🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <b9vod.178017$df2.117555@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:TNuod.177751$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.

I'd like to think that most people, not under psychological or physical duress, 
would be capable of recognizing that the beliefs of others have plenty of 
potential for direct consequences on them.  For example, the beliefs of Osama 
bin Laden and his followers had a lot of consequences for people working at the 
World Trade Center a few years back.  Does that ring a bell?


>> >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.  

You've inferred that god is less likely to be a smurf or arnold schwartzenegger 
than something else.  From this you can infer that god likely does not exist.


>> 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.

Now you're catching on.  But since humans didn't create the meaning of the 
cosmos with a top-down approach, there is no universal signifier.


>> Widely, and wildly interpreted, as I said...
>>
>Incorrectly stated.  There is a big difference between your misquote and
>what he actually said.

I quoted him precisely, liar.  Descartes said "I think, therefore I am".  It's 
in his book "Discourse on Method".  Twit.  

By the way I've decided from this point on only to respond to your strongest 
arguments, lies, and ad hominems to try to wrap this up...

>>
>> 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.

no, it would've been an ad hominem if I had just said "You moron" but had not 
explained exactly how you contradicted yourself (moronically, in my opinion).  
The claim is about your contradiction, moron.  So your 'ad hominem' remark is a 
red herring.  Insults aren't automatically ad hominem attacks, didn't you know 
that, idiot?

>> >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.

Uh huh, and you just defined it as an organism that responds to it's 
environment immediately.  So when I present an organism you have a cultural 
bias against, you disclude it from your definition even though it fits as well 
as every other organism you accepted in your definition.  You're spinning your 
wheels, contradicting yourself, and just plowing on as if you're consistent, 
possibly hoping nobody will notice.  Well if it hasn't dawned on you yet, I'm 
noticing!

>> 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.

Suddenly you've changed the definition of infinity to immortality.  I think you 
are a complete idiot who doesn't know what he's saying one moment from the 
next.  You're frantically ad hocing protection for your delusions.  


>> >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.
>

actually he was defining will as will to power, which was his attempt at 
resolving determinism vs. 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 pick and choose my battles in life.  I see a lot of bullshit I ignore, but I 
chose not to ignore yours.  I have thoroughly defeated you and your bullshit, 
but if you continue to try to ad hoc your bullshit back into production here, 
I'll keep responding.  The trend here has been for you to launch more and more 
ridiclous statements, if you haven't noticed... I suspect that trend to 
continue for as long as this conversation does.


> I am finished responding. 

I'll believe it when I see it.