    SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/30/2011 6:40:38 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: GotSteel
    Premise 1.) Minds are self-collapsing wave-functions. (Penrose's Orch-OR thesis)
    Premise 2.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing. (Because there is by definition no physical objects outside of it that can measure it)
    Conclusion: Therefore the wave-function of the universe is a mind.

    I can't believe it.
    • Plato was a human.
    • I am a human.
    Therefore I am Plato. The Penrose Orch-OR thesis was horribly summarised by the author of the posting.

    By other side, the Penrose Orch-OR model is a quite disputed, if not refuted, one. And, last but not least, simply mentioning Schödingers Paradox for God does not make it a reference to that proof.

    I insist, I think that it was simply a joke.

    By the way... [8|] ... but I change my answer to make it better.
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: GotSteel
    I don't think that I can make that standard either, but by all means if that's your standard let's see LevelOf("2+2=4") = LevelOf("there is no God") please remember to list all possible scenarios.

    I do not claim that LevelOf("2+2=4") = LevelOf("there is no God"), that is, that both scenarios are equally probable. You said that one is more probable as the other. I said that I can't make any probability calculations.

    So... do you have any rational argument to support the claim, that it is more probable that 2+2=4, as that there are 8 planets?

    For example. If not, then I would recommend you to say the same as me - without Occam's Razor, we can't calculate any probabilities of any.

    With Occam's Razor, however, we conclude that both are true. Therefore, 100% probable, as any true event according to Theory of Probabilities. This, said as long as no-one proves us otherwise.




    Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/30/2011 9:02:49 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Zonie63

    So, I can see why someone would say "there is no god" in response to the usual parade of Christian platitudes we often hear.

    Well honestly, I can't. Why then not say, "the Christian God doesn't exist"? Or "the God of the Bible," or whatever it is they actually mean.

    GotSteel's answer to the question seems to be that we know perfectly well what he means, and that anybody who wasn't just picking on poor Atheists would be willing to admit that any other conception of God is just "hypothetical, undefined" chopped liver.

    Any ideas on how to explain why for some people, "there is no God" means, "there is no God other than the one that I say doesn't exist"?

    K.





    willbeurdaddy -> RE: Agnosticism (11/30/2011 9:08:09 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Zonie63


    If our existence is just a series of random events without any rhyme or reason, it becomes much easier to accept and be at peace with oneself and the world around us.



    False dichotomy. The non-existence of god doesnt mean that existence is a series of random events any more than quantum wave functions do.




    Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




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