🚀 go-pugleaf

What a stupid bunch of posts we have here. I don't think I've ever read such 
stupid nonsense. You all must have a pile of time on your hands to argue who 
the bigger idiot is.


"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...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> >There you go.  Since you obviously view anyone who doesn't share you
>>> >views
>>> >> >as being stupid and inferior, you clearly do give a crap.
>>> >>
>>> >> Wrong.  Anyone who doesn't share my views is either inferior or
>>superior.
>>> >But
>>> >> nobody is my equal because there is nobody who shares my views 
>>> >> because
>>> >they are
>>> >> unique to me, just as yours are unique to you.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >No, you are wrong again.  Any measurement against another still means
>>that
>>> >you do care;
>>>
>>> Oh I see, you're attempting to portray my caring about my survival as a
>>> weakness.  I don't see it that way.  I exist, I live in a society, and I
>>care
>>> about maximizing my potential within the reality I exist.  But I don't
>>consider
>>> approaching every phenomena I encounter as a dunce (agnostic) who can't
>>figure
>>> out what matters to him to be condusive to maximizing my potential.
>>That's why
>>> I find confident theists to be far less pathetic than so-called 
>>> agnostics.
>>
>>No.  You're original arguement was that you couldn't care about anyone's
>>beliefs; ie. you are indifferent.
>
> 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.
>
>>> >>  Empirical evidence faces problems of induction.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >You're kidding, right?
>>>
>>> No. You're kidding about "You're kidding, right?" being a refutation of 
>>> my
>>> claim, right?
>>>
>>No.  Impirical evidence is pretty good proof generally accepted in just
>>about any intellectual discipline; including science.
>
> Empiricism is very important in the development of scientific methodology, 
> but
> empirical evidence doesn't provide ontological proofs.
>
>
>>> You also can't know whether god is in fact a large smurf who lives on 
>>> the
>>> planet jupiter and smokes cosmic crack every day.  So does it make you
>>feel
>>> like an 'open-minded', politically-correct kind of guy by accepting that
>>as a
>>> 'possibility'?  Because you are clinging to your beliefs because of how
>>they
>>> make you feel, just like I am.
>>>
>>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?
>
>
>>
>>I don't cling to my beliefs because of how they make me feel at all, but
>>because any attempt to explain the world around me satisfactorily and with
>>one consistent set of reasons or causes, escapes me.
>
> A universal signifier escapes everyone, since one does not exist.  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...
>
>
>>If I could show that the universe happened by accident, I could
>>accept that there is no God.  However, it is far too orderly to have been 
>>by
>>accident.
>
> See I get the impression you really don't have much experience with this
> subject because you should know that this is William Paley's Natural 
> Theology
> theory, which is very easy to refute as the 'Blind Watchmaker' excerise
> demonstrates.  As Dawkins sums it up succinctly; "a deity capable of
> engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either 
> instantaneously
> or by guiding evolution, ...must already have been vastly complex in the 
> first
> place..." He calls this "postulating organized complexity without offering 
> an
> explanation.""
>
>
>>But, if I could state that the universe was by design, I could
>>accept that as proof of a God.  However, it is far too random for that 
>>too.
>
> I don't see what that proves.  Maybe god likes randomness (but apparently 
> not
> very much since it only occurs on the subatomic level).
>
>
>>Also the limit of our ability to sense beyond a certain point and the many
>>mysteries of even our own consciousness that defy explanations, does not
>>allow me to rule out God either.
>
> Then you should not rule out the possibility that Arnold Schwartzenegger 
> is
> god, and you should consider that possibility to be equally as possible as 
> any
> other conception of god you might be able to imagine.
>
>
>>To the contrary.  I have never once used the word agnostic in this entire
>>thread.  You did.  I have never claimed to be an agnostic at all.  Again,
>>since an agnostic DOES believe in God but simply pratices no religion, I
>>would say you are a little shy on that definition too.
>
> That is not, in any sense, a valid definition of agnosticism.  Agnosticsm 
> does
> not require a belief or disbelief in god.  In it's original sense, when 
> the
> term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, it meant "the philosophical and
> theological view that the existence of God, gods or deities is either 
> unknown,
> or inherently unknowable. ".  That definition of agnostic is a definition 
> I
> have no problem with, and I fall under that definition, and I believe 
> everyone
> else does too, whether they know it or not.  The newer definition of 
> agnostic
> which is what you've been describing yourself as, is used to describe 
> those who
> are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well and
> other matters of religions.  So for example, I have no problem saying "I 
> am
> agnostic", but I'm definately not AN agnostic, as in one who places is 
> faith IN
> agnosticism.  Whether you want to call yourself an agnostic or not, by 
> saying
> that your faith hinges on your inability to know, you are classifying 
> yourself
> by the definition of agnosticism.  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.
>
>
>>> >Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of 
>>> >brain
>>> >activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that
>>some
>>> >consciousness originates elsewhere.
>>>
>>> What evidence are you referring to?
>>>
>>>
>>Pain.  The body will respond to pain (ie. touching a hot burner) before 
>>the
>>brain can even register the sensation.
>
> Yeah I've studied that sort of thing extensively.  The key is what it 
> means to
> 'register the sensation'.  If there is an immediate danger the brain seems 
> to
> know that there isn't time to process the stimuli in a conscious manner, 
> so it
> does it unconsciously, so that it can happen much quicker.  In fact there 
> are
> cases were people will hear a voice commanding them to duck or whatever is
> required to avoid an immediate danger when there isn't time to activate 
> the
> 'internal dialog'.  But of course, even if this explaination turns out to 
> be
> wrong, there's no reason to believe a supernatural explaination will 
> replace it
> as a better explaination.
>
>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>>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.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> > Also, the amount of information that we
>>> >process in a lifetime is not even close to the amount of energy we can
>>> >produce (even if the information was stored at the atomic level).
>>>
>>> Wait a second.  I think I'm debating an idiot.
>>>
>>Simply because I am not understood doesn't make me an idiot.
>
> Your sentence was idiotic gibberish.  What is the equation used to 
> transfer
> units of information into units of energy?
>
>
>>>
>>> Oh, not in my opinion.  As far as morals go, everyone's got their own
>>opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>Precisely.  That statement alone proves most of the things I have been
>>saying.
>>
>
> I think it proves most of the things I have been saying.
>