🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <_Jqod.176780$df2.136767@edtnps89>, stupidpost@gmail.com says...
>
>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.

Frustrated that you're not capable of participating?


>
>
>"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.
>> 
>
>