🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3ttod.177636$df2.47748@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:yAcod.198749$9b.198334@edtnps84...
>> In article <lHbod.198727$9b.52369@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Apbod.198724$9b.14384@edtnps84...
>> >> In article <TYaod.198688$9b.127856@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
><snip>
>> I said I don't care what other people's beliefs are, in the sense that I
>have
>> no desire to try to change them.  I did not say I don't care about my own
>> beliefs, or my ability to interface with others in a manner that maximizes
>to
>> my benefit.
>>
>
>Ah.  The two are not related.  If you are indifferent to other people's
>beliefs, you most certainly don't want to change them.  However, as you
>stated previously, you would be just as happy to have them believe what they
>do, so you can exploit them.  Hence, whether you want to change them or not,
>you most certainly care what they are.

Fair enough but in that case your claim "Only those who aren't really sure 
couldn't really care what your beliefs are." is still just as much bullshit as 
it ever was, because people who "Aren't really sure (about the existence of 
god)" are just as likely to care about their means of survival in society as 
anybody else.     

>> Empiricism is very important in the development of scientific methodology,
>but
>> empirical evidence doesn't provide ontological proofs.
>>
>So?  Without it, it is virtually impossible to formulate a proof, and with
>it, one can discount a proof since only one exception is required to
>invalidate a law.

I hate to break it to you, but Carnap's theory of induction is about 50 years 
obsolete.  Try this:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/skep2/goodman.htm

>> >Not really.  First of surfs couldn't live on Jupiter because they are a
>> >figment of a human imagination and humans can't live on Jupiter.
>>
>> Well if smurfs are figments of human imagination, why isn't god?
>>
>
>He might be.  But we can't say it for sure.  We have no proof.
>

So if you think it is more likely that god is more like what we've been 
culturally conditioned to imagine god to be like than it is that god is a 
smurf, then you should also be able to infer that it is more likely that there 
is no god.  



>> A universal signifier escapes everyone, since one does not exist.
>
>You, nor anyone else, knows that.  And there are a good many scientists who
>have been searching for it for a long time.

They can search all they like but they won't find one since it's meaning could 
only be created by humans anyway.


>
>> The closest
>> thing to a yardstick from which to measure all other phenomena is the
>self.
>> Presumably, that's where Descartes was trying to get to with his widely
>wildly
>> interpreted "I think therefore I am" statement...
>
>Except that that is not what Descarte said, and he was not measuring the
>self against anything.

Widely, and wildly interpreted, as I said...

>His existence is irrelevant for
>either state since his life, or his death, would simply be another illusion
>preceived by imperfect senses and coloured by perception of those imperfect
>senses.  That is what Descartes said, and attempted to prove.

Hey I agree that he was a total flake but he made some key observations for the 
time, luckily expanded on by others...

>>
>So?  Since, if there actually is a deity, one cannot know the nature of it,
>since one cannot even prove or disprove its existence, it could be
>infinitely simple, or infinitely complex.  In addition, most of the universe
>is pretty simple; we can boil it down to a very simple set of laws,
>behaviours, particles and energy.  It is the scale of it that makes it
>complex.  Because of its scale, the entire entity called the universe, is
>beyond our comprehension.  We can't concieve of it all at once, even if we
>can describe the concepts.

I can't juggle more than three balls at a time, but it doesn't make me 
superstitious.


>
>At the subatomic level, there is apparent randomness. However, since we
>don't know all of the variables, we can't even say that it is completely
>random.  We can only use the apparent randomness to calculate the
>possibility that some event will occur in the absence of any knowledge of
>what happened to create the observed state.
>
>Given that, accidents can be calculated with probability, but not with
>certainty.

umm, what accidents?  sub-atomic accidents?


> Consequently, what you just said is that the ordering of the
>universe was no accident.  If that is the case, you are making and arguement
>for something to enforce that order.  I don't guess that is your intent at
>all.

You're right, the only accident I'm prepared to acknowledge here is my getting 
sucked into this retarded convo.



>I would be willing to bet Arny isn't God.  But, you're right, there is no
>way to rule it out either.  But, you are still making a case for a God, not
>against one.

You moron, YOU just made the case against God (equalling Arny), based on 
nothing but your own bias, likely from cultural conceptions of what 'god' 
should be like.  

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you 
do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will 
understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

>> Agnosticism is faith in non-faith,
>therefore
>> it is a contradiction, and a delusion harbored by anyone who claims it as
>a
>> component of their faith.
>>
>>
>Fine.  You defined me as an agnostic.  Consequently, I have to assume you
>meant that in the modern context.  However, since you have clarified that, I
>have no faith in a non-faith at all.

I said you have faith in non-faith.

>Not talking about "supernatural" phenomenon.  There are plenty of life forms
>that have no brain and can respond to their environments.  This indicates a
>'conciousness' of sorts, without even the presence of a brain.

There are plants that respond to touch - are they conscious?  (if you say yes 
you win a granola bar)


>
>Even with a brain, studies of twins indicate that it is not all metabolic.

psychic twins, eh?  Yeah you're quite a skeptic who needs 'absolute proof' 
before believing foo-foo...uh huh... 


>If it was, genetically identical twins with genetically identical brains
>should have identical responses to external stimuli.  They don't.

That's not a psychic twin experiment.  If two twins have something different 
for lunch their biological responses will differ.  Is there any study you'd 
like to cite that indicates something more mysterious is going on?



>
>> >> I don't think there's anything that 'defies explaination at all',
>> >> otherwise you wouldn't even be able to refer to it with words.  But why
>> >> should things which have not yet been explained very deeply or
>adequately,
>> >like
>> >> consciousness, compell a person to believe in the godly smurf living on
>> >jupiter
>> >> smoking cosmic crack?
>
>To the contrary.  There are many concepts that cannot be grasped
>intellectually, but can be described in words.  Infinity (even more
>contradictory, negative infinity as a math concept) cannot be concieved of,
>but can be described.

I'm conceiving of it right now because I know of the definition.  It's a cliche 
for people (usually new age idiots like you appear to be) to claim that humans 
just can't 'concieve' of infinity.  I concieve of it just fine, if I couldn't I 
wouldn't know what the word meant.



>
>> >>
>> >
>> >How about will?  If it is so easy, give us the benefit of your wisdom.
>>
>> yes, will to faith, which is will to power.  You only have faith that you
>don't
>> know much about the natutre of god.  The more you keep talking to me the
>more
>> you'll know, and the less you'll be able to claim you haven't considered
>all
>> the angles required to make an informed choice in your faith.
>>
>>
>You didn't define will, nor did you explain it except as a circular
>argument.

Nietzche's definition works for me. The 'will to power' line didn't tip you 
off?

>> Your sentence was idiotic gibberish.  What is the equation used to
>transfer
>> units of information into units of energy?
>>
>Volts, Amps, and Ohms.  The brain works on electrical activity as well as
>chemical states.

Volts, amps and ohms is not an equation to translate units of "information" 
into units of "energy".  Volts amps and ohms are descriptive terms for 
measuring electrical current.  Why are you still responding?  Is it fun to 
waste yours and my time with this stupidity?