Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Wrong? Moi?

Pages: (7) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 >

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:04    Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,17:54) Skeptic, in all honesty: How do you know that God doesn't want you to kill children? What if you heard a voice saying that you should? What if that voice came from a burning Bush? An atheist would say, "shit, my roommate slipped acid in my orange juice again." Because the atheist knows that god isn't something that talks through burning bushes. What does the Christian do? SHIT! BWE, don't confuse him or give him excuses to avoid actually answering the question! ;-) The question is about if someone can be wrong, and the consequences of being wrong, even if they are wrong about something major. At the moment Skeptic is telling us he cannot be wrong and flannelling about trying to avoid answering the question in such a fashion that he admits he is capable of being wrong. Don't give him more opportunity to avoid actual thought. Louis ADDED IN EDIT: P.S. Your roommate spiked your OJ with acid? DAMN! I had bad roommates. I'm phoning them right now. "Why didn't you spike my OJ with acid, biotch?" "Because you;d done it yourself already, Louis." "Oh, yeah, I forgot!". -------------- Bye.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:33    Just for the fun of it.  2 - 5 are meaningless (to me) but I am interested in 1 and 4. 1) My answer stands and it was made irregardless of the actual nature of the evidence.  The hypothetical did not ask me to ponder the nature of the evidence presented just its impact upon my behavior.  I answered that but I did comment upon the nature of the evidence as an aside.  I do have trouble imagining a hypothetical in which the existence of God can be refuted with positive evidence rather than negative.  That may be my limitation but it also arises from the belief that God lies outside of rational examination.  From my perspective, belief is God is the initial condition, call it a given.  Any changes to the initial condition would require evidence of an alternative view.  Now, it is only natural for an atheist whose initial condition is on of disbelief to require evidence for the existence in order to change that opinion.  I think this just represents our views from exactly opposite sides of the same issue.  As I said before, if you can posit a hypothetical in which the existence of God is refuted as a consequence of positive evidence, I'm all ears.  I would consider that an interesting thought experiment.  I hope that clarifies that sufficently for you. 4)  The idea that the existence of God or any specific God would be dismaying is somewhat comical and certainly an example of human arrogance.  Why?  That's assume for the sake of argument that God, in whatever form, exists.  I understand that this is difficult to concede because it contradicts your sensibilities but give it a try.  Do the ideas of man concerning the nature of this God have any impact upon his actual nature?  Wouldn't it be immature to say that I don't accept or approve of this God because he's not the God I want?  Do the preferences of man determine the nature of God?  I have actually heard this idea before and it makes for an interesting conversation but not one that I personally agree with.  It just strikes me as odd that someone could learn of the existence of God and then be disappointed because it upsets their personal little worldview.  Seems very self-absorbed, wouldn't you say? Outside of that, I don't think it much matters which thread we discuss these things on.  This one is pretty much dead as those who interested have said their two cents and moved on.  If there is some formality required so be it otherwise I'd say a conversation is a conversation no matter where it takes place.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:37    Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,11:54) Skeptic, in all honesty: How do you know that God doesn't want you to kill children? What if you heard a voice saying that you should? What if that voice came from a burning Bush? An atheist would say, "shit, my roommate slipped acid in my orange juice again." Because the atheist knows that god isn't something that talks through burning bushes. What does the Christian do? This actually goes back to my earlier statement concerning the loop of belief or the admitted circular reasoning.  Any suggestion that contradicts my beliefs would be taken skeptically.  My general beliefs and my belief in a specific deity are completely intertwined and I'm not sure that I could seperate them.  Now I may very well be wrong and God wants me to kill children but I'm not going to do that and I'll have to suffer the consequences later.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:42    Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2007,12:04) Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,17:54) Skeptic, in all honesty: How do you know that God doesn't want you to kill children? What if you heard a voice saying that you should? What if that voice came from a burning Bush? An atheist would say, "shit, my roommate slipped acid in my orange juice again." Because the atheist knows that god isn't something that talks through burning bushes. What does the Christian do? SHIT! BWE, don't confuse him or give him excuses to avoid actually answering the question! ;-) The question is about if someone can be wrong, and the consequences of being wrong, even if they are wrong about something major. At the moment Skeptic is telling us he cannot be wrong and flannelling about trying to avoid answering the question in such a fashion that he admits he is capable of being wrong. Don't give him more opportunity to avoid actual thought. Louis ADDED IN EDIT: P.S. Your roommate spiked your OJ with acid? DAMN! I had bad roommates. I'm phoning them right now. "Why didn't you spike my OJ with acid, biotch?" "Because you;d done it yourself already, Louis." "Oh, yeah, I forgot!". It seemed relevant to me. Sorry. P.S. In college, this is no joke, there was a sort of running gag. Groups of people would drop and decide to include a sleeping friend in their revelries. They would slip a tiny piece of blotter paper in a guy's mouth, wait 15 to 20 minutes, wake him up and tell him that he was joining the troupe. I don't know how we survived. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:44    Louis, I missed the part where I said I cannot be wrong.  You'll need to point that out to me.  I fully embrace the position that I could be wrong and have examined that prospect extensively and frequently.  Because I cannot imagine a situation in which I find out that I am wrong just testifies to the fact that I've reviewed this question numerous times and have continually arrived at the same conclusion...so far.  The jury is still out. BTW, this is what faith is.  I believe in something until I have a reason not to.  It just so happens that this belief is no based upon rational thought.  Kinda like being a sports fan,  if I were a Colorado fan I might truely believe that the Rockies are going to win right up until they lose game 4 but not before no matter what the facts say.  Sorry, I don't have a football(soccer) analogy to supply but you can fill in your own teams.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:44    Good GRAVY! You really CANNOT read for comprehension can you? Follow the chain of reasoning Skeptic: 1) Person A believes in pixies. 2) Person A has some positive evidence that they use in support of their belief in pixies. 3) Person B asks if they can be wrong about their belief in pixies, and in orer to do so asks them to imagine a world in which the positive evidence they have which supports their belief in pixies DOES NOT EXIST. 4) Person A imagines such a world and concludes they can be wrong. Contrast with what you're doing: 1) Person A believes in pixies. 2) Person A has some positive evidence that they use in support of their belief in pixies. 3) Person B asks if they can be wrong about their belief in pixies, and in orer to do so asks them to imagine a world in which the positive evidence they have which supports their belief in pixies DOES NOT EXIST. 4) Person A says that they cannot imagine a world in which pixies were proven not to exist. 5) Person B mentions that this was not the question that was asked and that proving a negative in the manner described is an impossibility. 6) Person A wanks about. See the difference? Do you understand why proving a negative is an impossibility? You should really consider those things in the previous post you find "meaningless". Salvation lies within! Louis -------------- Bye.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:45    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 26 2007,12:37) Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,11:54) Skeptic, in all honesty: How do you know that God doesn't want you to kill children? What if you heard a voice saying that you should? What if that voice came from a burning Bush? An atheist would say, "shit, my roommate slipped acid in my orange juice again." Because the atheist knows that god isn't something that talks through burning bushes. What does the Christian do? This actually goes back to my earlier statement concerning the loop of belief or the admitted circular reasoning.  Any suggestion that contradicts my beliefs would be taken skeptically.  My general beliefs and my belief in a specific deity are completely intertwined and I'm not sure that I could seperate them.  Now I may very well be wrong and God wants me to kill children but I'm not going to do that and I'll have to suffer the consequences later. See, I knew it was relevant. So you have a religion that you just happen to like, for whatever reason. It has no actual relation to any real knowledge of god. It just makes you feel good. Right? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:47    BWE, what if the roomate didn't want to trip?  Didn't this ever lead to major conflicts?  I guess I would have to know which decade you're talking about to know for sure, lol.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:48    Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,18:42) Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2007,12:04) Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,17:54) Skeptic, in all honesty: How do you know that God doesn't want you to kill children? What if you heard a voice saying that you should? What if that voice came from a burning Bush? An atheist would say, "shit, my roommate slipped acid in my orange juice again." Because the atheist knows that god isn't something that talks through burning bushes. What does the Christian do? SHIT! BWE, don't confuse him or give him excuses to avoid actually answering the question! ;-) The question is about if someone can be wrong, and the consequences of being wrong, even if they are wrong about something major. At the moment Skeptic is telling us he cannot be wrong and flannelling about trying to avoid answering the question in such a fashion that he admits he is capable of being wrong. Don't give him more opportunity to avoid actual thought. Louis ADDED IN EDIT: P.S. Your roommate spiked your OJ with acid? DAMN! I had bad roommates. I'm phoning them right now. "Why didn't you spike my OJ with acid, biotch?" "Because you;d done it yourself already, Louis." "Oh, yeah, I forgot!". It seemed relevant to me. Sorry. P.S. In college, this is no joke, there was a sort of running gag. Groups of people would drop and decide to include a sleeping friend in their revelries. They would slip a tiny piece of blotter paper in a guy's mouth, wait 15 to 20 minutes, wake him up and tell him that he was joining the troupe. I don't know how we survived. No worries at all BWE, I was being slightly tongue in cheek. Trying to crack a coherent thought into Skeptic's wooden noggin is tough! As for your P.S., I have one thing to say, BRILLIANT! We just used to shave each other's heads or wire each other up to a hand operated DC generator (surprisingly poky actually). Or gaffer tape each other to the bed, or.... Hmmmm, I'm suing Jackass for breach of my youth's copyright! Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:51    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 26 2007,18:44) Louis, I missed the part where I said I cannot be wrong.  You'll need to point that out to me.   WHOA! You see Skeptic it's basic things like this that are so frustrating. Did I say: a) Skeptic says he cannot be wrong. OR b) Skeptic has responded to the question in such a way as to avoid admitting he can be wrong. a) or b) Skeptic? I'll give you a hint: it's b). Even more amusing is that you go on to do EXACTLY what I have been describing in the rest of your post. I hate to call you a moron, but if the dunce cap fits, and Skeptic, it fits you like a layer of shit on a pig, then you better wear it. Louis -------------- Bye.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:55    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 26 2007,12:47) BWE, what if the roomate didn't want to trip?  Didn't this ever lead to major conflicts?  I guess I would have to know which decade you're talking about to know for sure, lol. This was long long ago in a culture far far away. People just woke up, smacked their lips and tongue around a bit, recognized the strange metallic flavor and blotter texture and got up, got dressed and got ready. Never heard any serious complaints but I do know that one guy ended up in an 8:00 chem lab still quite altered. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:56    But Skeptic, to my point, Quote So you have a religion that you just happen to like, for whatever reason. It has no actual relation to any real knowledge of god. It just makes you feel good. Right? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,12:58    Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,18:55) ...one guy ended up in an 8:00 chem lab still quite altered. Hey! I resemble that remark! Louis -------------- Bye.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:00    Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2007,12:58) Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,18:55) ...one guy ended up in an 8:00 chem lab still quite altered. Hey! I resemble that remark! Louis No, you came OUT of 8:00 chem lab quite altered. There's a difference. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:03    Quote (Louis @ Oct. 26 2007,12:44) Good GRAVY! You really CANNOT read for comprehension can you? Follow the chain of reasoning Skeptic: 1) Person A believes in pixies. 2) Person A has some positive evidence that they use in support of their belief in pixies. 3) Person B asks if they can be wrong about their belief in pixies, and in orer to do so asks them to imagine a world in which the positive evidence they have which supports their belief in pixies DOES NOT EXIST. 4) Person A imagines such a world and concludes they can be wrong. Contrast with what you're doing: 1) Person A believes in pixies. 2) Person A has some positive evidence that they use in support of their belief in pixies. 3) Person B asks if they can be wrong about their belief in pixies, and in orer to do so asks them to imagine a world in which the positive evidence they have which supports their belief in pixies DOES NOT EXIST. 4) Person A says that they cannot imagine a world in which pixies were proven not to exist. 5) Person B mentions that this was not the question that was asked and that proving a negative in the manner described is an impossibility. 6) Person A wanks about. See the difference? Do you understand why proving a negative is an impossibility? You should really consider those things in the previous post you find "meaningless". Salvation lies within! Louis Here's where your mistaken: 2) There is no positive evidence for the the belief outside of the existence of the belief itself.  One more time and slowly,  I believe in God as the initial condition not as an arrived at concept through and examination of pros and cons.  Do you see the distinction? 4) Person A still supplies an answer under the hypothetical, namely if there were no God, all the while expressing an inability to  imagine the nature of the evidence required to confront this scenario.   Again, there is a difference here. BWE,  this actually goes very deeply into faith and belief and how they are intertwined with my thinking process.  There are certain things I believe in, such as the sanctity of human life, the notions of good and evil, human rights, the nature of the universe and so forth that are either influenced by or necessary for my belief in God.  It's a chicken or egg question, I'm not sure if I believe in God because of my belief in these concepts or the other way around.  So it's not a matter that I believe in God because it feels good, I just believe in God.  This may be an unconscious concept or maybe a genetic hardwiring issue.  I find those discussions intriguing but I cannot honestly tell the difference myself.  That may be one of the reasons that I spend so much time thinking about it.  I like mysteries and puzzles and to me I am the biggest puzzle there is.  I would suspect that we all might feel that way about ourselves.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:15    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 26 2007,13:03) BWE,  this actually goes very deeply into faith and belief and how they are intertwined with my thinking process.  There are certain things I believe in, such as the sanctity of human life, the notions of good and evil, human rights, the nature of the universe and so forth that are either influenced by or necessary for my belief in God.  It's a chicken or egg question, I'm not sure if I believe in God because of my belief in these concepts or the other way around.  So it's not a matter that I believe in God because it feels good, I just believe in God.  This may be an unconscious concept or maybe a genetic hardwiring issue.  I find those discussions intriguing but I cannot honestly tell the difference myself.  That may be one of the reasons that I spend so much time thinking about it.  I like mysteries and puzzles and to me I am the biggest puzzle there is.  I would suspect that we all might feel that way about ourselves. Skeptic, will you please read your statement one more time and make sure that's what you mean? I think I get it but I want to make sure you didn't type a wrong word or two. And BTW, Quote to me I am the biggest puzzle there is.  I would suspect that we all might feel that way about ourselves. Well, if you mean things like "why does my knee always hurt so much these days" and things like that but I think it might be the god thing that makes you feel that way. I'm not very puzzled by me normally.  Of course, that may just be me too. I probably puzzle some other people. Although I notice that when people puzzle me it normally means that I want to believe that they wouldn't do such a thing as whatever they did. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:16    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 26 2007,19:03) Here's where your mistaken: 2) There is no positive evidence for the the belief outside of the existence of the belief itself.  One more time and slowly,  I believe in God as the initial condition not as an arrived at concept through and examination of pros and cons.  Do you see the distinction? 4) Person A still supplies an answer under the hypothetical, namely if there were no God, all the while expressing an inability to  imagine the nature of the evidence required to confront this scenario.   Again, there is a difference here. Oh for the love of banana cream pies and bacon! Skeptic: a) the scenario I outlined above is to do with the questions that have been asked on this thread not your expression of faith. You were not answering the question AS IT WAS asked (you're still not btw). b) I KNOW you think your belief is the default, that's why you cannot answer the question. Your inability to answer the question is precisely because of your inability to think outside of your faith as I pointed out pages ago. You even admit this yourself! Try to work out that there are seperate issues in the thread (and the questions). For example: the manner and (in)coherence of your answer and the content of your answer. The one I specifically did not want to get into was anything to do with the specifics of some faith or lack there of, the question was about the ability to be wrong (in part). As I could have predicted you have done everything you can to avoid the possibility of being wrong. You can say you've examined it as much as you like but you are assuming your conclusions (and admitting to it) hence why you cannot answer the question. To appreciate the fact you might be wrong you have to recognise the errors you're making in your reasoning. You cannot do this, you've admitted you cannot do this, you've stated an entirely circular case and refuse to deal with the fact (again I pointed out pages ago that your claims could be used for a pixie believer and a lunatic, and you have failed to distinguish your self from them, even to the extent of admitting the likeness). Hence why I have said that you are incapable of thinking outside of your faith and hence why the answre you must give to the question is "no I cannot be wrong". This is the answer I knew I'd get from you btw. It's also highly indicative of the utterly unproductive mindset you are stuck in. Again, you've helped me out by showing yourself up as the thoughtless, blinkered bigot you are. I couldn't have made you do this by force and yett you doi it willingly every time I give you the opportunity. Thanks! Louis -------------- Bye.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:20    Yep that's what I meant.  I'm kinda laying myself bare but as far as being puzzled by myself I tend to extrapolate the big questions out from myself.  Why do I think the way I do, how do I think, what is thinking, what is a thought...one of those things, if you see what I mean.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:24    Oh and incidentally whilst I remember: Skeptic, it doesn't matter of you have some evidence or not, the question is asking you to imagine a scenario under certain conditions that are not applicable now. If this is evidence for your deity, then imagine the world without that, if this is your assumption of belief and circular reasoning, imagine the world without that. Any clearer? Louis -------------- Bye.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:29    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 26 2007,12:33) Just for the fun of it.  2 - 5 are meaningless (to me) but I am interested in 1 and 4. 1) My answer stands and it was made irregardless of the actual nature of the evidence.   There is no such friggin word as "irregardless" biotch! Please spend less time in Sunday School, and more time learning to communicate. DO NOT EVER MAKE THIS MISTAKE IN FRONT OF ME AGAIN.  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:29    reposted from page 1: Quote I would see some changes in my life, the obvious ones like attending church but overall I would not change much else because in general I'm very happy with myself and the way life has turned out based upon the choices I have made which were influenced by my beliefs.  I would greatly fear the impact of this premise upon the population at large and would predict great instability and uncertainty as not everyone might feel so constrained. As you see, I answered the question.  Maybe you don't approve of the answer because I didn't fall down quivering  and crying that my whole life had been a sham and I really was just believing in pixies.  Being able to contemplate a hypothetical and being able to supply the instances that make the hypothetical come true are two completely different things.  You are very confused and all your false understanding stem from this confusion.  Just a suggestion, if you stop constantly trying to prove every statement made by everyone wrong that you might actually begin to participate in discussions.  I'm losing faith that you're capable of this as it seems your nature to be antagonistic.  I'm back to work, have fun with the remainder of the day (or night in your case).

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:33    Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 26 2007,13:29) Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 26 2007,12:33) Just for the fun of it.  2 - 5 are meaningless (to me) but I am interested in 1 and 4. 1) My answer stands and it was made irregardless of the actual nature of the evidence.   There is no such friggin word as "irregardless" biotch! Please spend less time in Sunday School, and more time learning to communicate. DO NOT EVER MAKE THIS MISTAKE IN FRONT OF ME AGAIN.  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. so easy even a caveman could do it, huh? ;D, oh yeah and my condolences that you're sitcom failed.  lol On a serious note, I can't remember the last time I was in Sunday school but I'm sure they would require proper grammer also.  No, I can't blame that one on Sunday school, that one is solely on me.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:33    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 26 2007,19:29) reposted from page 1: Quote I would see some changes in my life, the obvious ones like attending church but overall I would not change much else because in general I'm very happy with myself and the way life has turned out based upon the choices I have made which were influenced by my beliefs.  I would greatly fear the impact of this premise upon the population at large and would predict great instability and uncertainty as not everyone might feel so constrained. As you see, I answered the question.  Maybe you don't approve of the answer because I didn't fall down quivering  and crying that my whole life had been a sham and I really was just believing in pixies.  Being able to contemplate a hypothetical and being able to supply the instances that make the hypothetical come true are two completely different things.  You are very confused and all your false understanding stem from this confusion.  Just a suggestion, if you stop constantly trying to prove every statement made by everyone wrong that you might actually begin to participate in discussions.  I'm losing faith that you're capable of this as it seems your nature to be antagonistic.  I'm back to work, have fun with the remainder of the day (or night in your case). Oh for the love of banana cream pie, bacon, beer and little children. Yes, Skeptic, as mentioned you answered that part of the question but you're negelecting to mention the rest aren't you. That's my point, that has always been my point, that remains my point. You even quote mine yourself in order to avoid mentioning the segement which I am trying to get examined, i.e. the bit BEFORE the bit you quote. Shit, are you ever honest? Louis -------------- Bye.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:34    oh noes! The answers on this thread are beginning to resemble the answers on another thread... "I knows what I knows" Is it time to begin the Compare And Contrast Your Favorite Creo's Game? -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:37    Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 26 2007,19:34) oh noes! The answers on this thread are beginning to resemble the answers on another thread... "I knows what I knows" Is it time to begin the Compare And Contrast Your Favorite Creo's Game? I reckon you should change it to "I believes what I believes and it's true because I believes it, so there, and you;re  am big combatative meanie if you try to get me to think differently or even think at all wah wah wah wah". It's more than annoying to have to deal with such childish wankery. Louis -------------- Bye.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:38    Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,13:15)   Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 26 2007,13:03) ...There are certain things I believe in, such as the sanctity of human life, the notions of good and evil, human rights, the nature of the universe and so forth that are either influenced by or necessary for my belief in God.  It's a chicken or egg question, I'm not sure if I believe in God because of my belief in these concepts or the other way around.  So it's not a matter that I believe in God because it feels good, I just believe in God.  This may be an unconscious concept or maybe a genetic hardwiring issue.  I find those discussions intriguing but I cannot honestly tell the difference myself.  ... ...And BTW,   Quote to me I am the biggest puzzle there is.  I would suspect that we all might feel that way about ourselves. Well, if you mean things like "why does my knee always hurt so much these days" ... Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 26 2007,13:20) Yep that's what I meant.  I'm kinda laying myself bare but as far as being puzzled by myself I tend to extrapolate the big questions out from myself.  Why do I think the way I do, how do I think, what is thinking, what is a thought...one of those things, if you see what I mean. Ah. Puzzled is not the word I would use so I misunderstood. I see now. OK, Quote There are certain things I believe in, such as the sanctity of human life, the notions of good and evil, human rights, the nature of the universe and so forth that are either influenced by or necessary for my belief in God. Most people "believe in" those things regardless of their position on god. I use the quotes because the choice of words begs the question of god. What about "Feel strongly that these things are important"? And good and evil are a dualism. It is impossible to have one without the other and it is impossible to put an absolute anywhere on the continuum so it is a nearly meaningless idea except rhetorically. I suspect that if you simply call the nature of the universe "god" there are no problems. As soon as you try to say god has X characteristic outside the nature of the universe as can be observed, you begin a speculation process and you start dressing god up in clothes that don't fit and you end up using more and more pins, duct tape and bubble-gum to hold your outfit together. But one you assign a property to god, you then by default ascribe that property to the universe because you define universe = god so suddenly you have to defend a property of the universe which cannot be observed and in fact you already know you made it up. But yet you can not imagine a world without that assumption. This doesn't strike you as strange? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:47    Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 26 2007,19:29) Maybe you don't approve of the answer because I didn't fall down quivering  and crying that my whole life had been a sham and I really was just believing in pixies. Incidentally, i think this is a very revealing comment. For the record (AGAIN): a) I don't want anyone to fall down quivering and crying because their whole life has been a sham because they were really just believing in pixies. b) The point of the questions were not to examine the differences (or lack thereof) between pixie faith and god faith, nor were they designed to harm/offend/upset theists etc. They were designed as a sort of detector test to expose certain types of thinking, which in your case they have done very nicely indeed. The very MANNER (note the difference between the manner of a response [i.e. the way the answer is constructed, the chain of reasoning used in it etc] and the CONTENT [the conclusions and detail in it] of it) of your response gives the answer. The answer is, when it comes to your faith in god, you believe you cannot be wrong. That is the CONTENT of your answer, whether you explicitly state it or not. The reason that conclusion is inescapable is because of the MANNER of your answer (i.e. the weaselly evasions you are employing to avoid admitting to that answer). c) Your assumption of hostility/combatativeness is a subtext within the whole OP. It is PRECISELY this false assumption on your part that makes discussion with you impossible, coupled to your incredibly awful abilities to reason and think (not to mention be even remotely honest). Like I said, this reveals much about you and people like you, as the question was intended to. No need to be pissed off with me because, yet again, it takes almost no effort on my part to expose you for the vile little maggot you are. Like I said. Thanks! Louis -------------- Bye.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,13:52    It's a good think there is no hostility there. :) I'm not sure my delicate constitution could take it. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,14:07    Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,19:52) It's a good think there is no hostility there. :) I'm not sure my delicate constitution could take it. LOL Good point. Annoyed: Yes. Frustrated: Yes. Hostile: No. Nice: No. I never said I was nice! Louis P.S. The point about hostility is to imply that I disagree because I am hostile. This isn't the case. I disagree because Skeptic espouses unthinking, false, poorly reasoned crap and demands it be taken seriously and given respect. The fact that I express my disagreement *ahem* "robustly" on occasion is an indication of frustration, nothing more. ADDED IN EDIT: P.P.S. There ARE things I am hostile towards. Dishonesty is one of them. I suppose since Skeptic is generally dishonest in the manner of his argumentation that you could with good ground claim that I'm hostile to him (or more accurately his manner of argumentation) on that basis alone. Tke the quote he gives of himself above as an example. The part of his comments we are discussing now is not the part he quotes. He is treating it as if it is and as if I missed this (I didn't, the first question I asked him was about this) and/or that I have some unspoken motivation in doing this. This is a deliberate attempt to derail what little discussion is possible with him, and to again force the argument away from the obvious flaws in his case. That is dishonest. The alternative is that he is merely extremely stupid, which I admit is a possibility. I'm not hostile towards stupidity, but I see little reason to tolerate it when it is so actively expressed and defended. -------------- Bye.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2007,15:50    I'm going to have to flat out disagree with you, Louis.  In my mind there are only two possibilities here.  The first is you just don't understand your own motivations, and while I believe this may be possible I think you actually reveal the truth.  The second is that you are hostile out of purpose and everything that follows is a consequence of that fact. Let's look at the question.  How would you act differently if it were revealed that God (or your evidence that is foundational to your belief in God) doesn't exist?  Taken literally, the question is about how one reacts to new information or changing world views.  The question asks for behavior and thoughts in light of that new evidence.  If, as you say, this question is really a sham and the answer is not important only the manner in which the answer is given then you are purposely setting up a conflict in order to expose this manner for what you already think it is, wrong.  This is intentionally confrontational by your own admission. My answer stands and your characterization of my answer is flat wrong.  I repeatedly admit that I can not imagine a case in which the hypothetical becomes real.  This is nothing but honesty and even though prompted you repeatedly fail to offer a scenario for consideration in which the hypothetical becomes true.  Again, regardless of this caveat, I can still contemplate and answer the stated question and over and over again admit that I may be wrong.  I don't know how and if I did then I wouldn't hold those beliefs because I would see the evidence of their non-existence but that still doesn't mean that I can not accept the possibility.  The fact that you are unable to just exemplifies your extreme narrow-mindedness.  The quote that was reposted was the actual answer to the question as stated even though you've already stated your ulterior motive. In truth, you have no idea what dishonesty is.  In your mind, dishonesty is anyone who disagrees with you.  There's no getting around it, if I was you I'd just try to recognize that and work towards a resolution.  Remember, the first step is admitting you have a problem. As a first, why don't you try to seriously examine what YOU may be wrong about.  No joke, think about it.  Then as step two, try to formulate a plausible proof that would confirm that you are wrong.  I believe you might learn something vital after completing this exercise and then get back to me.  Maybe then you'll be capable of a conversation and not  a confrontation.

Pages: (7) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard