NO! You are wrong wrong wrong!! Joe, how is that you manage to get things wrong ALL the time??
Alexgod,How do I reliably distinguish your "lack of belief" or "not anything" from what you may be merely imagining?
Trinity wrote: "How do I reliably distinguish your "lack of belief" or "not anything" from what you may be merely imagining?"Our "Lack of belief" in what? Square circles? "Not anything" as opposed to what? Do you mean, for example, how do you, Trinity, tell the difference between our "lack of belief" in, say, "Blarko the Wonderbeing" and the fact that Blarko is "not anything" and doesn't actually exist, from the possibility that we are only imagining our "lack of belief" in Blarko and only imagining that Blarko doesn't exist? Do I have that about right? If it is a fact that "Blarko the Wonderbeing" does not exist (it is) and we lack belief in Blarko, then why suppose that you, Trinity, need to do any distinguishing at all?That which doesn't exist, doesn't exist. If I were you, I would start with reality, i.e., that which does exist. If checking in with reality doesn't work, I would advise getting a check up.Ydemoc
There are little surprises around every corner but nothing dangerous- Willy Wonka
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trinity wrote: "There are little surprises around every corner but nothing dangerous- Willy Wonka"Trinity's failed attempts to make points by quoting from Willy Wonka and, on occasion, his bible, clearly demonstrate his propensity for suppressing his knowledge that the imaginary is, in fact, only imaginary.Ydemoc
Trinity, what are you on about?
Alexgod,What is it to you?
You keep on asking direct questions, but they literally make no sense. What are you talking about?
Trinity wrote: "There are little surprises around every corner but nothing dangerous- Willy Wonka"I responded: "Trinity's failed attempts to make points by quoting from Willy Wonka and, on occasion, his bible, clearly demonstrate his propensity for suppressing his knowledge that the imaginary is, in fact, only imaginary."Trinity then replied: "you're imaginary."This response of Trinity's is quite consistent with what his belief system teaches. For he has no reliable way to determine whether I am real or not. Where should he look to determine this? His storybook? — which is filled with spirits and ghosts, donkeys and snakes carrying on conversations, the sun standing still, stars affixed to a sky dome, dead people emerging from graves and walking about a city — where does he go to check his premises? He really has no reliable way (given the fact that his storybook-informed belief system allows for the possibility of such things) to tell if I am really a ghost (perhaps that of a person whose death he is in some way responsible for) who has come back to haunt him.Ydemoc
Yweezel,How does it feel to be imaginary?
Trinity writes: "How does it feel to be imaginary?"I find it revealing that Trinity would ask this question, for "feelings" certainly play a large part in a belief system which teaches that "wishing makes it so."Ydemoc
Weezel,That's the point you need to be proving. That you're not imaginary.
"NO! You are wrong wrong wrong!! Joe, how is that you manage to get things wrong ALL the time?? "It's a remarkable talent. Few people seem to be able to match this reckless disregard of facts and evidence.
Trinity, do you have ANYTHING good to add to this?
Agod,Of course I do what's not good about not anything?
Your translation software is letting you down.
Agod,What's "not anything"?
Trinity wrote: "That's the point you need to be proving. That you're not imaginary."Like I said before, given your storybook-informed view of reality, it's understandable that you would have trouble distinguishing between what's real and what's imaginary.Add to this the quite common double-standard, demanding of me that which you not dare demand of Jesus, the Holy Spirt, the Father, Satan, and demons — tells us that your "confessional investment" in the cartoon universe of theism has disabled your ability to tell the difference between me being a spirit from the dead that is haunting you, and the characters I just listed from your storybook.Ydemoc
Weezel,You don't exist.
Trinity wrote: "You don't exist."Spirits don't exist?An assertion from Trinity, stating that I (presumably as a human being) do not exist. Yet, he carries on a conversation with me, and has for months, much like he's undoubtedly carried on a conversation through prayer with his invisible magic, which also doesn't exist. He will maintain that his invisible magic being exists. So why would he not maintain the same about a haunting spirit that is talking to him? Trinity has demonstrated time and time again the end result of what holding a "confessional investment" in a storybook worldview (i.e., Primacy of Consciousness metaphysics) can do to the human mind: It blurs man's ability to recognize the distinctive line that separates the real from the imaginary.Ydemoc
Weezel,I had an individual tell me today that he didn't know if he existed. It was pretty hilarious. What say you?
Trinity wrote: "I had an individual tell me today that he didn't know if he existed. It was pretty hilarious. What say you?"What did you tell him?Ydemoc
Weezel,I laughed. For some moments in life there are no words- Willy Wonka.
Weezel,My evolution professor made an astonishing remark.This individual told me that when I read my storybook that I need to "stretch my imagination. This was after I told her I felt like I was reading a fairytale. She "calmed" my fears and said not to worry because it was backed up my "scientific data". What say you? Is the imaginary really backed up by scientific data?
Trinity wrote: "My evolution professor made an astonishing remark."Trinity goes on to tell us what this "astonishing remark" was: "This individual told me that when I read my storybook that I need to "stretch my imagination."Maybe she detected your hostility toward the theory of evolution from something you've said or written, (e.g., referring to your textbook as a "storybook"). If so, perhaps she was was simply trying reach you by appealing to what it is you do enshrine: The imaginary.Trinity wrote: "This was after I told her I felt like I was reading a fairytale."See? I was right: You did express your hostility toward evolution by calling it "a fairytale."So perhaps she was just doing the best she could to not offend you.Trinity wrote: "She "calmed" my fears and said not to worry because it was backed up my "scientific data"."It sounds like your teacher is trying the best she knows how to gently lead you away from your faulty creationist mindset, like a parent might do with a resistant child who keeps maintaining that Santa Clause is real.Trinity wrote: "What say you?"I've said it.Trinity wrote: "Is the imaginary really backed up by scientific data?"See above. Also, are you still abusing your mother? By the way, is sarcasm a reflection of your god's character and actions? Is your god capable of playing practical jokes?Ydemoc
Weezel,Asked: "are you still abusing your mother?"Have you always been irrational?Weezel asked: "By the way, is sarcasm a reflection of your god's character and actions? Is your god capable of playing practical jokes?"What makes you ask this?P.S. "Is the imaginary really backed up by scientific data?"
I had asked Trinity: "…are you still abusing your mother?"Trinity responed: "Have you always been irrational?"I'm just giving you what you dish out.I had asked: "By the way, is sarcasm a reflection of your god's character and actions? Is your god capable of playing practical jokes?"Trinity responded: "What makes you ask this?"Not an invisible magic being's plan. These are questions you haven't answered, ever since I asked them way back when.P.S. "Is the imaginary really backed up by scientific data?" You should ask your professor this question. I'm sure it will get you on her good side. Ydemoc
Actually, Weezel, I did answer them.God is humor. He's humorous. See the "proof"?Rember this?Not at all, Weezel, In fact my teacher agreed with me that evolution is like a disney movie. However, we just have to remember it's backed up by "scientific data" .The really interesting part is when I asked where everything came from, for example, life. The evasion was historic. Really, Really funny.Tell AJ.
In my last comments, I mentioned to Trinity that he hadn't ever answered the following questions: "By the way, is sarcasm a reflection of your god's character and actions? Is your god capable of playing practical jokes?"Trinity responded: "Actually, Weezel, I did answer them."And here is what he said was his answer: "God is humor. He's humorous. See the "proof"? Rember this?"I'm not sure I "Rmber" this, but I do *remember* you giving an answer to this effect. But I'm not sure it addresses what I was asking. You see, sarcasm isn't always humorous. It can be quite cutting and insulting, and it can be used to keep people off guard. Sarcasm can be used quite effectively as subterfuge, leading its victims astray by disguising the real truth of the matter. So, if sarcasm is a reflection of your god's character and action (and why wouldn't it be? you seem to indicate that everything is), then you cannot be totally certain that what you read in the pages of your bible is not dripping with sarcasm from your god.Also, if your god is capable of playing practical jokes, perhaps this whole "believe in me" and "have faith" is just you being punked by your god.Trinity wrote: "Not at all, Weezel, In fact my teacher agreed with me that evolution is like a disney movie. However, we just have to remember it's backed up by "scientific data" .Sounds like your teacher is handling you with kid gloves, recognizing that you are resistant to learning about evolution, and easing you into it the best she can. Trinity wrote: "The really interesting part is when I asked where everything came from, for example, life. The evasion was historic. Really, Really funny."Did you mention to her that you can't account for the "life" of your invisible magic being? And that your bible doesn't mention how one can reliably distinguish between the real and the imaginary? Did you tell her you think donkeys can carry on conversations with people? Did you ask her if science was progressing in their work on abiogenesis? Did you mention to her all the things that the Book of Genesis got wrong, and yet you are forced to believe it all because if you didn't, that would mean that there was no "original sin," and that Jesus died for nothing? So you have to believe in it, no matter what scientific facts are discovered to the contrary?Trinity wrote: "Tell AJ."What's there to tell?Ydemoc
For one you can tell AJ how delusional you are.Why do you keep asking me about jokes and sarcasm?Remember your imagination pressuposes the Christian God. So, keep imagining.Abiogeniss is not anything it's imaginary. So, when you attempt to smuggle it in. The only alternative I have is to imagine it. So, how is what I'm imaging not imaginary?My existence accounts for God's existence. In other words I exist because God exist. See the "proof"?What's wrong with a talking donkey Is anything to hard for the LORD?it's fine, Weezel, you just keep being arbitrary. Ruling:Invalid argument by, Weezel, appeal to emotion.Blessings.
Trinity wrote: "For one you can tell AJ how delusional you are."What am I delusional about? And what makes you presume ActionJackson has any interest in this assertion of yours?Trinity wrote: "Why do you keep asking me about jokes and sarcasm?"You apparently don't read very closely or maybe it's a problem of comprehension, so here it is again. Let's see if an answer to your question emerges for you on your second read-through: "…if sarcasm is a reflection of your god's character and action (and why wouldn't it be? you seem to indicate that everything is), then you cannot be totally certain that what you read in the pages of your bible is not dripping with sarcasm from your god.Also, if your god is capable of playing practical jokes, perhaps this whole "believe in me" and "have faith" is just you being punked by your god."There. Did did you catch it this time?Trinity wrote: "Remember your imagination pressuposes the Christian God. So, keep imagining."This is interesting: You assert that for a consciousness (man) to imagine something, your god (also, allegedly a consciousness) would have to exist, because your god is responsible for the faculty of imagination (i.e., something consciousness does). But consciousness presupposes something to be conscious of, i.e., if one is aware, one is aware of something. It makes no sense to speak of awareness apart from that which one is aware. The concepts "awareness" or "aware" would not be available prior something to be aware of. Any assertion to the contrary is trading in stolen concepts. You'd understand this if you had a theory of concepts.(continued)
Anyway, with this in mind, that which we imagine is a selective rearrangement of things that one has perceived and encountered in reality (of which we are aware); "and it requires and presupposes some knowledge of the elements one chooses to rearrange." (Ayn Rand, quoted in: “The Montessori Method,”The Objectivist, July 1970, p. 7 ) This means your god would be incapable of imagining prior to it creating that which supplies the inputs for imagining. But wait — it couldn't "create" either! — because creation is nothing more than the rearrangement of existent materials into new configurations! But wait! — it couldn't be conscious without something already existing! — because consciousness presupposes existence! (Remember, if one is aware, one is aware of something; it makes no sense to speak of awareness apart from something that exists; to do so would be stealing concepts by denying that which provides the basis for the concepts "consciousness" or "awareness").This has been explained to you many, many times, Trinity. But I do it again, not for you, but for me — and only after that, for any fence-sitters who may be lurking. But, by all means then, tell us all where in reality we can find this god you say is responsible for the faculty of imagination. Or is it just the case that we are forced to imagine that also, from the selective rearrangement of knowledge we do have? Trinity wrote: "Abiogeniss is not anything it's imaginary."You mean like apples, oranges, trees, fungus, and collarbones are imaginary? If you mean it in this fashion, tell us, so we can reconfirm how crazy your view of reality really is.Trinity wrote: "So, when you attempt to smuggle it in. The only alternative I have is to imagine it. So, how is what I'm imaging not imaginary?"There was no smuggling. But is that the only alternative you have, your imagination, when it comes to the work being done on abiogenesis? If you ran into a wall, face-first, would imagination be the only means by which you know that this happened? Or would there be some other way to know? Say, via, direct perception?Is imagination the only alternative you have when it comes to scientists working on a cure for cancer? Or are you able to go and examine the work being done, for yourself? And are you able to learn about processes that are ongoing, by using concepts that are tied to reality?(continued)
Trinity wrote: "My existence accounts for God's existence."How so? How does you being biological and conscious and finite account for that which — upon close examination and on theists' own terms — is not biological not finite, and, on my terms, could not be conscious (unless of course, something existed prior to it which, if that were the case, then that would mean that existence exists and your god is out of a job).Trinity wrote: "In other words I exist because God exist. See the "proof"?"Are you sure you don't exist because Blarko exists? Anyway, I addressed all this above, and in many other posts to you, as I'm sure any fence- sitters are aware.Trinity wrote: "What's wrong with a talking donkey"Nothing, if you're watching a cartoon, and choose to enjoy it by suspending disbelief. Is theism just another example of suspension of disbelief? Seems to me it is. Except I would take it a step further and describe it as suppression (or ignorance) that which is real.Trinity wrote: "Is anything to hard for the LORD?"This assumes the coherency of that which you need to make coherent. Furthermore, I find this question puzzling, for even under Christianity's own terms, this question doesn't make much sense. Why even couch the question in such terms: "Is anything too hard"? Too hard as opposed to what — too easy? The concepts "easy" or "hard" wouldn't even apply to your god, would they, due to the alleged nature of your god? If it's not in your god's nature to learn, to believe, to have faith, to hold it's knowledge in the form of concepts, to suffer, to be filled with more glory than it already has, to be sarcastic, to play practical jokes, to conquer iron chariots, then I suppose these things couldn't be properly said to "be too hard" "or too easy" for your Lord, for they just wouldn't apply. But then why do so many Christians (and your bible) say that your god can do these some of the things I listed, and more?However, if your god has a nature (no matter what it may be), that presents its own problems. It would be a stolen concept: "nature," i.e., identity, i.e., if something has a nature, it is finite, yet your god is claimed to be infinite.But even if you can somehow get past these big hurdles, it wouldn't get you off the hook, for the text asks "is 'anything' too hard…' — and "anything" means anything, does it not? (continued)
And let's not forget the concept value: Would your god "value," Trinity? I don't see how it could, given its "nature"? "Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, and "to value" means acting to gain and/or keep something. This concept "value" also "presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, p.15) Why would your god need to act at all? What would it need? (Nothing) What could it gain? (Nothing) What would threaten it, so that it could lose what it has? (Nothing). So much for your god "loving" you. All I've said here (and more that I could say) leaves absolutely no doubt that the notion of god and the belief in it, is a product of man, created out of the product of his (man's) own imaginings.Trinity wrote: "it's fine, Weezel, you just keep being arbitrary."See above. I explain things and elaborate on them. You on the other hand bounce around from question to question and topic to topic with semi-coherent responses and questions, in attempts to defend a being and your beliefs in it, when they themselves are nothing more than arbitrary (both in reality and on Christianity's own terms, e.g., god's good pleasure, god does what he wants, etc.). You are the poster child for the arbitrary, and your belief system is the poster.Trinity wrote: "Ruling:Invalid argument by, Weezel, appeal to emotion."See what I mean by arbitrary? But even if true, what could you possibly have against an "appeal to emotion" when your own book tells you that "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge"!?!Trinity concluded: "Blessings"And I conclude with: Blarkings.Ydemoc
Thanks, Alex! I'm glad you enjoyed that. It was fun to do — took some time and effort, but it was fun. Ydemoc
Alex said "standing ovation".Thanks.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.