🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:TNuod.177751$df2.165976@edtnps89...
> In article <3ttod.177636$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.
>

But they don't have to care about anyone else's beliefs, because the beliefs
of someone else have no effect or consequence for them.

> >> 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.
>
I am not infering anything about the nature of God, if one actually exists,
nor would I infer that there is no God.  The problem is that there is
excellent evidence for either side; neither is compelling enough for me to
infer one way or the other if the nature of God is that of the Christian God
or something similar.

>
>
> >> 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.
>
Everything that has meaning to us, as humans, has a definition or
representation that was created by humans.
>
> >
> >> 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...
>
Incorrectly stated.  There is a big difference between your misquote and
what he actually 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...
>
He was not a flake.  He was not that far wrong in his observations.  The
problem is, like the argument you put forward, he was out to prove
something, and used the observations he had made selectively to try and
prove a conclusion he had already come to.

> >>
> >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?
>
Again, it depends on how much information you have.  The more variables you
have filled in, the less an event appears to be random and the more orderly
it will become.  Again, scope is important.  Quantum Mechanics is still
based on the probability that some event will occur (or not occur) because
of a lack of information.  The predictability of even quantum events becomes
higher as more preceeding information is known.  If we knew all information
from when time began, there would be no randomness.

>
> > 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.
>
>

You came here.
>
> >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.
>

Ah, Ad Hominem yet again.  Usually happens when one argues in circles and
can't backtrack.

> "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)
>
I don't think so.  But again, it epends on how you define consciousness.

>
> >
> >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.
>
OK.  You go back to your self-teaching.  Since you are a finite being, like
the rest of us, you can only concieve of the definition and the symbology
that represents infinity.  You have no idea what infinity is in the true
sense and neither does any other finite being.

>
>
> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >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?
>
Its a circular argument, one of the fallacies.  Nietze was using it in a
specific context and he was not defining will.  He was defining free will.


> >> 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?
>
The question is really, why are you?  I am finished responding.  I bit.  A
wise man once told me not to argue with fools (by that I mean people who
cannot see beyond their own perceptions), because they take you down to
their level and beat you with experience.  I have seen more than enough
fallacies in your arguments to see this thread is totally pointless.  So, I
am done with it.
>