Franko wants to know your opinion [Archive]

Franko

13th December 2002, 10:07 AM

De-Bung-Holio...

Keep posting f*ckwit.......

Your desperation is showing Religious fanatic …

after nearly a year...no one knows what your point is....

yeah … and after over a year STILL not ONE SINGLE A-THEIST (yourself included) has presented so much as a scrap of evidence for “free willy”?

Gee … I wonder why?

Have you ever admitted that you have been wrong...???

Ohhh, millions of times. But I’m not wrong about Fate. And it is rather obvious to anyone with a brain …

Atoms obey the laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS (TLOP).

Or do you just totally ignore the proof that you are a troll and carry on laughing at all the idiots that are responding to you..

You are one of the biggest Idiots responding to me. But how does your idiocy constitute proof that your actions are not preordained? You are one of the most predictable morons I have ever seen. Your actions are certainly NOT evidence for indeterminism or “free will”.

Come on Fantasy RPG player..tell us...or are you too busy being an Warrior or whatever..

Ohhh De-Bungler I bet you are just the type to be a D&D geek … What are you above 16 or 17 years old?

You are a spamming kook..

Note to the readers: According to De-Bunked, if he claims it – that’s proof its True. Just have “Faith” in what he says, because he NEVER backs any of his claims with evidence. De-Bungler is a hard-core Religious fanatic from the Dogmatic cult of A-Theism. He will allow no insult to the “One true Faith” to go unanswered. Even when he can’t answer. Then he’ll just use his magic whining powers …

Keep posting the same thing...go on..please

Carry on..

Ohh, De-flunk, I intend to, and you know it.

Lets see if you are spamming these boards with the same point....

I am just waiti9ng for some “smart” A-Theist to convert me to the “One True Faith” so I can be a brainwashed Religious fanatic just like YOU. Aren’t you going to explain to me why your religion is “superior, and how if I am an A-Theist I will acquire magic mind-reading “powers”, not to mention supernatural “free will”?

Or how about explaining to me how you have proved that you will cease to exist when you die, so there will be no ultimate consequences for our actions? Is no ultimate consequences suppose to make me a more moral person, or just a lying hypocritical sack-o-**** like yourself?

Maybe someone should have a better look at your posts to see if your just here to spam the boards with the same thing repeated over 3000 times...

I wonder..

Why don’t you just present some irrefutable evidence for your “free willy” god and shut me up once and for all?

Maybe because you have no evidence for the nonsense you believe?

Prove me wrong De-Bungler.

Regnad Kcin

13th December 2002, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Franko
But I’m not wrong about Fate. And it is rather obvious to anyone with a brain …

Atoms obey the laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS (TLOP).Libraries contain books.
When you step into a library
You are then a book.

Regnad Kcin

13th December 2002, 10:39 AM

Otherwise known as The Law of Dewey (TLOD).

13th December 2002, 10:50 AM

Franko went fishing. He stopped his small boat, and put a morsel of nothing on the hook (being certain to first cut the head off so it'd be juicy) and cast away... the no-bait landed, >sploop!< and the sinkers carried it downward...

to a level where some A-Fish were swimming merrily along. One after another, the A-Fish spied the delectable nothing-on-a-hook, and said to themselves, "This is worthy of pursuit. This is meaningful. This is what I want!" and snapped their A-Mouths closed on it. The hook penetrated the lips of these A-Fish, and they were reeled in by the masterbaiter, Franko the A-Fisherman.

Franko went home with his bucketfull of A-Fish, laughing quietly to himself.

"These will make a fine meal."

Franko

13th December 2002, 10:58 AM

He stopped his small boat, and put a morsel of nothing on the hook

The A-Theists sure can't resist NOTHING.

They are drawn to it, and they are helpless to resist. It is their Fate.

13th December 2002, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Franko

The A-Theists sure can't resist NOTHING.

They are drawn to it, and they are helpless to resist. It is their Fate.

Must... have... nothing... can't hold myself... back...

cursed Fate. That hook sure hurts!

Franko

13th December 2002, 12:29 PM

That hook sure hurts!

I guess some Gravitons just have an inherent desire for pain, suffering, and despair. That is what they find most beneficial. :confused:

wraith

13th December 2002, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Libraries contain books.
When you step into a library
You are then a book.

Thanks for the donation....
now get out of here
;)

KelvinG

13th December 2002, 05:11 PM

Y'know, it's really quite easy to put Franko on ignore.

You won't have to listen to his redundant drivel any longer and if enough people do it this angry little man can run off to another message board and scream and whine and cry to a whole new group of listeners.

But if you are not prepared to do that, then don't whine yourself that Franko is an idiot. He's getting what he wants here. Lots of attention and plenty of resistance.

The Fool

13th December 2002, 05:29 PM

well Folks, Franko and a few others have got some stuff off their chests .....now back to work.

Frank. Do you have any intention of providing some evidence for the existence of free will? Since you claim that it exists at certain times then are you willing to tell us what these times are? You constantly abuse people on the topic of free will, can you please clear up the apparent hypocracy of your position?

and also, according to the poll results so far, your perception of reality and reality seem to differ somewhat....

Do you honestly expect that anyone here believes you when you say that I believe in “free will”?

yes I do expect you to believe it Frank, It has been proven.

Now take some advice son, you are looking pretty silly. Shut up about the free will thing until you have settled on a consistant position yourself.

Franko

13th December 2002, 10:22 PM

Okay … so 33 people now. Let’s see, that’s Fool, CWL, UpChirp, Aardvark, De-Bungler, Tricky, Lucy-Rochelle, Titanpout, Evildildo, Whitemeat, Shrimp, JamesXYZ, (yeah-“that”-guy), “Dr.” Mutt, plus 19 of “The Fool’s” other sockpuppets/alterlogins.

You know … The “Undercover”elephant use to like useless polls a lot as well (when he was around) Especially after getting a spanking, he would seek the approval of the “masses” to reassure him that he wasn’t crazy, and Solipsism wasn’t really True … But “we” all know that it is True. We are just waiting for YOU to figure it out …

… In the mean time, since “33 people” are trying to tell me I am inconsistent in my beliefs perhaps there will be at least one with a nutsack large enough to come forward and explain exactly and specifically where I am being inconsistent. Because -- as I must tell you -- there is nothing a Logical deists hates more then Logical Inconsistency.

Okay so my first question, which (if either) of these statements (which I believe) is FALSE?

A) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics (TRUE or FALSE)
B) YOU are made of Atoms. (TRUE or FALSE)

Question #2: I believe that …

TLOP makes (controls) YOU makes (controls) CAR

Ergo,

TLOP more conscious than YOU more conscious than CAR

Please! … show me the error of my ways? Where is the Logical Inconsistency in the above statements?

I want nothing more than to be a “smart” A-Theist like the “33” of YOU. I implore YOU, I am but a humble and lowly Deist, and not a mighty A-Theist of the “One True Faith” (or is that “True for One Faith”? …). Please explain to me what an “intelligent” person with a vastly “superior” metaphysical belief system (which although identical to a Religion in ALL ways, [by ANY meaningful definition of that term] is never-the-less, NOT a Religion) should believe in this regard?

Come on … there are “33” of you. Surely at least one can give some straight forward answers to a couple of simple Questions???

If I am inconsistent on these beliefs … show me the “inconsistency”??

:confused:

Want to know my prophecy of what happens next?

14th December 2002, 03:00 AM

Franko says...A) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics (TRUE or FALSE)
B) YOU are made of Atoms. (TRUE or FALSE)

Question #2: I believe that …

TLOP makes (controls) YOU makes (controls) CAR

Ergo,

TLOP more conscious than YOU more conscious than CAR
I'll give it ago answering it.

A:- Both...reason only as Physics is currently defined.
B:- True ,by believing the definiton of atoms and energy currently standing.
False if you believe we are predominently water or carbon based.
(based on water is not an atom?)

Franko says.....Question #2: I believe that …

TLOP makes (controls) YOU makes (controls) CAR

Ergo,

TLOP more conscious than YOU more conscious than CAR
I cannot answer a question on what your believe only you can answer that the above is not a queston tht is what you personally believe in as the underscoring says.

I can answer a question on what I think.

TLOP controls you.. No your consious/subconsious controls you. I am influenced/co-exist with theTLOP not controlled by it

TLOP By taking the meaning of aware of my surroundings and possessing the ability to act within it conscious I am more.
TLOP(the law of physics) has no conscious it is not alive same as the car. You control the car, the car moves through the TLOP.

CWL

14th December 2002, 04:35 AM

I must say that I personally find it particularly intriguing how Franko manages to combine these two statements:

1) There is no free will. All is preordained.
2) The threat of punishment is necessary in order for people to act moral.

Read all about it (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=266694#post266694).

E.J.Armstrong

14th December 2002, 05:30 AM

Franko.
Any chance of replying to our discussion on the other thread?

The Fool

14th December 2002, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Franko
If I am inconsistent on these beliefs … show me the “inconsistency”??

Frank, the inconsistencies are outlined at the start of the thread.

How does your position of "no free will" remain consistent with your statements that you are able to exercise free will "sometimes"? Is that simple enough?...your statements on free will on this forum are not the same....mostly you shreak "No" sometimes you say "sometimes". That is why people have said your position is inconsistent. This will not change until you explain the "sometimes free will" thing.

The Fool

14th December 2002, 11:03 PM

bump

CWL

15th December 2002, 05:13 AM

Double bump.

---

Franko,

It would at this point in time not only be pertinent to answer The Fool's question but also how you manage to combine these two assertions of yours:

1) There is no free will. All is preordained.
2) The threat of punishment is necessary in order for people to act moral.

Why is, in your reasonable opinion, "free will" not a necessary prerequisite for Assertion 2) above?

The Fool

15th December 2002, 05:49 AM

NEWS FLASH:

Today In the "Gods, TLOP, Drivers, Cars" thread yet another Free will policy was released by L Ron Franko from the Church of the Logical Goddess.

"You do get one “free will” choice Fool. Unfortunately you used yours up when you “decided” to become a brainwashed A-Theist."

So now church membership includes THREE (count them!) THREE positions on Free Will. Members may believe they have either none, some, or a one off offer..... They may hold all three views and still be able to Quote thier messiahs words in support of their position! Now thats what I call customer service! This church can provide whatever the budding new member desires.

CWL

15th December 2002, 06:50 AM

More positive news on the subject of free will from the Church of Logical Deism:

Free Will Assertion 1: (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=10623&perpage=40&highlight=who%20AND%20told%20AND%20you%20AND%20suf fer%20AND%20stupid&pagenumber=2)
Originally posted by Franko
Besides, God didn’t make you. And since She didn’t, if you suffer it is your own stupid fault! Who told you to suffer?Obviously, according to the Church of Logical Deism, we have a free choice to suffer or not to suffer.

Free Will Asserion 2: (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=10469&perpage=40&highlight=Decision%20Junction&pagenumber=2)
Originally posted by Franko
Okay … now this is called a Worldtree, and it represents your potential paths through reality (all of us have a tree like this). Now even though you can perceive a multitude of different potential paths, in reality you only actually get to choose ONE (your worldline). YOU would be represented as a point traveling along this Worldtree, and on this diagram you are always moving up towards the top of the paper (the future). When you reach a branch on the tree, that represents a Decision Junction (DJ). This is a place where your MPB algorithm is called, and it is forced to generate an output (You have to “choose” which branch is best to take).Ah! The Church of Logical Deism even has a term ("Decision Junction") for the points in time where we are forced to choose. One may thus conclude that the existence of "Free Will" is an integral part of the Logical Deist theology. Well it should be. The Logical Deists namely hold that we are all responsible for our actions, that there are "ultimate consequenses" for them - so be careful which choices you make people! Don't want to end up in the "Abyss" now...

Yet, the Logical Deists at the same time submit that all is preordained and that we "have no choice". Illogical? Never....

Lucifuge Rofocale

15th December 2002, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by CWL
More positive news on the subject of free will from the Church of Logical Deism:

Free Will Assertion 1: (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=10623&perpage=40&highlight=who%20AND%20told%20AND%20you%20AND%20suf fer%20AND%20stupid&pagenumber=2)
Obviously, according to the Church of Logical Deism, we have a free choice to suffer or not to suffer.

Free Will Asserion 2: (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=10469&perpage=40&highlight=Decision%20Junction&pagenumber=2)
Ah! The Church of Logical Deism even has a term ("Decision Junction") for the points in time where we are forced to choose. One may thus conclude that the existence of "Free Will" is an integral part of the Logical Deist theology. Well it should be. The Logical Deists namely hold that we are all responsible for our actions, that there are "ultimate consequenses" for them - so be careful which choices you make people! Don't want to end up in the "Abyss" now...

Yet, the Logical Deists at the same time submit that all is preordained and that we "have no choice". Illogical? Never....

http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/banghead.gif

And, BTW, why you use the plural to refer to the only member of the LD cult?

CWL

15th December 2002, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
And, BTW, why you use the plural to refer to the only member of the LD cult?

I recognize the right of religious freedom for all minorities, including sock puppets.

Doctor X

15th December 2002, 01:50 PM

Sunflower that Radiates:

I can decide to wake up and have cornflakes for breakfast thats my free will to do so. However I cant go and eat them naked in the middle of Picadilly Circus, . . .

Damn . . . looked forward to seeing that. . . .

I hope Franko you werent calling me a sock puppet I can assure you I am nobodies sock puppet.

You can . . . snicker snicker . . . be my giggle giggle . . . my sockpuppett [RIGHT, STOP THAT!--Ed.]

Er . . . yes . . . sorry . . . anyways it appears, once again, despite having been doused with a few buckets gather'd from the more brackish well the individual continues to deny he is all wet.

Quoth Sanjuro Yojimbo:

Can't help fools.

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/staff/wynnho/pix/mifune.jpg

--J.D.

KelvinG

15th December 2002, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Okay … so 33 people now. Let’s see, that’s Fool, CWL, UpChirp, Aardvark, De-Bungler, Tricky, Lucy-Rochelle, Titanpout, Evildildo, Whitemeat, Shrimp, JamesXYZ, (yeah-“that”-guy), “Dr.” Mutt, plus 19 of “The Fool’s” other sockpuppets/alterlogins.

You know … The “Undercover”elephant use to like useless polls a lot as well (when he was around) Especially after getting a spanking, he would seek the approval of the “masses” to reassure him that he wasn’t crazy, and Solipsism wasn’t really True … But “we” all know that it is True. We are just waiting for YOU to figure it out …

… In the mean time, since “33 people” are trying to tell me I am inconsistent in my beliefs perhaps there will be at least one with a nutsack large enough to come forward and explain [b]exactly and specifically where I am being inconsistent. Because -- as I must tell you -- there is nothing a Logical deists hates more then Logical Inconsistency.

Okay so my first question, which (if either) of these statements (which I believe) is FALSE?

A) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics (TRUE or FALSE)
B) YOU are made of Atoms. (TRUE or FALSE)

Question #2: I believe that …

TLOP makes (controls) YOU makes (controls) CAR

Ergo,

TLOP more conscious than YOU more conscious than CAR

Please! … show me the error of my ways? Where is the Logical Inconsistency in the above statements?

I want nothing more than to be a “smart” A-Theist like the “33” of YOU. I implore YOU, I am but a humble and lowly Deist, and not a mighty A-Theist of the “One True Faith” (or is that “True for One Faith”? …). Please explain to me what an “intelligent” person with a vastly “superior” metaphysical belief system (which although identical to a Religion in ALL ways, is never-the-less, NOT a Religion) should believe in this regard?

Come on … there are “33” of you. Surely at least one can give some straight forward answers to a couple of simple Questions???

If I am inconsistent on these beliefs … show me the “inconsistency”??

:confused:

Want to know my prophecy of what happens next?

You might do well to stop asking so many questions and start answering some of the ones that been posed of you.
For instance, Latimer has a couple of threads going right now that pose several questions based on claims that you have made, but you have convieniently ignored them.

Why is that? Because Latimer doesn't fall into your trap of engaging in a name calling contest which you love so much?
Or perhaps you just have no answers to these questions, and you are fearful of making yourself look even more foolish.

Ah, I suspect a little bit of both.

Now, go off on a little tirade on me that you do so well Franko.
Call me an A-theist and a sock puppet.
That's your game, isn't it Franko. Verbally abuse anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say?

Doctor X

15th December 2002, 02:19 PM

KevinG:

I am still waiting for a response to:

The Science of Consciousness

Methinks neither of us should hold our breaths. . . .

--J.D.

Upchurch

15th December 2002, 04:44 PM

I'm just curious how long those pics will hang around before edited...

Upchurch

The Fool

15th December 2002, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm just curious how long those pics will hang around before edited...

Upchurch
Would people please refrain from having cybersex in my threads! I am attempting to have a logical discusson with Franko.....hmmm, on second thoughts is it too late to get in on some some of the cyber? I am a 19yo 6 foot tall blond blue eyed professional athelite who drives a Ferrari...Honest.

15th December 2002, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Would people please refrain from having cybersex in my threads! I am attempting to have a logical discusson with Franko.....hmmm, on second thoughts is it too late to get in on some some of the cyber? I am a 19yo 6 foot tall blond blue eyed professional athelite who drives a Ferrari...Honest.
amended accordingly and full apology offered for offending you.

15th December 2002, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm just curious how long those pics will hang around before edited...

Upchurch that long and apology offered for offence casued.

Upchurch

15th December 2002, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
that long and apology offered for offence casued.
No apology needed. I wasn't offended. I was just wondering how long it would be there before the Hand of Mod reached down and plucked it from our midst. I wasn't suggesting that you should do it. Although I guess that's moot, now.

Upchurch

Franko

15th December 2002, 07:07 PM

So a belief in Determinism is inconsistent with the way reality works, but not ONE of 44 "smart" A-Theist can explain exactly why???

Maybe they aren't so smart?

Come on!!!

44 Nitwits who believe that they have magic "free will" powers and they can defy the will of Almighty God (TLOP from your POV) and yet NOT ONE of you pissants can come forward and explain it???

What a worthless loser religion you got there? I think someone would have to be a complete frigging moron to join that little pessimistic wonder-cult.

magic "free will" powers ... hehehe!!!! ... hehehe ... I think I'll stick with my "inconsistencies", Fool. Thanks for making my point -- yet again ... hehehe ... ;)

The Fool

15th December 2002, 07:48 PM

sigh...more franko ranting....Now he is chanting "Almighty God" oops, the Catholic fundamentalism is peeking through the thin veneer of Logical Deism....

I'm not really asking for a rant from the pulpit frank....Just an explanation how quotes like this one confirm your lack-o-belief in Free will....

"I have no free will while falling, but I do have free will or choice of what I will wear. Within the choices of clothes I have"

But of course you cointinue to ignore your own statements in the vain hope they will go away...

Your loosing it Franko, It is only a matter of time now.

The Fool

15th December 2002, 07:58 PM

Reginald

15th December 2002, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Franko

44 Nitwits who believe that they have magic "free will" powers and they can defy the will of Almighty God (TLOP from your POV) and yet NOT ONE of you pissants can come forward and explain it???

I'm sorry but I thought the poll was about what posters thought was YOUR position on this issue.

I must have missed the poll that you are pointing to there.

I must say that you could clear all this up for everyone Franko if you just answered Mr Fool's question (he has asked it often enough) Maybe if you tell us your position more people would answer 1 or 2.

Edited because it was late, that and I can't spell.

slimshady2357

15th December 2002, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
TO doctor X

the reply is in PM to you as a mark of my respect and politeness to The fool.

Having no wish to offend The fool I have done the decent thing and edited this accordingly.

I'm offended! I never got to see these pictures :p

I demand a full apology and copies of the pictures immediately! :D

Adam

evildave

15th December 2002, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Franko
So a belief in Determinism is inconsistent with the way reality works, but not ONE of 44 "smart" A-Theist can explain exactly why???

Maybe they aren't so smart?

Come on!!!

44 Nitwits who believe that they have magic "free will" powers and they can defy the will of Almighty God (TLOP from your POV) and yet NOT ONE of you pissants can come forward and explain it???

What a worthless loser religion you got there? I think someone would have to be a complete frigging moron to join that little pessimistic wonder-cult.

magic "free will" powers ... hehehe!!!! ... hehehe ... I think I'll stick with my "inconsistencies", Fool. Thanks for making my point -- yet again ... hehehe ... ;)

You know, I'm certain 1044 people would not bother to explain it, the way you ask for it. Call me one in 1044, I'll try to explain it to you again.

We make our own simulated models of reality in our own heads based on inputs from reality.

We decide to change that reality in our own heads, and act out to change the external reality through our interface to reality; our bodies.

In a simulation, we can fall up or suck light into a bottle, if we want to. In the simulated reality in each of our heads, we have free will.

Because that free will is interfaced with the "real world", we have free will interacting with the real world.

Very simple.

MRC_Hans

16th December 2002, 02:52 AM

Wow! Here I am on my new PC, where I for some reason dont auto log-in (so my ignore list is not in effect), and I get to read a Franko post and heureka! He makes a consession:... I think I'll stick with my "inconsistencies", Good, Frank, you're on your way! -- or maybe not.

Basically the status on Frank is:

1) He claims to be smarter than Einstein and the rest of the scientific establishment: He knows that Einstein was right in his stance on quantum physics, something that Einstein himself never managed to establish. And of course Heisenberg, Bohr et al were idiots.

2) He is smarter than everybody else here, since when something has been explained to him a dozen times and he still cannot understand it, its because there is no explanation.

3) He knows the answers to how the Universe was created, how Fate works, and all those other Great Questions. The reason we cannot understand his explanations is that we are dumb.

Now, I can only come to three possible conclusions to this:

A) At only 19, Frank is the greatest genius ever to be born to mankind, and we should be honored to have the opportunity to be scolded by him (why he should waste his vast intellect on us is another question).

B) Frank has had a Divine Insight: God(dess) has revealed the depest secrets to him (again begs the question why he wastes his energy on 44 puny atheists and suckpuppets on some silly web board).

C) Frank is totally deluded (this begs the question why we wast so much time on him).

Oh, I know, Frank: I said I wouldnt bother you anymore. Well, I lied, --- sue me.

Hans

wraith

16th December 2002, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by Reginald
I must say that you could clear all this up for everyone Franko if you just answered Mr Fool's question (he has asked it often enough) Maybe if you tell us your position more people would answer 1 or 2.

I think that the Fool gets his jollies by voting 47 times

:cool:

CWL

16th December 2002, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by wraith
I think that the Fool gets his jollies by voting 47 times

:cool:

And this from the Forum's most famous sock puppet. Oh, the irony.

BTW. I just thought of another little anomaly within the Sacred Church of Logical Deism - more general and more profound as it would seem.

If consciousness makes matter as His Holiness contends, why should one assume that the will of any consciousness is restricted in any way whatsoever?

"Consciousness makes matter" yet, consciousness is not free to do so?

Huh?

16th December 2002, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Offended? me???

woops, only half your post materialised as in the dont have sex in my posts part, now having all of it now materialise sorry for jumping the gun.
Do you forgive me or should I expect to be spanked ;)woops sorry its the leather it makes me all uncessarily, off to change into a nuns outfit :D

Franko

16th December 2002, 08:24 AM

A-Theist Fool whined:
sigh...more franko ranting....Now he is chanting "Almighty God" oops, the Catholic fundamentalism is peeking through the thin veneer of Logical Deism....

There is nothing wrong with Catholics Fool.

I'm not really asking for a rant from the pulpit frank....Just an explanation how quotes like this one confirm your lack-o-belief in Free will....

Your “magic mind powers” have failed you once again Fool. I don’t believe in “free willy” no matter how much you desperately want me too.

"I have no free will while falling, but I do have free will or choice of what I will wear. Within the choices of clothes I have"

TLOP decided what clothes you would have (bra’s and panties mostly -- I’m guessing). If you doubt this, then please tell us how often you wear a Toga, or a Burka?

But of course you cointinue to ignore your own statements in the vain hope they will go away...

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

TLOP controls (makes) YOU controls (makes) CAR

Still think that TOAST is superior To you Fool? … You’re probably right …

Your loosing it Franko, It is only a matter of time now.

Keep dreaming UCE (Fool). You can’t even post under your own identity. What are you trying to hide from?

Franko

16th December 2002, 08:28 AM

Reginald,

Perhaps YOU could point out specifically where my inconsistency lies? I don’t see it …

Okay so my first question, which (if either) of these statements (which I believe) is FALSE?

A) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics (TRUE or FALSE)
B) YOU are made of Atoms. (TRUE or FALSE)

Question #2: I believe that …

TLOP makes (controls) YOU makes (controls) CAR

Ergo,

TLOP more conscious than YOU more conscious than CAR

Please! … show me the error of my ways? Where is the Logical Inconsistency in the above statements?

I want nothing more than to be a “smart” A-Theist like the “47” of YOU. I implore YOU, I am but a humble and lowly Deist, and not a mighty A-Theist of the “One True Faith” (or is that “True for One Faith”? …). Please explain to me what an “intelligent” person with a vastly “superior” metaphysical belief system (which although identical to a Religion in ALL ways, [by ANY meaningful definition of that term] is never-the-less, NOT a Religion) should believe in this regard?

Checkmite

16th December 2002, 08:30 AM

I've started numerous threads regarding the fascinating belief system called "Logical Deism", for the expressed purpose of luring Franko away from the flame battles, and into legitimate discussion, which I presumed was why he visited this forum. He resisted my efforts - deduce what you will from this.

In the first one - I believe it was titled "Logical Deism: A Commentary" - I asked Franko to define his beliefs. He used to say over and over again, when someone tried discussing his beliefs, "I haven't said anything about my beliefs, what are you a mind reader now?" or something similar. He claimed to be discussing the "beliefs of atheists", but really all he did in those discussions was call people names.

So I asked Franko to define his beliefs, and what made them so "logical". He refused to answer (possibly because he couldn't justify flaming someone for simply asking his beliefs), and several other people (including the lovely Miss Soubrette) helped me out by outlining his beliefs as they saw them. He made a brief appearance to implicitly concur with their opinions. I then began highlighting the problems and inconsistencies I found with the belief system, and invited Franko to clarify them for me.

Almost immediately the abuse began. It seemed as though by simply questioning his beliefs, that automatically meant I was on the side of the "evil atheists" who wanted "nothing more" than to destroy the universe. I explained that I really was interested in his beliefs, and that I wanted him to resolve the perceived problems I had with them - it did not matter. Like fundamentalist Christians and the bible, "either it's all true, or none of it is true". Accept it all blindly, or be forever locked out. Because I chose to question, I am now "evil".

Some time later, I tried again. I saw Franko say that the reason he doesn't answer so many questions is because they aren't direct, and that anyone could ask him a direct question.

So, I started a thread called "Direct Questions for Franko". It took him a while to get there, because The Fool had a thread with some questions in it that became a flame war almost from the outset, and Franko seemed to prefer that thread. Deduce what you will from that, too.

So I started my thread with a multi-paragraph long-winded trademark JKorosi(TM) post, asking a plethora of what I thought were very direct and specific questions. Several other people responded before Franko actually got there, but when he did, he asked me the question that was "in vogue" for him at that time; that is, something along the lines of:

"Is this statement true?

Atoms obey the laws of physics
You are made of atoms
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS"

This syllogism was the subject of much debate and had entire threads dedicated to it running at that time, so I simply said "for the sake of argument, let's assume it is true." Franko then asked, "Now, do you believe in free will?" I don't know what that statement had to do with any of the questions I had asked, but I again agreed to concede, if only for the sake of argument, that there was no free will. I then reminded Franko that I had already conceded two crucial points, and that he by now ought to answer the questions that I had asked him first.

"What questions?" he asked.

The ones at the top of the thread, of course - however, some other person on the thread narrowed my extensive list down to 4 or 5. I was not happy with this, but I went along anyway. Franko proceeded to not-answer my questions, one at a time. He even quoted the specific questions, while "answering" them with something esoteric and vague - it was almost humorous. It all boiled down to him saying (again) that "anybody who knows 2 + 2 = 4 would understand and subscribe to Logical Deism". The entire alleged chain of reasoning I thought we had been building when I conceded the two points mentioned above was completely abandoned. Subordination to the laws of physics + no free will does not necessarily = goddess, gravitons, Abyss, MPB, etc.

I asked Franko, "Since it's easy as 2 + 2 = 4, why not define the terms of your beliefs, so we can "add them up" and come up with the same conclusions?" He avoided this challenge by saying "it would be like explaining calculus to a third grader", or something like that. That indicates, of course, that it's not as simple as 2 + 2 = 4, since any third grader can add, subtract, multiply, divide, and work fractions and decimals, but can not reasonably be expected to understand calculus.

The logical consequences of his analogies are lost on Franko. Surely someone can't go around calling third graders stupid, idiots, and retards simply because they don't know calculus. Yet Franko continues to similarly degrade us uneducated types, because us "2 + 2 = 4" simpletons can't yet grasp the "calculus" of Logical Deism. Of course, calculus isn't instinctive, it's taught - but far be it for the educated like Franko to take the time to educate. It's like a lifeguard laughing at a drowning child that can't swim.

Franko also seems to be dissatisfied when everyone isn't at each other's throat. Franko refused to continue with the discussion in that Direct Questions thread because no one was disagreeing with him - they just wanted to ask him questions. "I won't sit here and talk to myself!!!" Franko fumed, even though he wouldn't be talking to himself, he would be talking to us. Deduce what you will from his actions here, also.

(edited for speeling erorrs.)

Franko

16th December 2002, 08:32 AM

EvilDildo-boy Fantasized ...

Because that free will is interfaced with the "real world", we have free will interacting with the real world.

Very simple.

Why not just say that "Sh*t Happens" A-Theist and leave it at that?

Instead what you are claiming is that YOU have "magic" mind powers" because YOU claim that you do? Yeah ... right! How about some empirical evidence non-skeptical, fat & intellectually lazy, religious moron?

After all extraordinary claims that one possesses "magic" powers" required extraordinary evidence. So far, the only "extraordinary evidence" I've seen is guys like You and the Fool making complete idiots of yourself on a SKEPTICS board ...

Checkmite

16th December 2002, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by CWL

If consciousness makes matter as His Holiness contends, why should one assume that the will of any consciousness is restricted in any way whatsoever?

"Consciousness makes matter" yet, consciousness is not free to do so?

Huh?

Indeed....although less conscious than TLOP, humans are still conscious - shouldn't they be able to make matter? I want a centerfold standing in my living room - now!

And TOASTERS are less conscious than humans....but STILL conscious. Can they make matter too? Can cars, as well? Or is there a certain level of consciousness at which the "makes matter" power no longer exists?

Franko

16th December 2002, 08:37 AM

16th December 2002, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Franko
just makes you a credulous moron, and blindly devoted, brainwashed, religious fanatic.

Ok confused here but one minute your yelling everyone is an athiest and now your yelling religious fanatics.

Exactly where do your belifes lie and what are your beliefs please.

Tricky

16th December 2002, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Franko
How is me NOT believing YOUR extraordinary claim for which you have provided no evidence make you “smarter” than me?
No, Franko, this does not make him smarter than you. It is your inability to read with comprehension, remember what was posted, formulate original arguments, post with civility, tell the truth, understand logic, and know when you are beaten that makes MRC_Hans (and practically every other poster here except possibly De_Bunk) smarter than you.

Sorry to have to break it to you.:(

Upchurch

16th December 2002, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
It all boiled down to him saying (again) that "anybody who knows 2 + 2 = 4 would understand and subscribe to Logical Deism". The entire alleged chain of reasoning I thought we had been building when I conceded the two points mentioned above was completely abandoned. Subordination to the laws of physics + no free will does not necessarily = goddess, gravitons, Abyss, MPB, etc.

Perhaps Franko could clear all of this up by simply presenting the logic behind Logical Deism. Maybe start a new thread or attach a document giving the whole explination, start to finish? I think that would clear up a lot of confusion.

Upchurch

Tricky

16th December 2002, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I think that would clear up a lot of confusion.
Somehow, I doubt it.

CWL

16th December 2002, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Indeed....although less conscious than TLOP, humans are still conscious - shouldn't they be able to make matter? I want a centerfold standing in my living room - now!

And TOASTERS are less conscious than humans....but STILL conscious. Can they make matter too? Can cars, as well? Or is there a certain level of consciousness at which the "makes matter" power no longer exists?
There you go. The question is which consciousness or consciousnesses make(s) matter? It clearly cannot be yours or mine as those darn centerfolds keep refusing to materialize.

But never fear. The Church of Logical Deism is reassuring us as to its firm stance on the existence of free will even as we speak.

In response of the assertion "If no one can freely act, then no one is responsible for their actions" made here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=268388#post268388) by kamerynn, Franko comforts us with the following:

Originally posted by Franko
Jump off a tall building and tell yourself that.

… or start running red lights. See if you are held responsible
From this we may deduce that, according to the Church of Logical Deism, we can freely act. This is logical as the Church of Logical Deism (as is frequently underlined by its propagator) holds that we are responsible for our actions and must suffer the consequences of the choices we make.

Yet... all is preordained? Yet... we have no "free will"?

Illogical? Nooooooo....

CWL

16th December 2002, 10:44 AM

More free will logic, this time from Franko's Sock Puppet, posted in the Gods, tlops, drivers, cars Thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=268184#post268184).

In response to the following post from the Fool...

Originally posted by The Fool
In this very thread your messiah said

"You do get one “free will” choice Fool. Unfortunately you used yours up when you “decided” to become a brainwashed A-Theist."

So now its not just confusion between never and sometimes, "once only" has been added as an official option to the logical deist dogma of Free will...That seems to make THREE positions now...so what is it sockpuppet? never? sometimes? once? how much Free will is there? What did you do with YOUR "one free will choice"?

Has Franko PM'd you your next origional thought yet or might you have a stab at this one yourself

... the Holy Sock Puppet did pontificate:

Originally posted by wraith

Ill have a stab at this one myself lol

Are you blind?

There is a reason why there are these things (" ") around the word free-will.

You have the ability to perceive how the "system" works. You can "choose" to follow it, or piss find your own system ;)

Now, thanks to this brilliant elucidation, all should be crystal clear for everyone as to the Church of Logical Deism's stance on "free will".

No?

Reginald

16th December 2002, 11:06 AM

Franko.......You need ME to read all the posts and then point out exactly what it is that YOU seem unclear on????

There have been enough posts, asking the same question of you that even my 5 year old would KNOW!!!!!!

Do you have free will...Never, sometimes, always??

Its not my opinion that matters (mind you, apart from your inconsistancy neither does yours, that much).

However unlike my five year old, you are resorting to these little name change insult things in the most infantile way. It's not even mildly whimsical.

Can you answer a simple question?

I dont wish to appear harsh but the phrase is, I believe "Either Sh*t, or get off the pot!". I think that you have the capability to put the record straight, so why not just do it!!

MRC_Hans

16th December 2002, 12:14 PM

MRC_Hand-job (Pathetic A-Theist Loser)

So what EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY is YOUR evidence for magic “free will” powers which allow you to defy the Laws of Physics?

How is me NOT believing YOUR extraordinary claim for which you have provided no evidence make you “smarter” than me?

It just makes you a credulous moron, and blindly devoted, brainwashed, religious fanatic.

Whenever you want to prove your magic powers tweedy-bird, you just let me know … Dear Frank,

I never claimed to defy the laws of physics (and you know that). I claimed (and provided evidence for) that free will can exist within tlop.

You not believing in my claim does not make me smarter than you (or vice versa), and I havent said that. YOUR claims that you are smarter than everybody else born within the last century or so TOGETHER with your inability to show anything but flawed sylogisms and personal insults for it makes you appear a total idiot (which is a shame, because I dont think you are).

I am not an atheist but since you reserve the rights to call me that because you think I act like one, I will reserve the right to call you an idiot because I think you act like one.

The difference may be that I dont consider "atheist" an insult.

Hans

Soubrette

16th December 2002, 12:19 PM

slimshady2357

16th December 2002, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Demand all you like slimshady2357, but until you clean my boots I refuse to do anything psst open to bribes. next yo'll be moaning coz a certain likeable man gets good quality dirty mail from me ;)

Oh eck! sorry fool i'm attemtping nookie again arent I

:D

Ok, I've amended my demands. Now I don't need an apology and I'll accept links to the pictures if not the actual pictures.

Please comply at your earliest convenience ;)

Adam

Tricky

16th December 2002, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Soubrette

:mad::mad::mad:

Sou
Jealousy does not become you, Sou.

Franko

16th December 2002, 12:33 PM

Ok confused here but one minute your yelling everyone is an athiest and now your yelling religious fanatics.

Atheists (A-Theists or A Theists) are the biggest bunch of Religious fanatics on the planet. Your average A-Theist is FAR more brainwashed than you average Christian.

It is one big bunch of self-deluded morons, who like all False Religions believe they have a monopoly on the Truth, and ALL other Religions are inferior and should be eliminated.

slimshady2357

16th December 2002, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Jealousy does not become you, Sou.

Mmmm everything becomes her ;)

Franko

16th December 2002, 12:42 PM

Franko.......You need ME to read all the posts and then point out exactly what it is that YOU seem unclear on????

Assuming you are ONE of the 48 nitwits who thinks I am “inconsistent” in my beliefs, I would figure if you have the opinion that I am “inconsistent” you would have an opinion about SPECIFICALLY what I am “inconsistent” about.

… but I am sure this logic-business must all be very new and strange for you as an A-Theist unaccustomed to actually having to PROVE the nonsense you believe.

There have been enough posts, asking the same question of you that even my 5 year old would KNOW!!!!!!

Do you have free will...Never, sometimes, always??

You don’t have “free will”.

Atoms obey the laws of Physics.
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Ask your 5-year old if they can understand that?

Now … what is your evidence for the extraordinary claim that you have magic “free will” powers and can defy the Laws of Physics? How does YOU and FOOL, and the other A-Theist Fanatics claiming that you have magic powers constitute and inconsistent belief on my part? That’s YOUR inconsistency – not mine.

Its not my opinion that matters

Which explain why you are so concerned about My as to make all these posts?

You should give honesty a try A-Theist.

Can you answer a simple question?

I dont wish to appear harsh but the phrase is, I believe "Either Sh*t, or get off the pot!". I think that you have the capability to put the record straight, so why not just do it!!

You are asking me to do your thinking for you? Ask your 5-year old.

You don’t have magic “free will” powers just because the A-Theist Fool convinced you that You do. :(

If you want me to believe your extraordinary claims that You possess magic powers then you will have to provide some evidence. Otherwise you are just a cynical religious fanatic pretending to be a Skeptic. … and I think fewer and fewer people here are buying it.

Tricky

16th December 2002, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Ok confused here but one minute you're yelling everyone is an athiest and now you're yelling religious fanatics.
According to the Dictionary of Franko (aka The Lexicon), atheism is a religion.

Don't ask. Really.

Franko

16th December 2002, 12:44 PM

Perhaps Franko could clear all of this up by simply presenting the logic behind Logical Deism. Maybe start a new thread or attach a document giving the whole explination, start to finish? I think that would clear up a lot of confusion.

No ... I think you and Trixy should stick to A-Theism, UpChimp.

The Logical Deists don't want anything to do with you ...

Upchurch

16th December 2002, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Franko
No ... I think you and Trixy should stick to A-Theism, UpChimp.

The Logical Deists don't want anything to do with you ...
Well, heck. Maybe your logic is compelling when presented in its entirity. I'm an open-minded guy. Maybe I learn something new?

Give it a try.

Upfunk

CWL

16th December 2002, 12:48 PM

I'll second that.

Tricky

16th December 2002, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Franko
No ... I think you and Trixy should stick to A-Theism, UpChimp.

But Frankie, my child, I've already admitted that according to The Lexicon I am an agnostic because I steadfastly refuse to deny the possibility of a god. That's where the dividing line is, n'est ce pas?

Originally posted by Franko
The Logical Deists don't want anything to do with you ...
There's more than one??? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Upchurch

16th December 2002, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
There's more than one??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Remember "wraith"? The one who's an entirely different person from Franko? He's an LD.

Upfunk-da-junk

Tricky

16th December 2002, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Remember "wraith"? The one who's an entirely different person from Franko? He's an LD.

Upfunk-da-junk
Ah! I forgot about him. Still, Franko's statement should have been:
"Both of the Logical Deists don't want anything to do with you ... "

CWL

16th December 2002, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Remember "wraith"? The one who's an entirely different person from Franko? He's an LD.

Upfunk-da-junk

Yes, yes... entirely different. Nothing to do with Franko.

BTW, I wonder if Franko does that act in the real world as well. Can you imagine?

Franko [false beard off]: Greetings everyone! I am Franko. I am a Logical Deist.

Franko [false beard on]: Greetings everyone! I am Wraith. I am a Logical Deist too.

Franko

16th December 2002, 01:07 PM

Well, heck. Maybe your logic is compelling when presented in its entirity. I'm an open-minded guy. Maybe I learn something new?

Give it a try.

Okay … what the heck!

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

In the same way that you are more conscious and aware then your CAR is, TLOP is more conscious and aware then YOU are. In other words in the same way that You are a “god” to an inanimate object (You can control a rock more easily then a rock controls you) TLOP is a God to you. TLOP controls you in an analogous manner to the way you control an inanimate object.

MRC_Hans

16th December 2002, 01:16 PM

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

Frank's logic in its entirety, period. And we've been looking for the next layer for weeks, no wonder we failed.

Its all so simple! How could anybody have overlooked it?

Hans :rolleyes:

Franko

16th December 2002, 01:22 PM

Frank's logic in its entirety, period. And we've been looking for the next layer for weeks, no wonder we failed.

Its all so simple! How could anybody have overlooked it?

Any time you want to present your equally "simple" and "better" argument for the existence of "magic free will mind-powers" you just let us all know.

I have been waiting for ONE of the dozens of A-Theists here to make that Post for over a year now ...

... I'm still waiting ... :o

KelvinG

16th December 2002, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Frank's logic in its entirety, period. And we've been looking for the next layer for weeks, no wonder we failed.

Its all so simple! How could anybody have overlooked it?

Hans :rolleyes:

Yes, so true. It's easy to assume when first encountering Franko that he has something of value to say. He posts very frequently, and engages in most threads on this board.

Yet, when you start to read his posts, you realize how repetitive, and ultimately insipid his content is.
The guy is a one trick pony who screams and yells the same thing over and over again insisting that he is correct without ever backing up anything he says.

And then there's that old trick where, when encountered with questions he can't answer, he tries to turn it around and yells "So prove me wrong...PROVE ME WRONG."

And if that doesn't work, he just resorts to name calling and verbal abuse.

It's quite sad.

Upchurch

16th December 2002, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Okay … what the heck!

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

In the same way that you are more conscious and aware then your CAR is, TLOP is more conscious and aware then YOU are. In other words in the same way that You are a “god” to an inanimate object (You can control a rock more easily then a rock controls you) TLOP is a God to you. TLOP controls you in an analogous manner to the way you control an inanimate object.
So, what? Is that it? Where does the "Logical Goddess" come from? Or the determinism? There has to be more?

Upchurch

edited to add:

And the consiousness creating matter is also missing.

Reginald

16th December 2002, 01:28 PM

There's no "Happy" in your world is there Franko?

It's all bitter and twisted.

Do you get joy from anything?

Anything other than abusing people?

What does your "God" think of that?

(4 questions in one post! I'm learning something from you Franko)

Franko

16th December 2002, 01:28 PM

The guy is a one trick pony who screams and yells the same thing over and over again insisting that he is correct without ever backing up anything he says.

Speaking of backing up what you say …

1) What is your evidence that you have “free will”?
2) Please explain exactly what you mean when you Claim that there is no evidence for God? Determinism is evidence for God, so the only way a person could claim there is no evidence for God is by deceiving themselves about the mountain of evidence for Determinism.

How do you answer these points? (I bet the A-Theist won’t bother)

And then there's that old trick where, when encountered with questions he can't answer, he tries to turn it around and yells "So prove me wrong...PROVE ME WRONG."

You don’t have “free will” – PROVE ME WRONG.

You have made the extraordinary claim … Now YOU provide the extraordinary evidence.

And if that doesn't work, he just resorts to name calling and verbal abuse.

It's quite sad.

Another brainwashed idiot Religious fanatic who is upset that I don’t take his word for it that the sky is falling, there is no "god", and that he possesses extraordinary "magic powers". :rolleyes:

Boo-hoo-hoo :(

Upchurch

16th December 2002, 01:30 PM

Shut up, you guys. Franko obviously wasn't done yet. Let the man finish.

MRC_Hans

16th December 2002, 01:32 PM

Any time you want to present your equally "simple" and "better" argument for the existence of "magic free will mind-powers" you just let us all know. You are speaking nonsense.

You are saying my argument should be simple, not I.
You are saying free will is magic, not I.

But my arguments are better than yours, because yours are useless. Your syllogism is useless, your consciousness ranking is nonsense.

This is why I did think that once we got past those, we would come to the real logic. But no, there's no beef. All you have besides that is insults.

Oh, I forgot the solipsism thingy .... sometimes when cornered, you pull that: "Prove I'm not a figment of your imagination"

Hans

Franko

16th December 2002, 01:35 PM

There's no "Happy" in your world is there Franko?

Let me guess, you are using you’re a-Theist “magic mind powers” to determine this?

I laugh my ass off at you A-Theists every time I come into this forum … :)

It's all bitter and twisted.

A-Theism?? … yeah, I’d agree. You believe that UNKNOWN things are FALSE? That is f*cked up!

Do you get joy from anything?

Who me? I get joy from EVERYTHING I do.

Anything other than abusing people?

I’m a garbage man. I’ve always been a garbage man. I like my work, I was innately good at it. It is like I was made for it from the instant I sprang from the void.

What does your "God" think of that?

My Goddess is going to send you and all of your pessimistic little pals off to the Abyss for the remainder of this Eternity until you have been completely and irrevocably annihilated. To be honest, I find even that fact a bit amusing from time to time …

Upchurch

16th December 2002, 01:37 PM

Seriously, Franko. That can't be the entirety of it. What's the rest?

CWL

16th December 2002, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Shut up, you guys. Franko obviously wasn't done yet. Let the man finish.

Yea, come on you guys. Let the man finish.

OK, Franko

We've gotten this far:

----

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

----

As I understand you Franko, you say that the above proves determinism? And that determinism in its turn is proof of God?

OK. Let's assume you're right. What comes next?

How do you arrive at the Logical Goddess and her creation of the Universe?

How do you arrive at the Omniverse and its various "Subverses"?

How do you arrive at the Progenitor Solipsist and his creation of the Logical Goddess?

How do you arrive at your cosmology?

Shush you guys. Let Franko speak now.

RandFan

16th December 2002, 01:38 PM

Uh-oh, here goes... I'm convinced that Franko believes that we have no free will.

Yes, he has made contradictory statements but I believe that is simply because he is human and capable of being inconsistent at times...or, that he has no beliefs because he has no free will and it does not mater anyway.

In any event I voted that he bleives that we have no free will.

Upchurch

16th December 2002, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by CWL
Shush you guys. Let Franko speak now.
Don't forget the existance of Heaven and Hell.

Up-da-funk

CWL

16th December 2002, 02:05 PM

That would be "the various 'Subverses' of the Omniverse".

CoolWhitefunkingLunatic

Upchurch

16th December 2002, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by CWL
That would be "the various 'Subverses' of the Omniverse". Nevertheless, Logical Deism must be able to logically deduce the existance of the subverses as well as the omniverse from nothing but what Franko gives us to work with.

Up-da-funkadelic
edited to bring on da funk

gentlehorse

16th December 2002, 02:11 PM

RandFan:
Uh-oh, here goes... I'm convinced that Franko believes that we have no free will.

Yes, he has made contradictory statements but I believe that is simply because he is human and capable of being inconsistent at times...or, that he has no beliefs because he has no free will and it does not mater anyway.

In any event I voted that he bleives that we have no free will.

I hear ya. Franko's statements seem contradictory. He believes we have no free will. It seems that he believes that if we are aware enough to come to grips with this fact, there come specific points in time during which we can be more than passive observers of our fate. It is during these points in time that we are able to choose our fate, as it were. Our microsecond of opportunity-- As this seems to imply that we have some free will, I'm almost sure that I'm interpreting him incorrectly. I keep reading between the flames, waiting for the penny to drop.

FTR: There are some on this board who've stated that Franko is here to do nothing more than troll and run his post count up. Having read his posts for the past year or so, I feel that this is an inaccurate characterization. He has initiated and engaged in many excellent discussions. That the almost constant flame war in which he engages (which is a relatively recent development, btw) tends to detract from this is, in my opinion, unfortunate. It gives those who disagree with him, and are so inclined, something to point at as they say, "See? He's not really interested in meaningful discussion." If I were new to the forum, I'd probably be inclined to agree with them. Unfortunate indeed--

CWL

16th December 2002, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Nevertheless, Logical Deism must be able to logically deduce the existance of the subverses as well as the omniverse from nothing but what Franko gives us to work with.

Up-da-funkadelic
edited to bring on da funk

UpFunkalistico,

We are in complete and groovalistic agreement.

I can't wait to learn how Franko constructs a whole cosmology out of one single syllogism.

Cosmic-Wicked-Lord-of-da-Funk

Upchurch

16th December 2002, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by CWL
We are in complete and groovalistic agreement.

I can't wait to learn how Franko constructs a whole cosmology out of one single syllogism.

Callin'-Wild-Ladies-of-da-Funkminster

Not so, my brother in da funk. I do not believe that the syllogism, as presented is sufficent for contructing the cosmology Mr. Funko has presented, although I will grant that it may be necessary. There must surely be more elements required.

Up-in-da-funk

Tricky

16th December 2002, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by gentlehorse
FTR: There are some on this board who've stated that Franko is here to do nothing more than troll and run his post count up. Having read his posts for the past year or so, I feel that this is an inaccurate characterization. He has initiated and engaged in many excellent discussions. That the almost constant flame war in which he engages (which is a relatively recent development, btw) tends to detract from this is, in my opinion, unfortunate. It gives those who disagree with him, and are so inclined, something to point at as they say, "See? He's not really interested in meaningful discussion." If I were new to the forum, I'd probably be inclined to agree with them. Unfortunate indeed--
I agree with you, gentlehorse, and yes, it is very unfortunate. Some of us oldies remember a time when Franko didn't flame at all. I have pleaded with him to return to that persona, but I fear it is gone forever. Even today, certain people have managed to hold civil discussions, provided that they never say or imply that he is wrong about anything. I know that you have hope for him still, but lets face it. Only in the movies does a Darth Vader ever go back to being an Anakin Skywalker.

16th December 2002, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Soubrette

:mad::mad::mad:

Sou
Dear soubrette,

Soubrettes once twice, threes times an angry mad lady,
whose property stamps on the butt of Mr slimshady
For how was I to know
That he was her beau
I may only be a meagre sunflower
But I am older than her
So you best not growl at me
Coz I'm sending you to to bed with no tea.
Plus a sound whipping I'll also give you
Get slim out from under the bed too.

:D :D :D
radiaiting_oldwomaninashoe_sunflower.

Soubrette

16th December 2002, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Dear soubrette,

Soubrettes once twice, threes times an angry mad lady,
whose property stamps on the butt of Mr slimshady
For how was I to know
That he was her beau
I may only be a meagre sunflower
But I am older than her
So you best not growl at me
Coz I'm sending you to to bed with no tea.
Plus a sound whipping I'll also give you
Get slim out from under the bed too.

:D :D :D
radiaiting_oldwomaninashoe_sunflower.

He's under the bed? :p

And also the date shown in my profile is wrong :( There's a software glitch somewhere so a whole bunch of us share that birthday - that said it's not that far off my real birthday so you may well be older than me :p

And please do call me Sou - I prefer it and it soooo much quicker to type :)

Sou

CWL

16th December 2002, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Callin'-Wild-Ladies-of-da-Funkminster
Not so, my brother in da funk. I do not believe that the syllogism, as presented is sufficent for contructing the cosmology Mr. Funko has presented, although I will grant that it may be necessary. There must surely be more elements required.

Up-in-da-funk

UpFunkstication,

You iz 100 % correct my P-funking brotha. There's gotta be more to his groovement.

However, we should for the time being be less concerned with whether or not Funko should be able to derive his cosmology from one single syllogism, but rather how he actually does it.

But perhaps you're right. Perhaps there is more. Anyhow, I can't wait to be enlightened.

Franko, please do go on. What happens after the syllogism?

Chillin'-Wanilla-Loquacious-Funkzilla

Upchurch

16th December 2002, 03:22 PM

(excuse me while I drop my funk for just a moment)
Originally posted by Franko
Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU obey TLOP.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

In the same way that you are more conscious and aware then your CAR is, TLOP is more conscious and aware then YOU are. In other words in the same way that You are a “god” to an inanimate object (You can control a rock more easily then a rock controls you) TLOP is a God to you. TLOP controls you in an analogous manner to the way you control an inanimate object.
Well, I guess this is all we're getting today, as it seems that Franko has either left or is lurking for a while.

Now, the above is obviously incomplete for explaining the madrid of claims Franko said Logical Deism would prove. The question is, dare we speculate based on the incomplete information given or do we wait until it is all here before discussing?

So far, I think the incomplete areas include:
1. What does Franko consider to be TLOP? (including validation for "its" consiousness)
2. Is the TLOP --> You --> Car (or non-consious item) hierarchy valid and if so, how? (This may be answered in #1.)
3. How does consiousness creates matter? (Again, this may be answered in #1)

So, while I listed three items, it all may come down to Franko's description of the Laws of Phyiscs. Or, to be more precise, Franko's description of the Nature Of The Universe (NATU). It will be here, I think, that Franko's must be the most convincing. Based on Franko's previous assertions, Franko's NATU is, on the surface, vastly different from what has been observed and theorized in science. Whatever his discription, it must account for observed phenomena as well as provide an explination for all the phenomena he has described (creation of matter from consiousness alone, existance of Omniverse and the Logical Goddess, etc.)

I eagerly wait the conclusion.

Upchurch

Q-Source

16th December 2002, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Even today, certain people have managed to hold civil discussions, provided that they never say or imply that he is wrong about anything. I know that you have hope for him still, but lets face it. Only in the movies does a Darth Vader ever go back to being an Anakin Skywalker.

Tricky :mad:

You underestimate Franko and anyone who wants to exchange ideas with him. It is not fair and nice to hear you say that.

He is capable to discuss topics (or answer questions most of the time ) in a civil way. He has done that in my case (thank you Frank ;) ) even though we hold opposite points of view in almost everything.

Q-S

evildave

16th December 2002, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Why not just say that "Sh*t Happens" A-Theist and leave it at that?

Instead what you are claiming is that YOU have "magic" mind powers" because YOU claim that you do? Yeah ... right! How about some empirical evidence non-skeptical, fat & intellectually lazy, religious moron?

After all extraordinary claims that one possesses "magic" powers" required extraordinary evidence. So far, the only "extraordinary evidence" I've seen is guys like You and the Fool making complete idiots of yourself on a SKEPTICS board ...

Ah, I see it was too optimistic to imagine Franko'd respond in any other manner.

I may make an idiot of myself occasionally, but it's better than to be like Franko and make an ass of myself constantly.

DrMatt

16th December 2002, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Okay … so 33 people now. Let’s see, that’s Fool, CWL, UpChirp, Aardvark, De-Bungler, Tricky, Lucy-Rochelle, Titanpout, Evildildo, Whitemeat, Shrimp, JamesXYZ, (yeah-“that”-guy), “Dr.” Mutt, plus 19 of “The Fool’s” other sockpuppets/alterlogins.

You know … The “Undercover”elephant use to like useless polls a lot as well (when he was around) Especially after getting a spanking, he would seek the approval of the “masses” to reassure him that he wasn’t crazy, and Solipsism wasn’t really True … But “we” all know that it is True. We are just waiting for YOU to figure it out …

… In the mean time, since “33 people” are trying to tell me I am inconsistent in my beliefs perhaps there will be at least one with a nutsack large enough to come forward and explain [b]exactly and specifically where I am being inconsistent. Because -- as I must tell you -- there is nothing a Logical deists hates more then Logical Inconsistency.

Okay so my first question, which (if either) of these statements (which I believe) is FALSE?

A) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics (TRUE or FALSE)
B) YOU are made of Atoms. (TRUE or FALSE)

Question #2: I believe that …

TLOP makes (controls) YOU makes (controls) CAR

Ergo,

TLOP more conscious than YOU more conscious than CAR

Please! … show me the error of my ways? Where is the Logical Inconsistency in the above statements?

I want nothing more than to be a “smart” A-Theist like the “33” of YOU. I implore YOU, I am but a humble and lowly Deist, and not a mighty A-Theist of the “One True Faith” (or is that “True for One Faith”? …). Please explain to me what an “intelligent” person with a vastly “superior” metaphysical belief system (which although identical to a Religion in ALL ways, is never-the-less, NOT a Religion) should believe in this regard?

Come on … there are “33” of you. Surely at least one can give some straight forward answers to a couple of simple Questions???

If I am inconsistent on these beliefs … show me the “inconsistency”??

:confused:

Want to know my prophecy of what happens next?

Oh, wow! Franko is still trying to understand the meaning of "Law" as used in science, and as a result, he has developed a world-view in which I'm somebody else's sock-puppet! Too funny!

It follows logically that Franko worships The Fool as a god. After all, according to Franko, we all do The Fool's bidding... :D

I have a Franko-name now, too! Great!

Tricky

16th December 2002, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Tricky :mad:

You underestimate Franko and anyone who wants to exchange ideas with him. It is not fair and nice to hear you say that.

He is capable to discuss topics (or answer questions most of the time ) in a civil way. He has done that in my case (thank you Frank ;) ) even though we hold opposite points of view in almost everything.

Q-S
Sorry, Q. Didn't mean to make you angry. It is true your style has placated Franko to the point that he is actually flirting with you. However, compare your posts to those of Latimer, a poster who has doggedly and persistantly been polite to Franko. In return, Franko has heaped abuse on him and spouted his repetitious claims.

What could the difference be between you and Latimer? I leave it as an excercise for the class.

Franko

16th December 2002, 09:50 PM

Trixy, (more rubbish from the A-Theist master)

Sorry, Q. Didn't mean to make you angry. It is true your style has placated Franko to the point that he is actually flirting with you. However, compare your posts to those of Latimer, a poster who has doggedly and persistantly been polite to Franko. In return, Franko has heaped abuse on him and spouted his repetitious claims.

What could the difference be between you and Latimer? I leave it as an excercise for the class.

Latimer is a brainwashed A-Theist Religious fanatic, all around goon, and likely graduate of the Trixy School of ”Shit Happens” Philosophy.

Q-Source, on the other hand, is a Skeptic.

Checkmite

16th December 2002, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

What could the difference be between you and Latimer? I leave it as an excercise for the class.

Q-Source...are you an atheist? If not, what is your persuasion?

Franko

16th December 2002, 10:00 PM

I hear ya. Franko's statements seem contradictory. He believes we have no free will. It seems that he believes that if we are aware enough to come to grips with this fact, there come specific points in time during which we can be more than passive observers of our fate. It is during these points in time that we are able to choose our fate, as it were. Our microsecond of opportunity-- As this seems to imply that we have some free will, I'm almost sure that I'm interpreting him incorrectly. I keep reading between the flames, waiting for the penny to drop.

Ohh by eliminating the non-skeptical religious fanatics off this board we would get much more accomplished. But have no fear gentlehorse … Eternity is a long time, and I have a hunch we’ll be around for it. ;)

FTR: There are some on this board who've stated that Franko is here to do nothing more than troll and run his post count up. Having read his posts for the past year or so, I feel that this is an inaccurate characterization. He has initiated and engaged in many excellent discussions. That the almost constant flame war in which he engages (which is a relatively recent development, btw) tends to detract from this is, in my opinion, unfortunate. It gives those who disagree with him, and are so inclined, something to point at as they say, "See? He's not really interested in meaningful discussion." If I were new to the forum, I'd probably be inclined to agree with them. Unfortunate indeed—

The Wraith understands why that is my Fate. I have a hunch that the Knight does too, although he may not be consciously aware of the reason yet …

But seriously gentlehorse you don’t occasionally find it amusing to see the tables turned on the A-Theists thusly? To see some bad Karma get them in the here and now? I can’t demonstrate what first class idiots these Religious Fanatics are without the assistance of the likes of De-Bungler, or Titanpout, or Fool, or CWl, or Upchimp, or Evilbuoy, or Trixy …

Franko

16th December 2002, 10:07 PM

Tricky hissed:
I agree with you, gentlehorse, and yes, it is very unfortunate. Some of us oldies remember a time when Franko didn't flame at all. I have pleaded with him to return to that persona, but I fear it is gone forever. Even today, certain people have managed to hold civil discussions, provided that they never say or imply that he is wrong about anything. I know that you have hope for him still …

What a lying sack of S**t this 30+ year A-Theist has become …

Let’s not forget folks this is the SAME PERSON who ORGANIZED the posters in the original concentrated flaming effort against me (then all then went on to brag about how the older and wiser Tricky was counseling them on how to “run me off the board”) . I also happen to know that he has tried to get me BANNED from this board.

Trixy is nothing but a two-faced lying A-Theist. You shouldn’t believe a word out of his mouth. He doesn’t think there will be any ultimate consequences for his actions. So he will screw you in a heartbeat if he thinks he can gain a nickels worth of “matter” for it.

Tricky

16th December 2002, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Franko
What a lying sack of S**t this 30+ year A-Theist has become …
Franko, you have lied so often you don't even recognize the truth anymore.

Originally posted by Franko
Let’s not forget folks this is the SAME PERSON who ORGANIZED the posters in the original concentrated flaming effort against me (then all then went on to brag about how the older and wiser Tricky was counseling them on how to “run me off the board”) . I also happen to know that he has tried to get me BANNED from this board.
LOL. I can't organize my sock drawer. I have written a few satires based on you (which I hoped you would find amusing) but I have always been the most outspoken critic of any kind of censorship. I was one of the first to welcome you back after your last "dematerialization" and I have repeatedly entreated you to return to your old non-flaming self. However, if you persist in making the CHOICE to be a jerk, then you must suffer the consequences of your CHOICE, which is to be ridiculed.

And tell me how you happen to know that I have tried to get you banned? Did Randi say so? Linda? Jeff? This is another of your lies and everybody here knows it.

Originally posted by Franko
Trixy is nothing but a two-faced lying A-Theist. You shouldn’t believe a word out of his mouth. He doesn’t think there will be any ultimate consequences for his actions. So he will screw you in a heartbeat if he thinks he can gain a nickels worth of “matter” for it.
Isn't it odd that people usually ascribe their own attributes to others? A criminal trusts nobody. As for you, I do not think you are a bad person. I think you are deluded, but not evil. You want what is best for humanity, but your methods are... well... extreme.

Here's a project for you. Try being nice. Try posting for one solid month without either repeating yourself or attacking another poster. I know it will be hard because you will be attacked, (though not by me), but try to ignore it. I'll bet you would be amazed at the difference in attitude you would see.

Here's hoping to have a friendly conversation with you in the future.

wraith

17th December 2002, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by CWL

And this from the Forum's most famous sock puppet. Oh, the irony.

BTW. I just thought of another little anomaly within the Sacred Church of Logical Deism - more general and more profound as it would seem.

If consciousness makes matter as His Holiness contends, why should one assume that the will of any consciousness is restricted in any way whatsoever?

"Consciousness makes matter" yet, consciousness is not free to do so?

Huh?

I didnt get any of that
;)

wraith

17th December 2002, 12:34 AM

CWL

17th December 2002, 04:19 AM

originally posted by Franko
Latimer is a brainwashed A-Theist Religious fanatic, all around goon, and likely graduate of the Trixy School of ”S**t Happens” Philosophy.

Q-Source, on the other hand, is a Skeptic.

Quick translation from Frankonese:

Male who disagrees with Franko = Brainwashed A-Theist Religious fanatic

Female who disagrees with Franko = Skeptic

originally posted by Tricky
Isn't it odd that people usually ascribe their own attributes to others? A criminal trusts nobody. As for you, I do not think you are a bad person. I think you are deluded, but not evil. You want what is best for humanity, but your methods are... well... extreme.
I believe the psycological term is projection (http://www.planetpsych.com/zPsychology_101/defense_mechanisms.htm#Projection): "the attribution of one's undesired impulses onto another. Thus, an angry spouse accuses their partner of hostility."

Another term that springs to mind is paranoia (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/p1/paranoia.asp): "in psychology, a term denoting persistent, unalterable, systematized, logically reasoned delusions, or false beliefs, usually of persecution or grandeur. In the former case the paranoiac creates a complex delusional system that purports to show that people want to hurt him; in the latter, he sees himself as an exalted person with a mission of great importance."

Originally posted by Wraith
I didnt get any of that
;)
I am not surprised that you didn't. I also find it hard to grasp how "consciousness can make matter" yet be restricted. How is "matter made by consciousness" if consciousness has no will (=no will to "make" anything)?

CWL

17th December 2002, 04:41 AM

More news from the Church of Logical Deism on the topic of free will may be found here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=269184#post269184).

When faced with the fact that the Pope has at a general audience exlpained that "By free will, he [the human person] is capable of directing himself toward his true good", Franko was kind enough to provide the following clarification:

Originally posted by Franko
roger,

This is just ONE person's interpretation of God's law. That doesn't make it the CORRECT interpretation ... and I can assure you God only cares if you are Right or not.

here is what I would say ...

1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that "the human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. He is capable of directing himself toward his true good (God's will). He finds his perfection 'in seeking and loving what is true and good' (God's will)

If all is preordained, if all is predictable, how can we be capable of "directing" ourselves in any way whatsoever?

What is the difference between "being capable of directing by free will" and just "being capable of directing"?

Spot the logic anyone?

MRC_Hans

17th December 2002, 05:25 AM

Yeah, not only does Franko know more about physics than Einstein, he also knows more about Catholicism than the Pope.

Now, aint that just faaaantastic?

Hans

wraith

17th December 2002, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by CWL
More free will logic, this time from Franko's Sock Puppet, posted in the Gods, tlops, drivers, cars Thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=268184#post268184).

In response to the following post from the Fool...

... the Holy Sock Puppet did pontificate:

Now, thanks to this brilliant elucidation, all should be crystal clear for everyone as to the Church of Logical Deism's stance on "free will".

No?

Free-willy is your god, not mine

perhaps you want to gives us your stance?
:eek:

wraith

17th December 2002, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by CWL
I am not surprised that you didn't. I also find it hard to grasp how "consciousness can make matter" yet be restricted. How is "matter made by consciousness" if consciousness has no will (=no will to "make" anything)?

Obviously you have no idea on how Fate works...no will to do anything? hahaha

I take it that you lie in bed all day long?

wraith

17th December 2002, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Quick translation from Frankonese:

Male who disagrees with Franko = Brainwashed A-Theist Religious fanatic

Female who disagrees with Franko = Skeptic

jealous?
lol

CWL

17th December 2002, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Free-willy is your god, not mine
Correction. "Free-Willy" is your master's straw-man, not mine. I don't believe in any god, remember?

perhaps you want to gives us your stance?
:eek:
Happy to. I make conscious choices between perceived and available options.

Why is there a problem with this?

Obviously you have no idea on how Fate works...no will to do anything? hahaha
No I don't have any idea on how "Fate" works. Why do you and your prophet refuse to share your insights with us?

Please do enlighten us, how does "Fate" work Wraith?

I take it that you lie in bed all day long?
No, I personally believe that I make the conscious choice not to (except for those days when I do - great :)).

Do I have the choice to stay in bed or not to you?

Or am I restricted by "Fate"?

Do I have a will?

If yes, why is it not "free"?

Pray tell, what is the difference between "will" and "free will"?

Why do I get the eerie feeling I am talking to one of these guys?
http://www.whatilove.com/elephantandrabbit.jpg

Checkmite

17th December 2002, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Try dreaming one up tonight...
;)

I dream one up almost every night. Doesn't work.

Originally posted by wraith
Toasters are conscious now?

Please dont pull a Twixy
;)

Well, Franko contends that humans are more conscious than toasters and cars. This is implicitly stating that toasters and cars have consciousness (albiet "less" than humans). I don't agree with that whole "TLOP more conscious than YOU more conscious than CAR" thing...the statement "more conscious" is meaningless to me, it's like saying "Kathy is more pregnant than Lisa"...you're either conscious or you're not. Humans are, cars aren't.

And as for the whole "TLOP control you" thing - I don't agree with that either. TLOP exert as much control over you as a wall does. A wall limits your range of travel in one direction, narrowing your still-vast list of options. In the same way, the laws of physics narrow the list of possibilities - but you still have a plethora of those possibilities left.

If "TLOP > YOU > CAR", then "WALL > YOU > CAR".

While you are in a car, a seatbelt keeps you against your seat so that you don't move around too much and subject yourself to injury in case of an accident. A seatbelt is even more restrictive than a wall. Does this mean that a seatbelt is more conscious than you? You could say that you still control the seatbelt, because you can unfasten it. But imagine a scenario in which you've had a wreck, and your car is damaged in such a way that you cannot unfasten the seat belt (because you can't reach it, or it's stuck tight, or you don't have an arm anymore, etc). Now, since you can no longer control the seatbelt - is it then more conscious than you?

How do the laws of physics limit your available options any differently from the way a wall limits your available range of motion?

wraith

17th December 2002, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Correction. "Free-Willy" is your master's straw-man, not mine. I don't believe in any god, remember?

actually, TLOP is your god...you dont acknowledge the Higher Power's consciousness...insultiing dont you think?
:eek:

Happy to. I make conscious choices between perceived and available options.

Why is there a problem with this?

I say that the choices have already been made.
You seem to say that they are made willy-nilly.

No I don't have any idea on how "Fate" works. Why do you and your prophet refuse to share your insights with us?

Please do enlighten us, how does "Fate" work Wraith?

ever heard of MPB?
ever defied TLOP?

No, I personally believe that I make the conscious choice not to (except for those days when I do - great :)).

Do I have the choice to stay in bed or not to you?

Or am I restricted by "Fate"?

restricted?
Fate doesnt chain you to the ground. It's only you and the others who do not understand the concept that perceive it this way.

You are bound to Fate.

Do I have a will?

If yes, why is it not "free"?

Pray tell, what is the difference between "will" and "free will"?

How do you define "will" and "free-will"?

Why do I get the eerie feeling I am talking to one of these guys?
http://www.whatilove.com/elephantandrabbit.jpg

good work CWL...good work
at least I know what you do in your spare time
lol
:rolleyes:

CWL

17th December 2002, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by wraith
actually, TLOP is your god...you dont acknowledge the Higher Power's consciousness...insultiing dont you think?
:eek:
I don't believe that it is a correct approach to personify "the Laws of Physics". That is yet another of your saviour's little straw-men.

I say that the choices have already been made.
By whom?

You seem to say that they are made willy-nilly.
No I say that I make them.

ever heard of MPB?
In which way does a "maximum perceived benefit" contradict that the choices I make are not preordained?

ever defied TLOP?
Have I ever claimed to?

restricted?
Fate doesnt chain you to the ground. It's only you and the others who do not understand the concept that perceive it this way.

You are bound to Fate.
What is the difference between "restricted", "chained" and "bound"?

How do you define "will" and "free-will"?
No, no, no. You do the defining buster.

You seem to claim that we have "will" but not "free will". You explain the difference.

I have only claimed to make conscious choices between perceived and available options. Nothing more, nothing less.

good work CWL...good work
at least I know what you do in your spare time
lol
:rolleyes:

Puppeteering? Nah. I spend with time with my wife on my spare time - and play da funk! :cool:

Besides, I am not the one creating the sock puppets, although I am obviously debating with one. *Mental note: Must stop attempting to have serious conversation with sock puppets.*

17th December 2002, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Quick translation from Frankonese:

Male who disagrees with Franko = Brainwashed A-Theist Religious fanatic

Female who disagrees with Franko = Skeptic

I believe the psycological term is projection (http://www.planetpsych.com/zPsychology_101/defense_mechanisms.htm#Projection): "the attribution of one's undesired impulses onto another. Thus, an angry spouse accuses their partner of hostility."

Another term that springs to mind is paranoia (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/p1/paranoia.asp): "in psychology, a term denoting persistent, unalterable, systematized, logically reasoned delusions, or false beliefs, usually of persecution or grandeur. In the former case the paranoiac creates a complex delusional system that purports to show that people want to hurt him; in the latter, he sees himself as an exalted person with a mission of great importance."

I am not surprised that you didn't. I also find it hard to grasp how "consciousness can make matter" yet be restricted. How is "matter made by consciousness" if consciousness has no will (=no will to "make" anything)?
What is a female who disagrees called then?

If yuor going to character map Franko thinkon these musings of how Franko ticks,
I would say also he could have a stong lean towards displacement, or reaction formation , then again a determinist strikes a familiar franko trait, eros syndrome hmm! need to watch more to prononuce that attribute.
I dont think rationalization but do sway more towards repition compulsion.

Are we defining consious as? pre consious or consious aware of action or the unconsious action we do not know occur?

17th December 2002, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Obviously you have no idea on how Fate works...no will to do anything? hahaha

Fate is a throw of the die, turn of the card, a preordained mistake or wish waiting to happen.
Fate is what you dont want to happen or do but afraid to admit it, a thought passing through or wishful thinking. Just something else to blame or celebrate with the hand that deals you it.

Sods law, Murphies law, the law of averages now theyre different as the outcome is already known and waitng for it to occur.

Franko

17th December 2002, 08:10 AM

Trixy (Fanatically devoted A-Theist)

Franko, you have lied so often you don't even recognize the truth anymore.

Try and point out one of my “lies” Trixy.

Is me claiming that TOAST is inferior to HUMAN BEINGS a lie Trixy?

How about Atoms obey the laws of physics?

How about – THERE IS NO “FREE WILL”?

Where are My lies, lying A-Theist?

LOL. I can't organize my sock drawer. I have written a few satires based on you …

Yes, but Alas, still no sign of EVIDENCE for your magic powers or “free willy god” …

(boo-hoo-hoo …) :(

Franko

17th December 2002, 08:16 AM

CryingWhineyLoser,

I don't believe in any god, remember?

That is what you say lying A-Theist Lawyer, but everyone here knows that it isn’t True. You claim to possess magic powers, and You use this delusion to claim that there is no evidence for God.

TLOP controls (makes) YOU controls (makes) CAR

Happy to. I make conscious choices between perceived and available options.

Why is there a problem with this?

Atoms obey the laws of Physics
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

You don’t make any “choices” you just do what you were programmed to do. Next you are programmed to cease to exist. I suggest you run along and enjoy the little bit of existence you’ll have … while you can.

No I don't have any idea on how "Fate" works. Why do you and your prophet refuse to share your insights with us?

Honestly? … because you are a lying sack-o-s**t A-Theist lawyer who doesn’t deserve or need to know. You seem happy with your insane religion – it suits you – I say that you stick with it. I think that it is your Fate to stick with it.

Why do I get the eerie feeling I am talking to one of these guys?

You are always talking to one of “those guys” … none of the rest of us are real. You are just making us all up inside your head.

Tricky

17th December 2002, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Trixy (Fanatically devoted A-Theist)
Try and point out one of my “lies” Trixy.

easily done (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=253794&highlight=numerous+occasions#post253794)
Or if you don't wan't to click the link, here is the post.

Originally posted by Tricky
----------
Franko said:
Actually Trixy … I’ve asked you on numerous occasions for your definition of the term “God”. You never could define it (or you placed that burden on the Theist); however I noticed that it didn’t stop you from declaring this non-definable thing as non-existent.
-------------

Well, Franko, as anyone can clearly see here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=168640) and here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=176844), you are a liar. (Not that this comes as a shock to anyone).

I define God as the creator of the universe. And I have no evidence that such a thing exists. Note that I have carefully stated that I don't deny that God exists, I simply withhold judgment until I am presented with evidence.
That should be adequate evidence. Of course, every time you declare that atheists believe something they do not, it is a lie. You have done this once or twice.:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Franko

Is me claiming that TOAST is inferior to HUMAN BEINGS a lie Trixy?

How about Atoms obey the laws of physics?

How about – THERE IS NO “FREE WILL”?
Nope, those aren't lies, they are opinions. Of course, you are not willing to budge from those opinions, so discussion of them is somewhat pointless. Still, they are not lies, neither are they "the truth".

Originally posted by Franko
Yes, but Alas, still no sign of EVIDENCE for your magic powers or “free willy god” …
Of course, I have never claimed to believe in magic or any kind of god. If you say I have, then please produce the quote. Otherwise, your claim is a.... well, you know.

CWL

17th December 2002, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Franko
CryingWhineyLoser,
Is your constant name calling evidence of the fact that you are blessed (programmed to exist) in the same way that my doubts (not certainty) as to the existence of an ominpotent being is evidence of the fact that I am damned (programmed not to exist)?

That is what you say lying A-Theist Lawyer, but everyone here knows that it isn’t True. You claim to possess magic powers, and You use this delusion to claim that there is no evidence for God.

TLOP controls (makes) YOU controls (makes) CAR
Yet your devoted sock puppet seems to claim that I have "will". What is the difference between "will" and "free will"?

Atoms obey the laws of Physics
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

You don’t make any “choices” you just do what you were programmed to do. Next you are programmed to cease to exist. I suggest you run along and enjoy the little bit of existence you’ll have … while you can.
How do you know that I am programmed to cease to exist? I thought you belived in an afterlife?

Tell me Franko, as a Skeptic what would you say on the subject of an afterlife for your old pal CryingWhiningLoser?

Is my particular afterlife TRUE, FALSE or UNKNOWN?

Please explain the reasons for your assessment, duly backed with evidence (or the lack thereof).

Honestly? … because you are a lying sack-o-s**t A-Theist lawyer who doesn’t deserve or need to know. You seem happy with your insane religion – it suits you – I say that you stick with it. I think that it is your Fate to stick with it.
You want to stop me from being saved? The Metaverse is a private club is it? Is that the reason why you refuse to explain how you've arrived at your cosmology?

Yet more evidence of your good nature programming that will save you from of the Abyss? A fine saviour you are...

Unless the Logical Goddess is fond of impolite and intolerant jerks I say your chances of making it into the Metaverse are pretty slim.

You are always talking to one of “those guys” … none of the rest of us are real. You are just making us all up inside your head.
Ah! You feel the need to invoke Solipsism now? Are you really that cornered at this point in time?

Seriously, why not make a serious attempt to explain yourself instead of shouting that I am an A-Theist destined to end up in the Abyss. Not a very nice thing to say you know.

Would it help you if you pretended that I'm female?

Franko

17th December 2002, 08:50 AM

Tricky, (Lying A-Theist)

I define God as the creator of the universe.

So you are claiming that the universe was never created? You are claiming that the universe has ALWAYS been here – existed???

That’s not right …

And I have no evidence that such a thing exists.

You are honestly trying to tell us that you have NO evidence that the universe was created?

Note that I have carefully stated that I don't deny that God exists, I simply withhold judgment until I am presented with evidence.

Then why call yourself an A-Theist? Is it the result of you inherent dishonest nature? When you don’t know the answer – just pretend that you do so everyone will think you are smart?

Of course, I have never claimed to believe in magic or any kind of god.

You claim to believe in “free will”. Since “free will” would require magic to function, and since you have failed to provide any evidence for your claim, or define how “free will” allegedly works in a consistent fashion, this claim is a lie.

If you say I have, then please produce the quote. Otherwise, your claim is a.... well, you know.

Yeah right .. so we are all just imagining that you are a hard-core fanatical A-Theist who claims to have magic “free will” powers that allow you to defy the laws of Physics?

TLOP controls YOU controls TOASTERS controls TOAST

(Trixy: TOAST is superior to YOU)

Please Trixy, your obfuscation and lies grow worse and worse each passing day. You're headed straight for the Abyss …

Franko

17th December 2002, 08:55 AM

CWl,

Since A-Theists are just as moral as Theist even though A-Theists don’t fear the punishment of an Almighty god for their actions, then why are you a lawyer? If A-Theists don’t need the threat of punishment to be good and moral, then what makes you believe that we need the threat of punishment here and now – in this universe?

Isn’t it a bit hypocritical for an A-Theist to be a Lawyer? A-Theist don’t believe in Determinism or the concept of rewards and punishments – do they? If people don’t need the threat of punishment hanging over their heads to be moral, then why are YOU being a hypocrite by claiming that people need the threat of punishment hanging over their heads to be moral LAWYER?

Can you explain this rather fundamental contradiction on your part?

(since when is an A-Theist logically consistent?)

Tricky

17th December 2002, 09:21 AM

Before I start in on this (again) Franko, remember that I only posted this, on your request, to prove that you had lied. Now rather than admit that I have proven it, you rehash the old argument. You seem incapable of admitting error. How cowardly.

Originally posted by Franko

So you are claiming that the universe was never created? You are claiming that the universe has ALWAYS been here – existed???

That’s not right …
No, I don't say it as always existed. I say it happened. "Created" implies a creator, and I do not have evidence for one, although I don't deny it is possible.

Originally posted by Franko
You are honestly trying to tell us that you have NO evidence that the universe was created?
I am in fact saying that very thing. Where is your evidence for a creator?

Originally posted by Franko
Then why call yourself an A-Theist? Is it the result of you inherent dishonest nature? When you don’t know the answer – just pretend that you do so everyone will think you are smart?
Because most people here are smart enough to know the meaning of the word "atheist". I only call myself an agnostic to you because you are not smart enough to remember when something has been defined for you.

Originally posted by Franko

You claim to believe in “free will”. Since “free will” would require magic to function, and since you have failed to provide any evidence for your claim, or define how “free will” allegedly works in a consistent fashion, this claim is a lie.
What evidence do you have that free will requires magic to function? (I notice you have been dodging that question from Upchurch). I do not believe in magic. I believe in free will because I perceive that I am able to make choices. My only claim is that I can define free will. I don't claim to know how it works. I also can define and I believe in gravity, although I don't know how it works.

Originally posted by Franko
Yeah right .. so we are all just imagining that you are a hard-core fanatical A-Theist who claims to have magic “free will” powers that allow you to defy the laws of Physics?
I have never made any such claims, (although if you remove the adjective "magic", the first one is true). You cannot produce a single quote where I have said I can defy the laws of physics. Pants on fire.

Originally posted by Franko

(Trixy: TOAST is superior to YOU)
Ah, but I can make toast. Your logic is proved wrong. Again.

Originally posted by Franko

Please Trixy, your obfuscation and lies grow worse and worse each passing day. You're headed straight for the Abyss …
I'm sure it seems like obfuscation to you, but that is because you are unable to grasp simple concepts or remember things you have learned. Thus, I can understand why you want to simplify and personify the universe. Your brain simply cannot handle the amount of data it takes to have a more complex model. Boy, that pebble must have really caused some damage when it fell on your head.

Perhaps you might want to try another forum. (http://www.professorbeaker.com/links.html)

CWL

17th December 2002, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Franko
CWl,
Thanks for easing up on the name calling.

Since A-Theists are just as moral as Theist even though A-Theists don’t fear the punishment of an Almighty god for their actions, then why are you a lawyer? If A-Theists don’t need the threat of punishment to be good and moral, then what makes you believe that we need the threat of punishment here and now – in this universe?
In order for society to function. In order for as many as possible to achieve what you refer to as "maximum perceived benefit". We all have a better chance of acheiving this if we "play it safe" rather than having a "free for all". Besides, we really do have an intrinsic compassion for our own species which has helped us to survive (through co-operation). I try to tap into that compassion as often as possible.

Isn’t it a bit hypocritical for an A-Theist to be a Lawyer? A-Theist don’t believe in Determinism or the concept of rewards and punishments – do they?
I believe in the necessity of reward and punishment because I don't believe in determinism. Since I am free to make my choices I must suffer the consequences of the choices I make. See how that works?

If people don’t need the threat of punishment hanging over their heads to be moral, then why are YOU being a hypocrite by claiming that people need the threat of punishment hanging over their heads to be moral LAWYER?

Can you explain this rather fundamental contradiction on your part?

(since when is an A-Theist logically consistent?)
You need to distinguish between consequences imposed by society ("CIS) and consequences imposed by God ("CIG").

CIS are necessary, I agree.

As to CIG, it is not a question whether or not they are necessary, it is a question whether or not they exist. I see no tangible evidence for this. Yet I act moral due to CIS and I fully recognize the necessity to do so. There you have it, one moral atheist is born.

Now, will this get me into the Metaverse or am I destined to go to the Abyss just because I cannot perceive any supreme being?

Franko

17th December 2002, 09:46 AM

Thanks for easing up on the name calling.

Well it was either that or wait until you went crying to the moderator like a little girl – you pathetic loser!

Franko:
Since A-Theists are just as moral as Theist even though A-Theists don’t fear the punishment of an Almighty god for their actions, then why are you a lawyer? If A-Theists don’t need the threat of punishment to be good and moral, then what makes you believe that we need the threat of punishment here and now – in this universe?

(C)learly(W)easely(L)iar
In order for society to function. In order for as many as possible to achieve what you refer to as "maximum perceived benefit". We all have a better chance of acheiving this if we "play it safe" rather than having a "free for all".

1) I thought you didn’t believe in my MPB? I thought you said it was a joke?
2) It sounds like you are trying to be God. You want people to obey your will. Why should I do what you say?
3) it sounds like you are claiming we don’t have “free will”.

Besides, we really do have an intrinsic compassion for our own species which has helped us to survive (through co-operation). I try to tap into that compassion as often as possible.

Why is it that if a Christian believes his god will reward or punish him for his actions in the afterlife you A-Theists whine that this is cruel and inhuman – malevolent; that the Christians have a “Fear-Based” religion. Yet you think it is okay when you get to play the role of God CWL? That sounds like the height of arrogance and hypocrisy if you ask me.

I thought you told me that A-Theists are JUST as moral as Theists – even without the threat of divine punishment in the afterlife.

If no threat of punishment is required for moral behavior, then why are you NOW contradicting yourself and claiming that the threat of punishment is required for moral behavior?

Do any of the things you believe make sense, or are you just totally insane?

Franko:
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical for an A-Theist to be a Lawyer? A-Theist don’t believe in Determinism or the concept of rewards and punishments – do they?

(C)onstantly(W)impering(L)impdicked:
I believe in the necessity of reward and punishment because I don't believe in determinism.

Kind of like being an abortionist because you believe in the divine sanctity of human life?

(C)an’t(W)in(L)ost:
Since I am free to make my choices I must suffer the consequences of the choices I make. See how that works?

What makes you assume that this stops when you die? What makes you believe that a person who does not believe in ultimate consequences will be just as moral as someone who does?

If rewards and punishment work here what makes you so arrogant to assume that they don’t work for God even better?
Franko:
If people don’t need the threat of punishment hanging over their heads to be moral, then why are YOU being a hypocrite by claiming that people need the threat of punishment hanging over their heads to be moral LAWYER?

Can you explain this rather fundamental contradiction on your part?

(since when is an A-Theist logically consistent?)

(C)ommie(W)eenie(L)aughingstock:
You need to distinguish between consequences imposed by society ("CIS) and consequences imposed by God ("CIG").

CIS are necessary, I agree.

As to CIG, it is not a question whether or not they are necessary, it is a question whether or not they exist. I see no tangible evidence for this. Yet I act moral due to CIS and I fully recognize the necessity to do so.

The fact that you do not have “free will” means that “CIG” is far more real then your pretend “CIS”.

But if people will be ultimately moral with or without the threat of punishment from God (A-Theist look out) then why do we even need punishment here? Why don’t we test you’re a-Theist theory that people will be just as moral WITHOUT the threat of punishment or incarceration? Don’t you think that the court and police system should be abolished so we can all exist in the A-Theist Utopia with maximum “free will”?

There you have it, one moral atheist is born.

There you have a lying hypocrite with an obvious inconsistent belief system full of logically contradictory positions which he obviously doesn’t really believe.

Now, will this get me into the Metaverse or am I destined to go to the Abyss just because I cannot perceive any supreme being?

You are headed straight to the Abyss, because you are a deceitful and dishonest individual whom the Goddess nor any of her followers ultimately wants around …

CWL

17th December 2002, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Well it was either that or wait until you went crying to the moderator like a little girl – you pathetic loser!

Despite your name calling I can assure you that I have never even considered reporting anyting that goes on on this forum to the moderators.

What's with the "little girl" thing, do you or do you not like women? Why the derogative? If you don't ease up on women the Logical Goddess may not let you into the Metaverse.

1) I thought you didn’t believe in my MPB? I thought you said it was a joke?

When did I ever say that?

2) It sounds like you are trying to be God. You want people to obey your will. Why should I do what you say?

When did I ever say that?

3) it sounds like you are claiming we don’t have “free will”.

When did I ever say that?

Why is it that if a Christian believes his god will reward or punish him for his actions in the afterlife you A-Theists whine that this is cruel and inhuman – malevolent; that the Christians have a “Fear-Based” religion. Yet you think it is okay when you get to play the role of God CWL? That sounds like the height of arrogance and hypocrisy if you ask me.

I thought you told me that A-Theists are JUST as moral as Theists – even without the threat of divine punishment in the afterlife.

If no threat of punishment is required for moral behavior, then why are you NOW contradicting yourself and claiming that the threat of punishment is required for moral behavior?

Do any of the things you believe make sense, or are you just totally insane?

The above ravings have nothing to do with my posts so I will refrain from addressing them. I am not interested in your little straw-men Franko, I thought I had made that clear.

Kind of like being an abortionist because you believe in the divine sanctity of human life?

Um... no?

I said that I believe in the necessity of reward and punishment because I don't believe in determinism. Since you have free will to choose your actions it's pretty darn fair that you suffer the consequence of your choices.

How is this in any way comparable to your abortionist example?

You seriously seem to be loosing it Franko.

What makes you assume that this stops when you die?

No evidence. It is UNKNOWN. Why assume that which is UNKNOWN?

What makes you believe that a person who does not believe in ultimate consequences will be just as moral as someone who does?

Evidence. Myself for example. People around me (who are atheists) do so all the time.

Also, I see plenty of theists acting immoral.

If rewards and punishment work here what makes you so arrogant to assume that they don’t work for God even better?

You may be right Franko. There may very well be ultimate consequences. But I see no tangible evidence therefor.

Again, why assume the UNKNOWN?

The fact that you do not have “free will” means that “CIG” is far more real then your pretend “CIS”.

You keep saying this is a fact, yet why is it I perceive myself making conscious choices from perceived and available options every day?

Besides, if determinism is true, why are CIG at all necessary? Why is God necessary at all in your cosmology ("parsimony", remember)? If all is preordained, what role does a God play? in fatalism, there can be no "roles". It's all just like a movie playing.

That seems like a pretty darn meaningless Universe to me...

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to - as a theist - assume (like many Christians do) that God has provided purpose by granting us free will? That takes care of the Theodicy Problem (at least partially).

Or, as an atheist - to assume that we must shape and be responsible of our own future since there is no supreme being or fate to lean on.

But if people will be ultimately moral with or without the threat of punishment from God (A-Theist look out) then why do we even need punishment here? Why don’t we test you’re a-Theist theory that people will be just as moral WITHOUT the threat of punishment or incarceration? Don’t you think that the court and police system should be abolished so we can all exist in the A-Theist Utopia with maximum “free will”?

Like I said, it is not a matter of whether or not CIG are necessary, it is a matter of whether or not they exist. Again, I see no tangible evidence for this. I do not assume the existence of the UNKNOWN.

If you ask me whether or not CIG would be a good thing, that is a completely different matter. Provided we assume that "free will" is real we might actually find ourselves agreeing that CIG would be good, but again that is not the topic at hand.

There you have a lying hypocrite with an obvious inconsistent belief system full of logically contradictory positions which he obviously doesn’t really believe.

Why am I immoral? Because I see no tangible evidence for the existence of your Goddess? Is that immoral? I thought morality had something to do with acting or not acting kind towards other people?

You are headed straight to the Abyss, because you are a deceitful and dishonest individual whom the Goddess nor any of her followers ultimately wants around …

Again, why am I immoral? On what do you base this assessment? That I do not agree with you?

Given the needle's eye one has to pass through in order to agree with you, it would appear that about 6 billion people are headed for the Abyss. Enjoy the Metaverse dude, it's gonna be pretty lonely with only your sock puppet around to play with.

Seriously Franko, why do you feel the need to be so unpleasant? Is that the way to get into the Metaverse?

Franko

17th December 2002, 10:51 AM

CWL,

Despite your name calling I can assure you that I have never even considered reporting anyting that goes on on this forum to the moderators.

I know for a fact that you are lying.

What's with the "little girl" thing, do you or do you not like women?

I love women.

But are you claiming that little girls never whine and cry? Throw temper tantrums? What planet do you live on A-Theist?

Why the derogative?

because you are an abusive idiot religious fanatic being a Non-Skeptical hypocrite on a Skeptics RELIGION and PHILOSOPHY board. Since you claim to be NON-Religious, and since you obviously know NOTHING about Skepticism or Philosophy – what are you doing here?

If you don't ease up on women the Logical Goddess may not let you into the Metaverse.

You should be more concerned about Your own Fate …

Speaking of which did you miss my last post? I noticed that you once again seemed to scared to answer or even address any of my questions regarding your “superior” metaphysical belief system?

Why is that CWL? Why not share the great benefits of A-Theism with all? Perhaps there are some Newbies here today interested in hearing what A-Theism can do for them? Don’t you want to demonstrate your “superior” belief system by trouncing a silly Deist like me into the ground right before their very eyes?

What are you waiting for Loser-boy?

Franko:
Since A-Theists are just as moral as Theist even though A-Theists don’t fear the punishment of an Almighty god for their actions, then why are you a lawyer? If A-Theists don’t need the threat of punishment to be good and moral, then what makes you believe that we need the threat of punishment here and now – in this universe?

(C)learly(W)easely(L)iar
In order for society to function. In order for as many as possible to achieve what you refer to as "maximum perceived benefit". We all have a better chance of acheiving this if we "play it safe" rather than having a "free for all".

1) I thought you didn’t believe in my MPB? I thought you said it was a joke?
2) It sounds like you are trying to be God. You want people to obey your will. Why should I do what you say?
3) it sounds like you are claiming we don’t have “free will”.

Besides, we really do have an intrinsic compassion for our own species which has helped us to survive (through co-operation). I try to tap into that compassion as often as possible.

Why is it that if a Christian believes his god will reward or punish him for his actions in the afterlife you A-Theists whine that this is cruel and inhuman – malevolent; that the Christians have a “Fear-Based” religion. Yet you think it is okay when you get to play the role of God CWL? That sounds like the height of arrogance and hypocrisy if you ask me.

I thought you told me that A-Theists are JUST as moral as Theists – even without the threat of divine punishment in the afterlife.

If no threat of punishment is required for moral behavior, then why are you NOW contradicting yourself and claiming that the threat of punishment is required for moral behavior?

Do any of the things you believe make sense, or are you just totally insane?

Franko:
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical for an A-Theist to be a Lawyer? A-Theist don’t believe in Determinism or the concept of rewards and punishments – do they?

(C)onstantly(W)impering(L)impdicked:
I believe in the necessity of reward and punishment because I don't believe in determinism.

Kind of like being an abortionist because you believe in the divine sanctity of human life?

(C)an’t(W)in(L)ost:
I said that I believe in the necessity of reward and punishment because I don't believe in determinism. Since you have free will to choose your actions it's pretty darn fair that you suffer the consequence of your choices.

So you are claiming that you got to “choose” who your parents would be?

That is a neat trick.

Didn’t your parents DETERMINE who you would be more than you did?

What EVIDENCE do you have for this “free will” that you speak of?

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Where is this “free will” coming from? Why do you refuse to explain it or provide evidence? You are aware that this is a SKEPTICS site aren’t you?

No evidence. It is UNKNOWN. Why assume that which is UNKNOWN?

What do you mean NO evidence?

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

What more evidence do you want?

Did you get to choose your parents CWL? Does the Moon have any “free will”?

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
The Moon is made of atoms.
THE MOON OBEYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Franko:
What makes you believe that a person who does not believe in ultimate consequences will be just as moral as someone who does?

CWL
Evidence. Myself for example. People around me (who are atheists) do so all the time.

LOL! Surely you are joking? Eyewitness testimony now constitutes “empirical evidence”??? I guess that means you believe John Edwards really can talk to dead people … huh? After all there are lots of people who claim that John Edwards has magic powers just like You and your magic “free will”.

Also, I see plenty of theists acting immoral.

John Edwards has a TV show! He must be legit – ehh CWL?

Yeah, now I have heard everything … so CWL after all this time your only support for your absurd assertations is that you and your friends claim to have magic powers, and additionally you really really want magical powers; ergo you claiming that you have magic “free will” powers is evidence that you have magic “free will” powers???

You may be right Franko. There may very well be ultimate consequences. But I see no tangible evidence therefor.

Again, why assume the UNKNOWN?

Just because some A-Theist convinced you that he was smarter than you and that there was NO EVIDENCE for God, doesn’t mean that there is NO EVIDENCE for God. It just means that you were stupid and gullible enough to believe an unsupported obviously FALSE claim.

You keep saying this is a fact, yet why is it I perceive myself making conscious choices from perceived and available options every day?

You perceive that the Earth is Flat and motionless as well, does that mean that the Earth is Flat and motionless?

Besides, if determinism is true, why are CIG at all necessary? Why is God necessary at all in your cosmology ("parsimony", remember)? If all is preordained, what role does a God play? in fatalism, there can be no "roles". It's all just like a movie playing.

Who do you think is generating the “movie”?

That seems like a pretty darn meaningless Universe to me...

You are an A-Theist. A-Theists ALWAYS take the most pessimistic view of things. It is there nature.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to - as a theist - assume (like many Christians do) that God has provided purpose by granting us free will? That takes care of the Theodicy Problem (at least partially).

No … “free will” only creates problems. God isn’t as stupid as you A-Theist wish She were. Underestimating Her is going to turn out to be a huge mistake on your part.

Or, as an atheist - to assume that we must shape and be responsible of our own future since there is no supreme being or fate to lean on.

Which explains why you and the other A-Theists are always the FIRST ones to go whining to the moderators here for divine assistance from above when you are getting your asses kicked …

Like I said, it is not a matter of whether or not CIG are necessary, it is a matter of whether or not they exist. Again, I see no tangible evidence for this. I do not assume the existence of the UNKNOWN.

So you are claiming that TLOP doesn’t exist now?

Your beliefs get more and more ridiculous each day religious fanatic. You really BELONG on Infidels.org. They need your “wisdom” there far more then we need it here.

If you ask me whether or not CIG would be a good thing, that is a completely different matter. Provided we assume that "free will" is real we might actually find ourselves agreeing that CIG would be good, but again that is not the topic at hand.

TLOP is CIG.

Why am I immoral? Because I see no tangible evidence for the existence of your Goddess? Is that immoral? I thought morality had something to do with acting or not acting kind towards other people?

So you “perceive” evidence” for “free will” where clearly – there is none; and then in the next breath you claim that there is no evidence that a superior “higher power” is controlling you and your every action?

You are a logically inconsistent twit. Not only are you too evil to keep around, but you are too stupid.

Again, why am I immoral? On what do you base this assessment? That I do not agree with you?

You are immoral for not agreeing with God.

Given the needle's eye one has to pass through in order to agree with you, it would appear that about 6 billion people are headed for the Abyss. Enjoy the Metaverse dude, it's gonna be pretty lonely with only your sock puppet around to play with.

Actually far more Gravitons make it then you would imagine.

You won’t be one of them however.

Seriously Franko, why do you feel the need to be so unpleasant? Is that the way to get into the Metaverse?

You are Undead regardless of my actions. You like unhappiness, sorrow, suffering, and pessimism. I’m just giving you what you exist for. Your life is meaningless and then you cease to exist ... don't you remember A-Theist?

Q-Source

17th December 2002, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Sorry, Q. Didn't mean to make you angry. It is true your style has placated Franko to the point that he is actually flirting with you. However, compare your posts to those of Latimer, a poster who has doggedly and persistantly been polite to Franko. In return, Franko has heaped abuse on him and spouted his repetitious claims.

What could the difference be between you and Latimer? I leave it as an excercise for the class.

Tricky,

Have you check BillyJoe´s posts. He is a good example of someone who can have a nice chat with Franko, even though they have different POV. And... he is a MALE!

I notice that the main difference between Latimer and I (or anyone else), is that instead of insulting me (when we utterly disagree) Franko just ignores me. I could do what the rest of you do (following him around with the same questions), but instead I just leave it there. I am not going to force anyone to respond me.

I don´t know what you think but if someone ever insults me, I would never never respond to that person again.

Q-S

Franko

17th December 2002, 11:08 AM

Have you check BillyJoe´s posts. He is a good example of someone who can have a nice chat with Franko, even though they have different POV. And... he is a MALE!

I notice that the main difference between Latimer and I (or anyone else), is that instead of insulting me (when we utterly disagree) Franko just ignores me. I could do what the rest of you do (following him around with the same questions), but instead I just leave it there. I am not going to force anyone to respond me.

I don´t know what you think but if someone ever insults me, I would never never respond to that person again.

Unfortunately there are so many A-Theists on this SKEPTICS site that I don't have that luxary.

But make no mistake Q-Source, Trixy is one of the main instigators of all this trouble. He desperately doesn't want there to be a god, and he will stop at nothing to make sure that there isn't.

He'll even orgainze all the young naive little A-Theists into a war party to chase off anyone who dares to question his "One True Faith".

CWL

17th December 2002, 11:13 AM

Franko,

I see no point in addressing your incoherent ramblings above. I would suggest calming down and trying to answer my posts again without the screaming and shouting and cutting and pasting. Any conversation with you is pointless otherwise.

I will address one assertion however as it is rather personal (not that your claim that I am a destined to fry isn't pretty darn personal).

I said that I have never even considered reporting you or anyone else to the moderators of this board.

You said:

Originally posted by Franko
CWL,

I know for a fact that you are lying.

This is simpy not so. Either you have misunderstood something or you are the liar (knowing you, the latter alternative is far more likely).

I have openly critisized your (and Jedi Knight's) behaviour on this board (and I will certainly continue to do so as long as you act like a total jerk) but I have never reported anything to any moderator.

I would kindly ask you to provide evidence to the contrary.

Franko

17th December 2002, 11:16 AM

So CWL, are you conceding that you have no evidence for "free will" now?

Without any evidence for your beliefs, how does that make you Non-Religious?

You have been a Religious Fanatic all along -- haven't you?

And here you have been trying to convince us that your A-Theism isn't a Religion???

Obviously you are a seriously deluded individual. You had better take some time off and reassess your metaphysical beliefs.

CWL

17th December 2002, 11:21 AM

Coward. Don't avoid the question.

When did I ever report you or anyone else to the moderators?

CWL

17th December 2002, 11:49 AM

Bump.

Come on Franko. Show some spine.

When did I ever report you or anyone else to the moderators?

Upchurch

17th December 2002, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by CWL
When did I ever report you or anyone else to the moderators?
CWL may not have reported Franko, but I sure have. I reported him for his post-delete-repost tactics used earlier in the Free Will: A Compatibalist View thread and in others. It had nothing to do with your "kicking my *ss", in fact, at that particular moment, I was soundly kicking your *ss.

Actually, if there were any reason why I would want to kick you off the board, it's the same reason deism.org did. You are not interested in discussion and you are intellectually dishonest.

You are a coward and a hypocrite and you are not a skeptic.

Upchurch

CWL

17th December 2002, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

CWL may not have reported Franko, but I sure have. I reported him for his post-delete-repost tactics used earlier in the Free Will: A Compatibalist View thread and in others. It had nothing to do with your "kicking my *ss", in fact, at that particular moment, I was soundly kicking your *ss.

Actually, if there were any reason why I would want to kick you off the board, it's the same reason deism.org did. You are not interested in discussion and you are intellectually dishonest.

You are a coward and a hypocrite and you are not a skeptic.

Upchurch

Upchurch,

Although I have not reported Franko, not even for his deleting-reposting-deleting shenanigans (which I found extremely irritating), and although any reporting is stronly against my principles, let me be clear that I fully understand and sympathize with your decision to do so in this particular case. I don't like the idea of banning but I cannot say that I would miss Franko particularly if he was.

Franko,

You are indeed a coward and a non-skeptic. Not only that, but you are an uncommonly unpleasant person.

Franko

17th December 2002, 12:31 PM

CryingWhineyLoser,

Bump.

Come on Franko. Show some spine.

When did I ever report you or anyone else to the moderators?

How does your obvious Fear of Fate and God constitute evidence of "free will"?

Perhaps you should ask De-Bungler or Titanpout what to think, apparently their Faith in A-Theism is superior to yours ...

Franko

17th December 2002, 12:35 PM

CWL,

You are indeed a coward …

How does YOUR devotion to the ultimate Fear-based Religion make Me “the coward”?

You are the one afraid to face reality CWL.

… and a non-skeptic.

How does YOUR inability to prove YOUR claim that YOU possess “free will” make Me the “Non-skeptic”?

Not only that, but you are an uncommonly unpleasant person.

How does your utter pessimism and gloomy outlook about the future make me “unpleasant” CWL?

Latimer

17th December 2002, 02:09 PM

Hello,

Firstly, I am glad to know my writing is getting any reading at all: I am pleased that some have found it worth reacting to and posting about. Particulalry on a thread I never posted to. :) :)

Franko wrote:
Latimer is a brainwashed A-Theist Religious fanatic, all around goon, and likely graduate of the Trixy School of **** Happens Philosophy.

Q-Source, on the other hand, is a Skeptic.

Heh heh heh. Gosh, Franko, tell us what you really think! :)

Let's make this interesting. :)

Latimer is a brainwashed

Hm. Brainwashed by whom? What is your skeptical evidence of brainwashing? What beliefs of mine point toward brainwashing, when you have no idea what I do or do not believe?

A-theist

For the *twelfth* time. No. I am not an atheist, by any definition you have come up with. Your continued use of the label without evidence also seems to belie your claim of skepticism.

Religious fanatic,

Hm. What evidence can you post to prove this remarkable claim of fanaticism? If you are truly the skeptic you claim to be, you surely have some evidence to back this up? All I have done is ask questions based on what you have posted are *facts.* Again, if you had qualified your statements indicating they were your 'beliefs' or 'opinions' (which, interestingly, you *used* to do on this very board), we would have nothing to disagree on at all.

all around goon,

Hm again. What about my posts has indicated goonishness? What does or does not make a goon? Can one grow out of goonishness? What exactly is wrong with being a bit gooney?

and likely graduate of the Trixy School

That's silly; I haven't known Tricky (Y'know, I do think there are separate posters named Tricky and Trixy, aren't there? It makes things a bit confusing when a pet name is the same as another poster. You might consider changing that, Franko.) for even a couple of months. How could I graduate a Tricky school? Oh, wait, that is supposed to be a jokey insult. Okay, I have already given that more attention than is due. :)

of **** Happens Philosophy.

Now, *this* is interesting: for as near as I can tell, it describes Franko's view of things *far* more closely than my own. After all, if there is an absence of free-will altogether, as Franko continues to sort of haphazardly claim, then '**** happening' could be a very apt description of his world view. Things are happening, but we have no will in which to control or alter the things happening. You could describe Franko's model thusly:

1) Rudimentary Consciousness pops out of nothing, and Universe pops out. How this can adequately be proved has not been demonstrated by anything resembling the laws of physics we currently have.

2) Goddess as top graviton starts kidnapping other gravitons to see how they will perform is this Universe. Those other gravitons have no choice but to comply with her wishes and get jostled about bumping into other gravitons. (This entire line of thinking could be adequately defined as '**** happening.')

3) Goddess, really on a whimsical decision, throws gravitons into the abyss that perform the way they were designed to, while elevating others to the metaverse that perform they way they were designed to. Since none of the gravitons had any will in the matter at all, this is justifiable...uh...somehow.

Now, my philosophy is quite different than that. :) But, my philosophy is unimportant in the continuing quest to adequately define Franko's own.

Q-Source, on the other hand, is a Skeptic.

Then I am glad to know Q-Source (as much as one could be known on a BBS). Hiya Q-Source! :)

Interestingly, though, let's do some comparison work here. What factors make Q-Source a skeptic while I am not? In what way have I behaved that makes my actions non-skeptical? All I have been doing is asking questions in an attempt to analyze a belief system carefully and accurately: In what way isn't that skeptical?

So: there you go. More questions to be addressed, I see. The list grows longer.

And, really, the point of the post is this:

Of course I don't mind if a person calls me names or thinks I am an idiot. Why should his opinion have more weight than those that actually *know* me? Why should I take it personally if someone's ideas disagree with my own? It's all right. It's diverse. It gives all involved the chance to learn something. A chance to grow.

And it really is fundamentally where Franko has gone so terribly wrong. His philosophy, so far as presented here, indicates he really believes he *doesn't* have anything more to learn. In my philosophy, I'll have nothing more to learn ten or fifteen minutes after I am dead (again!). He suggests he has nothing more to learn *now.* A good defintion for 'death,' in my worldview.

How can I take it personally when a person who doesn't even know me calls me anything? It has exactly as much weight and force as I decide it should have. No more, nor less.

Or, put more succinctly than I: the opposite of love is not hate. It is indifference. Really, I am indifferent as to Franko's ideas about me or who he erroneously thinks I am; I am intereted in examining his view of reality. As it turns out; he doesn't have much of one.

Well, this post turned out to be longer than expected (What a surprise!) and so I will have to get to his answers on my questions later still. More packing; tis my lot in life. :)

Keep smiling,

Upchurch

17th December 2002, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by CWL

Upchurch,

Although I have not reported Franko, not even for his deleting-reposting-deleting shenanigans (which I found extremely irritating), and although any reporting is stronly against my principles, let me be clear that I fully understand and sympathize with your decision to do so in this particular case.
Normally, I would agree with you, but I also believe that actions have concequences. Poor behavior and dishonesty should not go unpunished, even if it is social pressure.
I don't like the idea of banning but I cannot say that I would miss Franko particularly if he was.
I don't like the idea, but I feel it's appropriate in this case. What is the point of a discussion board if actual discussion is hampered?

Upchurch

Franko

17th December 2002, 02:37 PM

Upchimp,

heheh .. I like how you run whinning to the moderators any time anyone questions your ridiculous fantasy religious beliefs. What in the hell are you even doing on a SKEPTICS board in the first place you credulous buffoon?

If you don't want anyone to question your religion, then I suggest you try here: www.infidels.org

They will protect you from mean Theist and Deist who want proof for your extraordinary claims. Infidels.org is a lot like the John Edwards site. No criticism of the divine dogma is allowed. A Non-skeptic like yourself would be right at home there De-Bungler junior.

You see unlike yourself we Skeptics are not goose-stepping, book-burning morons that need to be told what we can and cannot read.

If you don't plan on proving your magic powers and your extraordinary claims, then I suggest you run along. The skeptics will make your life a living hell on this forum if you only pretend to be a skeptic. Hypocritcal A-Theists with unfounded notions of supeiority are a joke in these parts.

CWL

17th December 2002, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Normally, I would agree with you, but I also believe that actions have concequences. Poor behavior and dishonesty should not go unpunished, even if it is social pressure.

I don't like the idea, but I feel it's appropriate in this case. What is the point of a discussion board if actual discussion is hampered?

Upchurch

You know what Churchfunk, I also firmly believe that we must suffer the consequenses of our actions and hence I feel that I must support you in saying that anyone who hinders the debate should run the risk of being tossed of the island.

hammegk

17th December 2002, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by CWL

anyone who hinders the debate should run the risk of being tossed of the island.

Er, yeah. You can't catch de fish without de bate, and islanders need fish to live don't they?

gentlehorse

17th December 2002, 06:18 PM

Franko:
But seriously gentlehorse you don’t occasionally find it amusing to see the tables turned on the A-Theists thusly?

To be honest, I get a kick out of seeing the tables turned on just about anybody, myself included (once I get over the self-righteous indignation and stop "harumphing"). When you gave your first flames a test run, I chuckled and felt a little more comfortable with the fact that I've lost it, so to speak, on a couple or three occasions. After having read a couple more of your posts which could be categorized as flames, I was pretty sure that you were setting the stage to make some kind of a point, and I was genuinely curious as to what it might be. I looked forward to seeing you make it. But Franko, my main figment, we're not talking "occasionally" at this stage of the game. This flaming has become a pattern which is hampering your ability to communicate effectively, particularly where new posters are concerned. I'm not saying this as an attack, my friend. You are a smart guy, full of interesting ideas. There's a better way to share them than by belittling the hellspawn to no end. A friendly little jab here and there is one thing, but sh*t the bed, man. I mean damn.

The first time I ever read you, you and Billy Joe (if I recall correctly) were exchanging ideas (over a year ago). Page after page after page of ideas-- To be honest, I was more than a little intimidated by, and envious of, the agility of your minds and the fact that each of you was so damned articulate. I enjoyed every word, despite that fact that I didn't agree with every word. You went on to engage several others in the same manner, and, over the course of a couple of months, I became quite the Franko fan. I know that you're able to communicate. I know for a fact that you're capable of disagreeing without flaming. And I know that you've got some interesting, intriguing ideas.

Okay, it's not my place to tell you what to say or how to say it, and that's for sure. But we've developed something of a cyber-friendship over the past year, so I'm going to tell you how I see things. First of all, it wouldn't hurt if, from time to time, you explained the reasoning behind many of the things you tend to repeat regularly. Much of the time, I feel that I can understand where you're coming from because I've been reading you for so long. Not everyone has. Secondly, the excessive flaming is making you look stupid. And you're not. And that bugs me cuz that's just the kind'a sonofab*tch I am. I sure would like to see you cut back on the insults as they just don't do your ideas justice. There'll still be some who won't agree with you. Some will still flame you. But that won't detract a bit from the fact that you're trying to share your ideas to the best of yourt ability, and this will be appreciated by many, if not most, whether they agree with you or not.

I'm probably a little outta line for saying this stuff, but what are friends for?

RandFan

17th December 2002, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by gentlehorse
...You are a smart guy, full of interesting ideas. There's a better way to share them than by belittling the hellspawn to no end. A friendly little jab here and there is one thing, but sh*t the bed, man. I mean damn.

The first time I ever read you, you and Billy Joe (if I recall correctly) were exchanging ideas (over a year ago). Page after page after page of ideas-- To be honest, I was more than a little intimidated by, and envious of, the agility of your minds and the fact that each of you was so damned articulate. I enjoyed every word, despite that fact that I didn't agree with every word. You went on to engage several others in the same manner, and, over the course of a couple of months, I became quite the Franko fan. I know that you're able to communicate. I know for a fact that you're capable of disagreeing without flaming. And I know that you've got some interesting, intriguing ideas.

Okay, it's not my place to tell you what to say or how to say it, and that's for sure. But we've developed something of a cyber-friendship over the past year, so I'm going to tell you how I see things. First of all, it wouldn't hurt if, from time to time, you explained the reasoning behind many of the things you tend to repeat regularly. Much of the time, I feel that I can understand where you're coming from because I've been reading you for so long. Not everyone has. Secondly, the excessive flaming is making you look stupid. And you're not. And that bugs me cuz that's just the kind'a sonofab*tch I am. I sure would like to see you cut back on the insults as they just don't do your ideas justice. There'll still be some who won't agree with you. Some will still flame you. But that won't detract a bit from the fact that you're trying to share your ideas to the best of yourt ability, and this will be appreciated by many, if not most, whether they agree with you or not. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Tricky

17th December 2002, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
I couldn't have said it better myself.
A-amen

17th December 2002, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
While wandering through the thread I linked to above I found more evidence of Franko's beliefs regarding free will.

Franko said
"I have no free will while falling, but I do have free will or choice of what I will wear. Within the choices of clothes I have"

Hmmmmmm, Lack of Free will does not seem apply to the fashion industry in Franko's cosmology.

Hi The Fool:

Can you explain me please, why are so many personal dedicated polls?

What do you expect from that? Prove your point?

Do the majority always will have the reason?

Are you acting as a beleiver?

Are you a kind of Franko's fan ?

Thanks,

S&S

Franko

17th December 2002, 08:01 PM

gentlehorse,

I'm probably a little outta line for saying this stuff, but what are friends for?

gentlehorse my most excellent Friend, not only are you not out of line but you articulate precisely the very duty and purpose of a True Friend. And I always greatly appreciate your kind and wise advice. Despite how I may act in the future do not think that your words fell on deaf ears.

First of all, it wouldn't hurt if, from time to time, you explained the reasoning behind many of the things you tend to repeat regularly.

My Friend, if there is ever anything that I say which I failed to articulate adequately then please feel free to ask me for clarification.

You don’t worry about your Fate, do you gentlehorse? … I’d wager that it is because deep down in your Soul you have no Fear that you are fighting for the wrong side.

Franko

17th December 2002, 08:36 PM

You know what Churchfunk, I also firmly believe that we must suffer the consequenses of our actions and hence I feel that I must support you in saying that anyone who hinders the debate should run the risk of being tossed of the island.

Burn the Heretic!

Ohh CruelWesealLawyer my presence here -- my skepticism of you and your wacky religious cult – it just drives you crazy doesn’t it?

So when is the A-Theist lawyer going to explain why we even need a penal system or a court system in the first place? I mean … according to you, the idea of using the Fear of punishment to encourage people to be moral is childish superstition. That is something silly that only “inferior” theist (Christians) believe. A “super-smart” A-Theist knows that the threat of punishment for action isn’t necessary to ultimately make Men moral. That is just crazy talk.

So how does someone who holds this philosophy become a Lawyer?

Let me guess, Atheism is just a cover. In reality you are actually a dire pessimist who deep down believes that He is likely God? Any way you slice it you are a giant-sized hypocrite. People are foolish for believing that the threat of punishment from "God" will make them moral … so you will threaten them with punishment if they do what you -- as a “Lawyer” -- interpret as immoral?

MRC_Hans

18th December 2002, 12:33 AM

Actually, this whining about how terrible Franko is, is not reasonable. True, he comes through as an incorrigible jerk. He has just showed his worst side in his ding-dong with CWL. Maybe there is a sensible person down there. Actually I believe there is, I have seen it myself, but Frank, you must suffer the consequences of your current behaviour.

There is, however, absolutely no reason to whine or talk about moderators. This is a free speech board, and we should be grateful for that. Free speech is also the right to remain silent. Anybody who has "problems" with Franko has asked for it him(her)self. Nobody forces you, CWL, Upchurch, Fool, or anybody else to discuss philosophy with Franko if you dont like it.

Hans

CWL

18th December 2002, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Er, yeah. You can't catch de fish without de bate, and islanders need fish to live don't they?

:D How true, how very true!

wraith

18th December 2002, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

I dream one up almost every night. Doesn't work.

Keep trying :)

Well, Franko contends that humans are more conscious than toasters and cars. This is implicitly stating that toasters and cars have consciousness (albiet "less" than humans). I don't agree with that whole "TLOP more conscious than YOU more conscious than CAR" thing...the statement "more conscious" is meaningless to me, it's like saying "Kathy is more pregnant than Lisa"...you're either conscious or you're not. Humans are, cars aren't.

replace "more conscious" with "control" if you want...
;)

And as for the whole "TLOP control you" thing - I don't agree with that either. TLOP exert as much control over you as a wall does. A wall limits your range of travel in one direction, narrowing your still-vast list of options. In the same way, the laws of physics narrow the list of possibilities - but you still have a plethora of those possibilities left.

Everything obeys TLOP. Even YOU. What is this unknown force that you speak of? The moon, the trees, the planets all obey TLOP. That atoms that form you, are somewhat special in their behaviour? Cause and effect doesnt apply to you?

If "TLOP > YOU > CAR", then "WALL > YOU > CAR".

WHAT THE....!!!!!!!!!
I dont think that the wall is responsible for the forces of nature
;)

While you are in a car, a seatbelt keeps you against your seat so that you don't move around too much and subject yourself to injury in case of an accident. A seatbelt is even more restrictive than a wall. Does this mean that a seatbelt is more conscious than you? You could say that you still control the seatbelt, because you can unfasten it. But imagine a scenario in which you've had a wreck, and your car is damaged in such a way that you cannot unfasten the seat belt (because you can't reach it, or it's stuck tight, or you don't have an arm anymore, etc). Now, since you can no longer control the seatbelt - is it then more conscious than you?

The seat belt was made by a consciousness. It was designed according to what the designer wanted it to do ie to keep people to their seat. So really, it was another consciousness "controlling" you.

designer + seatbelt > you

;)

How do the laws of physics limit your available options any differently from the way a wall limits your available range of motion?

Is the wall the result of TLOP or is TLOP the result of the wall?

BIG difference

CWL

18th December 2002, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Burn the Heretic!

Ohh CruelWesealLawyer my presence here -- my skepticism of you and your wacky religious cult – it just drives you crazy doesn’t it?

So when is the A-Theist lawyer going to explain why we even need a penal system or a court system in the first place? I mean … according to you, the idea of using the Fear of punishment to encourage people to be moral is childish superstition. That is something silly that only “inferior” theist (Christians) believe. A “super-smart” A-Theist knows that the threat of punishment for action isn’t necessary to ultimately make Men moral. That is just crazy talk.

So how does someone who holds this philosophy become a Lawyer?

Let me guess, Atheism is just a cover. In reality you are actually a dire pessimist who deep down believes that He is likely God? Any way you slice it you are a giant-sized hypocrite. People are foolish for believing that the threat of punishment from "God" will make them moral … so you will threaten them with punishment if they do what you -- as a “Lawyer” -- interpret as immoral?

Franko,

It is painfully obvious that you are not prepared to consider one single syllable that I write.

Gentlehorse may be correct in saying that there is reason behind your ideas. So far I have seen very little of it however. If Genltehorse is right, it would be pertinent and prudent of you to explain your ideas instead of telling everyone that they are part of the (in reality non-existent) atheist conspiracy and that they are destined to burn in Hell.

In your post to Gentlehorse you tell him that he should not think that his "words fell on deaf ears", yet the in your very next post you spew out the above garbage.

Conversation with you is pointless. In fact there is no conversation. All I see coming from you is hatred and repetition of mindless dogma.

My advice to you is to seek help for your condition (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/p1/paranoia.asp).

Welcome to my ignore list, Franko.

wraith

18th December 2002, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by CWL

I don't believe that it is a correct approach to personify "the Laws of Physics". That is yet another of your saviour's little straw-men.

yeah yeah
solipsism is True
:rolleyes:

wraith:I say that the choices have already been made.

CWL:By whom?

TLOP

wraith: You seem to say that they are made willy-nilly.

CWL: No I say that I make them.

yep, you dont bow down to TLOP
youre a rebel, you live by your own rules
haha

In which way does a "maximum perceived benefit" contradict that the choices I make are not preordained?

When was the last time that you ran a red light for no reason?

wraith: ever defied TLOP?

CWL: Have I ever claimed to?

Yes, you have "free-willy"

What is the difference between "restricted", "chained" and "bound"?

restricted and chained implies some sort of limit and it has a "negative" feel to it
;)

being bound to something can be endless and it feels "warm and fuzzy"
:cool:

No, no, no. You do the defining buster.

You seem to claim that we have "will" but not "free will". You explain the difference.

I have only claimed to make conscious choices between perceived and available options. Nothing more, nothing less.

OK!!!

It was will that got you out of bed...
but that will was Fated
I dont know what free-willy is sorry...
It's your belief, you explain it...but then again, you dont want to REALLY do that
:eek:

Puppeteering? Nah. I spend with time with my wife on my spare time - and play da funk! :cool:

Only in your spare time?
Why not in your primary time?
;)

Besides, I am not the one creating the sock puppets, although I am obviously debating with one. *Mental note: Must stop attempting to have serious conversation with sock puppets.*

whatever helps you sleep at night slick
haha

wraith

18th December 2002, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

Fate is a throw of the die, turn of the card, a preordained mistake or wish waiting to happen.
Fate is what you dont want to happen or do but afraid to admit it, a thought passing through or wishful thinking. Just something else to blame or celebrate with the hand that deals you it.

Sods law, Murphies law, the law of averages now theyre different as the outcome is already known and waitng for it to occur.

interesting....interesting.....
;)

CWL

18th December 2002, 04:53 AM

Oh, yes. That's right Franko. I forgot about your sock puppet.

There, that's better.

18th December 2002, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by wraith

interesting....interesting.....
;)

facts often are wraith.

Did I correctly assess fate?

What is you view on destiny ;)

18th December 2002, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Oh, yes. That's right Franko. I forgot about your sock puppet.

There, that's better.
CuddlyWuddlyLambchop(not to miss out on the fill in bit)

Are you saying wraith is franko?

The Fool

18th December 2002, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Franko

My Goddess is going to send you and all of your pessimistic little pals off to the Abyss for the remainder of this Eternity until you have been completely and irrevocably annihilated. To be honest, I find even that fact a bit amusing from time to time …

Folks, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this is pointless, I present the above quote from Franko as proof that the poor guy ill. I don't think that continuing to poke him for amusement is doing him any good. His posts are becoming more and more psychotic, I am starting to feel uneasy about continuing to amuse myself at Franko's expense.

Reginald

18th December 2002, 05:09 AM

Given the post that solicited that response I think you are right.

CWL

18th December 2002, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
CuddlyWuddlyLambchop(not to miss out on the fill in bit)
Now that's an expansion of my forum name that I can live with. :)

Are you saying wraith is franko?
Of course I don't know that for a fact, but it is apparent that wraith does nothing but roboticly repeat Franko's dogma. Also, I would say that wraith's personality feels a bit too glued on. Notice for instance wraith's constant use of smilies which Franko always seems to avoid - an easy trick to use for anyone wanting to create two different posting personas ("as Franko I avoid smilies as wraith I always use them, that'll fool 'em"). Not very original, but that is very much Franko's personality wouldn't you say?

You never see Franko and wraith posting at the same time and you never see them disagreeing about anything.

You must of course judge yourself, but I would personally be prepared to bet a few SEK on that wraith is nothing but Franko with a false beard.

The Fool

18th December 2002, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi The Fool:

Can you explain me please, why are so many personal dedicated polls?

What do you expect from that? Prove your point?

Do the majority always will have the reason?

Are you acting as a beleiver?

Are you a kind of Franko's fan ?

Thanks,

S&S

should I? hmmmmm, No...let this one go. It will grow into a full size opinion and someone else can catch it.....

MRC_Hans

18th December 2002, 06:34 AM

Tricky

18th December 2002, 08:27 AM

Franko

18th December 2002, 08:52 AM

Folks, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this is pointless, I present the above quote from Franko as proof that the poor guy ill. I don't think that continuing to poke him for amusement is doing him any good. His posts are becoming more and more psychotic, I am starting to feel uneasy about continuing to amuse myself at Franko's expense.

You are Insane Fool, and you are going to burn in Hell for Eternity.

Get use to the idea ...

Franko

18th December 2002, 08:54 AM

All CWL said was that Wraith was Franko's sockpuppet, and that he obviously, undeniably is, but there are different kinds of sockpuppets. I see two possibilities:

1) Wraith is the same person as Franko, supporting himself, even talking to himself at times. This is not unusual BB practice, and can be useful, although the mutual backpatting is a bit pathetic.

2) Wraith is a different person than Franko, someone who is totally agreeing, looking up to him, adoring him. To be blunt, his head is completely up Frako's ass. That will be more than pathetic.

We are BOTH the same person. He has said it, and I have said it at least a half a dozen times ... So what?

If it helps your sanity to pretend that there is only One Logical Deist in the world then pretend that there is only one logical deist in the world, what do I care? You can pretend that you have magic "free will" powers while you are at it ...

Franko

18th December 2002, 09:06 AM

I for one do not believe that Wraith and Franko are the same person. I have seen too many differences in the way they post. Wraith, for example, has occasionally admitted that we have choices, something Franko has never done. Wraith also tends to post in little snippets, as opposed to Franko's rants.

That’s just a trick. We are really the same person. In fact, except for the person reading this post at this moment there are no other people. We are all just figments of Your imagination. You are creating this reality just like you create a dream at night. When you “die” you’ll wake up and see that I am correct.

My theory is that Wraith and Franko live together, possibly college roommates, brothers or even father and son, since they never post at the same time (one computer?).

Right! And since we live in a trailer park, we can only afford one computer (and it is only an old 66 mhz!).

Wraith idolizes Franko and tries to emulate him, but imperfectly.

More magic mind-reading? Hey we are YOUR figments, so if you CLAIM it, it must be True. :rolleyes:

Also, he keeps deviating from time to time from Franko's "Omniworldline". Also, Wraith doesn't appear to be the total horn dog that Franko is. Wraith is also a lot more pleasant and humorous. His spelling is worse.

Ohh, but I could fake bad spelling if I wanted to. And the wraith could pretend to be hornier when “he” post as "me" … couldn’t "he" … ?

I honestly don't believe that Franko is clever enough to create a separate persona that has such distinctive characteristics.

Ohhh, now you are contradicting the Fool and CWL? What are you saying they are retarded losers, Trixy??

Wraith, if you are reading this, I hope you will realize that you have the choice to escape Franko's ideological control. Be your own person. I realize that will be difficult since you share living quarters, and Franko can read everything you post. I look forward to the day when you can post your own opinions without fear.

Yeah! Seriously wraith! You need to get out from under my wing and become another of Trixy Butt-boys. Fool, CWL, Evildave, and the rest … their anuses are becoming rather stretched out and loose. Trixy prefers them tight, young and virginal. He needs some fresh meat.

Franko, if you are reading this, I apologize for the unwarranted personal attacks. I, like Gentlehorse, have seen you at your best. Lately though, it has been missing. And missed.

Ohh you lying sack-o-sh*t. You constantly flame me. It drives you completely insane that your a-Theism is all wrong and I keep pointing it out. You are no Skeptic Trixy. And I am going to keep reminding everyone here of that Fact.

Tricky

18th December 2002, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Ohh you lying sack-o-sh*t. You constantly flame me. It drives you completely insane that your a-Theism is all wrong and I keep pointing it out. You are no Skeptic Trixy. And I am going to keep reminding everyone here of that Fact.

No, it doesn't drive me insane. I flame you by showing others where you have lied. I have also satirized you and attacked your beliefs. However, I have never sunk this low.

Originally posted by Franko
Yeah! Seriously wraith! You need to get out from under my wing and become another of Trixy Butt-boys. Fool, CWL, Evildave, and the rest … their anuses are becoming rather stretched out and loose. Trixy prefers them tight, young and virginal. He needs some fresh meat.

And, no, I am not reporting this to the moderators. I prefer that people see your behavior and decide for themselves what kind of person you are, or more correctly, what you have become.

CWL

18th December 2002, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
And, no, I am not reporting this to the moderators. I prefer that people see your behavior and decide for themselves what kind of person you are.
Dammit Tricky,

Do you have to quote the man? Kind of spoils the point of putting him on ignore. I was enjoying browsing the forum without his obscenities and pathological behaviour.

Franko

18th December 2002, 10:09 AM

No, it doesn't drive me insane. I flame you by showing others where you have lied. I have also satirized you and attacked your beliefs. However, I have never sunk this low.

trixy there are plenty of people on this board who are WELL aware of your organized an concerted flame wars against me. Plus you have bragged about how you post in the “Flame Wars” section all of the time, so we all know that is your bally-wick.

I honestly don’t know who you think you are fooling other than possibly CWL or UpTroll?

And, no, I am not reporting this to the moderators. I prefer that people see your behavior and decide for themselves what kind of person you are.

I don’t believe you are sincere, but I ditto the sentiment never-the-less.

You are the one of the biggest hypocrites on this forum.

Everyone saw it with De-Bungler (eventually).

Everyone saw it with Titanpout.

Everyone saw it with CWL, UpChunk, Evildave, Fool …

All of your former toadies, sycophants, and protégés, You aren’t kidding anyone Trixy. You think you are soooo smart and clever … hehehe … Only an idiot wouldn’t see right through the utter nonsense you spout.

Pray to the TOAST old man … you need to chill out before you really lose it on this forum …

De_Bunk

18th December 2002, 10:19 AM

Franko...

Do you really think anyone, other than obvious kooks, is paying attention...

Or do you really think that soon people are just going to get bored with your same ol' sh*t...

Soon you will be no more read and replied to than Gerri or Bethke..

Regardless what you think...all you've shown anyone is that delusional people like yourself have access to PCs...

Nothing else...

Just as Gerri and Bethke, Lucianarchy...people get bored..

Thats where you will end up....

Your a one trick pony..and that can become real, real boring in the end....

You have absolutely no opinion about nothing...nothing else to say..or post about...other than one singular point that you have made at least 4000 times..

Less and less people are interested in your garbage...and more and more are just flaming you....or ignoring you..

Worthless...

Have fun...keep posting the same old sh*t...

De_Bunk (Sticking it to the kooks...regardless)

Franko

18th December 2002, 10:21 AM

Why exactly should I believe your CLAIM that there is NO GOD -- Non-Skeptic?

What is your specific evidence for "free will"?

Are A-Theists just as moral as Theist De-Funk?

De_Bunk

18th December 2002, 10:29 AM

Franko..

My evidence for free will....

"I am"

Thats all the evidence i need for proof of freewill....

Franko

18th December 2002, 10:32 AM

Hey!

When I asked a Christian for his evidence for "god" he said the same damn thing!

See there De-Bungler, you aren't ANY different than a Theist after all ...

(so much for "empirical evidence". That's just a catch-phrase de-bungler uses on people who don't belong to his magic cult of pessimism)

Tricky

18th December 2002, 10:33 AM

Franko,
You say I have organized concerted flame wars against you. Prove it.

You say I have tried to have you banned. Prove it. I have ample evidence (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=241310&highlight=banning#post241310) that I have never done such a thing.

For that matter, find where I have accused you of pedophilia. For that matter, find where I have used profanity against or about you.

No Franko, those things are your bailiwick. (And you're welcome for showing you how to spell it.)

As for the Flame War, you would realize that I won it because my flames were the most humorous, not the nastiest. Check it out if you don't believe me.

Franko

18th December 2002, 11:08 AM

Trixy-ann,

You say I have organized concerted flame wars against you. Prove it.

I trust that the posters on this forum know what they have seen with their own eyes and ears.

You say I have tried to have you banned. Prove it. I have ample evidence that I have never done such a thing.

Do you mean directly or indirectly.

How does this prove that you have “free will”?

How does this justify your absurd claim that there is no evidence for God?

For that matter, find where I have accused you of pedophilia. For that matter, find where I have used profanity against or about you.

No of course not … you just manipulate your naïve little toadies to do your dirty work for you.

The fact is Trixy you can't and/or won't defend the things you believe. You have come here solely for the purpose of demonstrating your "intellectual superiority" to Theists, deists, and agnostics.

You are a pathetic cynical individual with nothing but pessimism as the foundation for the things you believe.

MRC_Hans

18th December 2002, 11:37 AM

We are BOTH the same person. He has said it, and I have said it at least a half a dozen times ... So what?Thank you Frank. Decency becomes you well. "So what?" -- In my opinion, no problem. Typing on a BB is a one-dimensional affair; one way to add more dimensions is to appear as more than one identity. I will threat "you" as such.

Cheers,
Hans

Franko

18th December 2002, 11:45 AM

I will threat "you" as such.

Freudian slip?

hehehe ...

Tricky

18th December 2002, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Trixy-ann,
Really, Franko, do you think I am insulted by being called by a girl's name? I know you said that girls are whiners and cryers. You must have hoards of adoring females who are attracted to your sensitivity. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Franko
I trust that the posters on this forum know what they have seen with their own eyes and ears.
As do I. That's why I try to provide proof when I call you a liar.
(Ears? This board has sound now?:confused: )

Originally posted by Franko
Do you mean directly or indirectly.
Obviously I mean directly. I cannot know how you will try to twist the word "indirectly". If you mean I have PM'd others trying to ban you, then you would be wrong. If you mean I have tried to draw you out and make you reveal the depths of your depravity (as you have done above), then yes. However, I have not done so in a covert manner.

Originally posted by Franko
How does this prove that you have “free will”?
The fact that I could coose to put you on "ignore", like so many others have, and yet I don't is evidence of my free will. Sometimes free will is a pain in the ass. :D

Originally posted by Franko
How does this justify your absurd claim that there is no evidence for God?
Let's see. How do I give evidence that there is no evidence. AHA! I hereby show you no evidence, which is evidence that there is no evidence. Isn't it evident? :p

Originally posted by Franko
No of course not … you just manipulate your naïve little toadies to do your dirty work for you.
My toadies? I was unaware I had toadies. I have some friends, but they do not do my bidding. However, going completely off topic, your accusation reminded me of something funny that happened this summer. Here is an exerpt from my vacation journal.

I grabbed my guitar, which has gone woefully unplayed during this trip, and went out to the cliffs to sing to the ocean. I had just started my first nautical tune, when who should chime in but the whole Tree Frog Ensemble and Chorus. They LOVED my music. I have never had so many singing along with my music, although few of them could find the right key. Whenever I stopped, they stopped. Whenever I resumed, they piped in again. I could be a big star in the rain forest.

So maybe I do have some toadies after all. :D

Originally posted by Franko
The fact is Trixy you can't and/or won't defend the things you believe. You have come here solely for the purpose of demonstrating your "intellectual superiority" to Theists, deists, and agnostics.
This is as much a "fact" as most of your other "facts", i.e. not a fact at all. I've had lots of interesting discussions with many people here, including you (before you metamorphosed into the sad Gollum you are today). I could show you the links, but I am afraid you would start spamming those threads too.

Originally posted by Franko
You are a pathetic cynical individual with nothing but pessimism as the foundation for the things you believe.

Pathetic? To you perhaps, since you are worried about my eternal soul/graviton. Thanks for your concern.
Cynical? Perhaps. I prefer "experienced".
Pessimistic? Definately not. For example, I keep hoping you will return to being a nice guy. Call me a crazy dreamer.

18th December 2002, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

should I? hmmmmm, No...let this one go. It will grow into a full size opinion and someone else can catch it.....

Hi The Fool :

You remind me Randi and Bidlack.

Just do it.
Answer:

Can you explain me please, why are so many personal dedicated polls?

What do you expect from that? Prove your point?

Do the majority always will have the reason?

Are you acting as a beleiver?

Are you a kind of Franko's fan ?

What's the fear with all of you selfnominated "skeptics"?

Thanks,

S&S

Checkmite

18th December 2002, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
I for one do not believe that Wraith and Franko are the same person. I have seen too many differences in the way they post...

Yes, those are interesting observations; however, the main reason I tend to think Franko and wraith are two different people is in the spirit of their respective responses.

Lately, I've clicked to see a few of Franko's responses to what I thought were legitimate questions posed by a few people in this thread. Apparently, whenever a perceived "A-Thiest" asks a question - no matter what the content or tone - it invokes an abusive response. Wraith doesn't do that.

Take the following example. I submitted the following post:

Originally posted by me

-snip-

...Well, Franko contends that humans are more conscious than toasters and cars. This is implicitly stating that toasters and cars have consciousness (albiet "less" than humans). I don't agree with that whole "TLOP more conscious than YOU more conscious than CAR" thing...the statement "more conscious" is meaningless to me, it's like saying "Kathy is more pregnant than Lisa"...you're either conscious or you're not. Humans are, cars aren't.

And as for the whole "TLOP control you" thing - I don't agree with that either. TLOP exert as much control over you as a wall does. A wall limits your range of travel in one direction, narrowing your still-vast list of options. In the same way, the laws of physics narrow the list of possibilities - but you still have a plethora of those possibilities left.

-snip-

While you are in a car, a seatbelt keeps you against your seat so that you don't move around too much and subject yourself to injury in case of an accident. A seatbelt is even more restrictive than a wall. Does this mean that a seatbelt is more conscious than you? You could say that you still control the seatbelt, because you can unfasten it. But imagine a scenario in which you've had a wreck, and your car is damaged in such a way that you cannot unfasten the seat belt (because you can't reach it, or it's stuck tight, or you don't have an arm anymore, etc). Now, since you can no longer control the seatbelt - is it then more conscious than you?

How do the laws of physics limit your available options any differently from the way a wall limits your available range of motion?

Now, how would Franko theoretically respond to this post? I can venture a guess:

You really are a stupid f*ck. What about this don't you understand?

Atoms obey the laws of physics
You are made of atoms
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

How does any of this prove the existence of your "free-willy" god? Show me that you can defy the laws of physics. Until then, shut the f*ck up and go kiss the A-Theist ass you love so much.

F*cking pathetic...

As you can see, none of the points raised in this simulated Franko-style response (which is entirely typical - go back and check) counter any of the points I raised in my post. I did not mention "free will", or anything about "defying" the laws of physics. But 10-1, this is the kind of response I would've gotten. This becomes more likely when considering that in a recent Franko response to a non-abusive post about his behavior, Franko said "How does any of this prove the existence of your free-willy god?"

Wraith's response was different. He actually discussed the specific points I brought up (yes wraith, I'll respond to your post soon, as well) in a non-abusive fashion. His answers are short, sweet and to the point. Notice especially that since I did not mention "free will", he didn't either. His responses are coherent and have bearing on the discussion.

Wraith doesn't seem to have the same prejudice against "A-Theists" Franko exhibits. When someone disagrees with wraith, he does not immediately label or classify them as A-Theists or ilk. Sure, he may occasionally laugh along with Franko, but I just don't think wraith is as comfortable with trash-talking and being abusive. I also see that wraith tends to show a most commendable level of patience, despite all the accusations and occasional name-calling he is subjected to. He responds the same way regardless of who he is responding to.

I just don't see these two being the same person.

Kullervo

18th December 2002, 02:11 PM

That was good, Joshua. I suggest that we start appending that bit of bolded text to each of our posts and save someone the trouble of typing a response.

Per se:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You really are a stupid f*ck. What about this don't you understand?

Atoms obey the laws of physics
You are made of atoms
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

How does any of this prove the existence of your "free-willy" god? Show me that you can defy the laws of physics. Until then, shut the f*ck up and go kiss the A-Theist ass you love so much.

F*cking pathetic...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Franko

18th December 2002, 02:30 PM

I just don't see these two being the same person.

Jesus Christ! I wish you A-Theists could make up your wishy-washy little minds!

First you swear that Me and Franko are the same person, then you swear that we are not!

I mean Franko and myself both told you we were the same person. How hard is this for you A-Theists to figure out???

And you claim that there is no evidence for God? You guys seem to have a lot of difficulty sorting Fact from Fantasy.

Checkmite

18th December 2002, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Jesus Christ! I wish you A-Theists could make up your wishy-washy little minds!

First you swear that Me and Franko are the same person, then you swear that we are not!

I mean Franko and myself both told you we were the same person. How hard is this for you A-Theists to figure out???

And you claim that there is no evidence for God? You guys seem to have a lot of difficulty sorting Fact from Fantasy.

Franko...now do you see the trouble of overgeneralization and classifying?

I never said you and wraith were the same. I even told you I didn't think you were, several times in that "Free Fun For Franko" thread I had a while back. But by ascribing one specific set of beliefs or opinions to every single person you think is an "A-Theist", you will always have this type of problem. The Fool does not speak for all atheists, nor do CWL, Titanpoint, De_Bunk, or Tricky. For one thing, none of them speak for me. That I may agree occasionally with them, or may be tolerant of their beliefs does not make me one of them, nor does it give them the "power", real or perceived, to speak for me on any topic.

On the same hand, there are differences in your and wraith's attitudes and opinions which run the gamut from subtle to profound; those differences tell me that although you may share the vast bulk of your beliefs, neither one of you still speaks for the other absolutely.

CWL

18th December 2002, 02:50 PM

Um.... Josh...

This is actually one time where I am rather amused by the fact that someone is quoting Franko (and that I thus am exposed to his nonsense despite the fact that I now have him on "ignore").

Why is the man posting as Franko but talking about "Me and Franko" or "Franko and myself".

Either he forgot that he wasn't logged in as Wraith or he is seriously loosing it (or both of the above of course).

There is of course also the alternative that the mistake is deliberate and that it's all part of Franko's own little smoke and mirrors act.

Anyhow, it's rather pathetic.

Tricky

18th December 2002, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by S&S
Can you explain me please, why are so many personal dedicated polls?
Hi S&S,

I know this was not addressed to me, but I hope you don't mind if I answer.

There are lots of threads that are "personal" here because we have some Strong Personalities on the boards. Naturally, they attract attention, which I think pleases them.

Originally posted by S&S
What do you expect from that? Prove your point?
The hope (although probably not an expectaton) is to get the person to clarify their position.

Originally posted by S&S
Do the majority always will have the reason?
Do you mean are the majority always right? If so, the answer is certainly not. After all, in my country, atheists are a tiny minority. I do not believe this means they are wrong.
In this little forum, which is nothing like the real world, "reason" is the deciding factor. If a person can support their beliefs in a reasonable way, they are taken seriously by the majority (on these boards). If they can't, then they are not. We have reasonable atheists here and unreasonable atheists. We have reasonable "believers" and unreasonable "believers". Fortunately, the unreasonable ones are in the minority. Unfortunately, they are very vocal.

Originally posted by S&S
Are you a kind of Franko's fan ?
I cannot speak for Fool, but I regard myself sort of as Franko's gadfly. I try to make sure that his wild assertions do not go unchallenged.

Originally posted by S&S
What's the fear with all of you selfnominated "skeptics"?

My fear is that if wild assertions go unchallenged, people who are new to these boards will think that we all accept the wild assertions. I don't want people getting the wrong opinion of us.

Originally posted by S&S

Thanks,

You're welcome, and I apologize if I intruded wrongly.

E.J.Armstrong

18th December 2002, 02:55 PM

originally posted by Franko
My Friend, if there is ever anything that I say which I failed to articulate adequately then please feel free to ask me for clarification.

I have done exactly that Franko and you simply stopped the discussion before providing the clarification. Are you able or willing to explain what your views are without name calling?

To take just one of your favourite syllogisms:-

Atoms obey the laws of physics
We are made of atoms
Therefore we obey the laws of physics

I think/hope (but accept that I could be wrong) that we all have a clear idea what you mean by 'atoms' but as you have disparaged other simple dictionary definitions we really need to know what you mean by 'obey' and 'the laws of physics' if we are to debate your own otherwise relatively simple phrase. If you really do want a rational discussion on this topic then you should be prepared to define your own terms so that the rest of us can join in. Unless we use a mutually acceptable table of definitions then we cannot communicate efficiently and I think that effective communication has in many cases been missing. Are you willing to engage in a rational debate about your views?

Taking normal definitions, atoms can be said to obey the laws of physics in the sense that the 'laws of physics' are merely our current handy, if partial, description of how the observable universe works and how the things within it interact with each other.

We are made of atoms.
I think that I can agree with that.

Therefore we obey the laws of physics.

If you mean that we are subject to the way this part of the universe works then I believe that is so self evident as to add little real insight. I think that you need another syllogisin order to connect the fact that we are subject to the laws of physics to your concept that we have no free will. If your concept is simply that because we are subject to the way this part of the universe works we therefore by definition we have no free will, can I ask who decided what you wrote in your last post and why the moon hasn't joined in yet?

I cannot breathe under water without help. I cannot escape the earth's gravity without help. I cannot survive in deep space without help yet mankind has achieved all of those things to a limited extent. We are slowly learning to use 'the laws of physics' or the way the universe currently works in our tiny parochial part of it to do things animals of our kind have never done before. In doing so we are not contravening the 'laws of physics' merely using them but using them in a way never achieved by the moon.

We can use the 'laws of physics' because we have studied and partially described how this bit of the universe works. We have then used that understanding in order to conceive of the idea of travelling to the moon, develop the science and technology to achieve that idea, construct the hardware to permit it, and then carry out the plan successfully a number of times. The moon has never done any of that other than through accidental catastrophic impact from heavenly bodies, unless you know otherwise. Do you? If so where is the evidence?

Do you believe that man employed free will to reach the moon? If not, why not?

Checkmite

18th December 2002, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by CWL
Um.... Josh...

This is actually one time where I am rather amused by the fact that someone is quoting Franko (and that I thus am exposed to his nonsense despite the fact that I now have him on "ignore").

Why is the man posting as Franko but talking about "Me and Franko" or "Franko and myself".

Either he forgot that he wasn't logged in as Wraith or he is seriously loosing it (or both of the above of course).

There is of course also the alternative that the mistake is deliberate and that it's all part of Franko's own little smoke and mirrors act.

Anyhow, it's rather pathetic.

I'm sure it was deliberate. Does it look anything like a wraith post to you?

Franko

18th December 2002, 03:15 PM

Why is the man posting as Franko but talking about "Me and Franko" or "Franko and myself".

Either he forgot that he wasn't logged in as Wraith or he is seriously loosing it (or both of the above of course).

You really are simple minded CWL.

CWL

18th December 2002, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

I'm sure it was deliberate. Does it look anything like a wraith post to you?

You are right of course. Sad as it is, I think that you and Tricky may be right.

If so, one can only hope that Wraith will some day learn to question Franko's mindless dogma. If he is a real person he certainly seems like less of a lout than the big F. Anyone deserves a better fate than to be the hang around of an unpleasant paranoiac...

Upchurch

18th December 2002, 03:29 PM

Interestingly, "wraith" on www.deism.org used exactly the same speaking style as "Serpent" and as "Franko" does here. So, either wraith acts differently over there than he does here, or Franko's been stealing someone else's name...

...or they really are the same preson and Franko just uses different writing styles to mask it.

Upchurch

The Fool

18th December 2002, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi The Fool :

Hi to you too.

You remind me Randi and Bidlack.

Thank you.

Just do it.
Answer:

ok..

Can you explain me please, why are so many personal dedicated polls?

I have created one poll in the entire time I have been posting. In response to a claim made by Franko that "the vast majority" of posters believed a certain thing. I ran the poll which demonstrated that the "vast majority" of posters believed exactly the oposite.

What do you expect from that? Prove your point?

Yes, the poll did prove my point...

Do the majority always will have the reason?

I'm sorry, your English is much better than my spanish but I'm not sure I understand? If you mean are the majority always right then my answer is no, they are not. If you look at the poll it is not asking peoples opinions of right or wrong. It is simply asking if they believe Franko's position is consistent. Franko clamed people held a certain opinion, I demonstrated that they don't....simple.

Are you acting as a beleiver?

Well S&S, I still don't believe that video of yours shows anything paranormal.....

Are you a kind of Franko's fan ?

Now thats an interesting point. I agree with you that people who behave badly draw attention, I'm trying to mend my ways....I intend to never use the word "Franko" again...oops, see what you made me do, I used the word again....

What's the fear with all of you selfnominated "skeptics"?

I don't fear much.....I certainly fear no man and very few women. Whats your point about fear?

Thanks,

S&S

CWL

18th December 2002, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Interestingly, "wraith" on www.deism.org used exactly the same speaking style as "Serpent" and as "Franko" does here. So, either wraith acts differently over there than he does here, or Franko's been stealing someone else's name...

...or they really are the same preson and Franko just uses different writing styles to mask it.

Upchurch

Could be... could very well be...

Add some smilies, refrain from ad homs and the obscenities... et presto: one false beard à la Wraith!

The shorter style of Wraith is of course explained by the fact that if you delete all the ad homs and obsceneties, there isn't much left of Franko's posts.

Franko

18th December 2002, 03:51 PM

E.J. …

To take just one of your favourite syllogisms:-

Atoms obey the laws of physics
We are made of atoms
Therefore we obey the laws of physics

I think/hope (but accept that I could be wrong) that we all have a clear idea what you mean by 'atoms' but as you have disparaged other simple dictionary definitions we really need to know what you mean by 'obey' and 'the laws of physics' if we are to debate your own otherwise relatively simple phrase.

E.J. What is so complicated about this? You and the A-Theists claim that there is no evidence for god. SURE THERE IS … the evidence for God is that TLOP is controlling your actions utterly. You aren’t doing anything but watching a show, a show that was obviously tailored with YOU in mind.

You are the one claiming to have magic “free will” powers. I say – What is you evidence for believing this??

You say; I feel like I have “free will”.

I say: yeah, but the Earth “feels” Flat and Motionless, thinks aren’t always what they appear to be. Besides, we have this FACT as a given:

Atoms obey the laws of physics
We are made of atoms
Therefore we obey the laws of physics

So why should I believe you obviously False claim that there is NO evidence for God, and there is evidence for “free will”? None of you a-Theists ever explains what you mean by “No evidence for God”, and none of you A-Theists has ever presented any evidence for “free will”.

Why should I believe You?

If you really do want a rational discussion on this topic then you should be prepared to define your own terms so that the rest of us can join in. Unless we use a mutually acceptable table of definitions then we cannot communicate efficiently and I think that effective communication has in many cases been missing. Are you willing to engage in a rational debate about your views?

Most definitely; however it is my experience that when an A-Theists asks this question the A-Theists is NEVER willing to explain what he believes or why he believes it himself. The A-Theist only expects the other individual to explain and justify their beliefs.

Is that what you want, because if that is what you are REALLY ask me then find another stooge who will accept your double standards. I can have a debate with myself without your assistance.

Taking normal definitions, atoms can be said to obey the laws of physics in the sense that the 'laws of physics' are merely our current handy, if partial, description of how the observable universe works and how the things within it interact with each other.

We are made of atoms.
I think that I can agree with that.

Therefore we obey the laws of physics.

If you mean that we are subject to the way this part of the universe works then I believe that is so self evident as to add little real insight. I think that you need another syllogisin order to connect the fact that we are subject to the laws of physics to your concept that we have no free will. If your concept is simply that because we are subject to the way this part of the universe works we therefore by definition we have no free will, can I ask who decided what you wrote in your last post and why the moon hasn't joined in yet?

I am not sure what you are asking E.J.? Are you asking why the Moon isn’t conscious? That is easy for an LD to explain, but difficult for an A-Theist/Pseudo-Materialist. The Moon isn’t conscious, because the Moon is not a Graviton, it is just a meme.

Look, the problem that all of the A-Theists have is that they are locked into this mindset that the Universe is made out of this “hard stuff” called “matter”, but the fact is they are all wrong. The Universe is just a part of the Omniverse, and in the Omniverse, there is only one kind of particle – Gravitons. When Gravitons interact, when they entangle they create a point in spacetime. They exchange Energy.

The universe (omniverse) isn’t made of “matter” like you think (Even Einstein said so). The Universe is made of Energy, and the source of that Energy is Consciousness (Gravitons).

I cannot breathe under water without help. I cannot escape the earth's gravity without help. I cannot survive in deep space without help yet mankind has achieved all of those things to a limited extent. We are slowly learning to use 'the laws of physics' or the way the universe currently works in our tiny parochial part of it to do things animals of our kind have never done before. In doing so we are not contravening the 'laws of physics' merely using them but using them in a way never achieved by the moon.

We pass information from one entity to another. This universe, was designed and created by the Goddess. It is very detailed, there is a lot of intricacy to it. Over time we are learning more and more about it. How it operates, how it functions … maybe one day, we’ll even figure out who build it and how …

We can use the 'laws of physics' because we have studied and partially described how this bit of the universe works. We have then used that understanding in order to conceive of the idea of travelling to the moon, develop the science and technology to achieve that idea, construct the hardware to permit it, and then carry out the plan successfully a number of times. The moon has never done any of that other than through accidental catastrophic impact from heavenly bodies, unless you know otherwise. Do you? If so where is the evidence?

Do you believe that man employed free will to reach the moon? If not, why not?

Because Man doesn’t possess “free will”. It was man’s Fate that he went to the Moon, he was preordained to do it. From the moment the Goddess made this Universe it was destined to happen, it was only a matter of Time.

Did you get the parents you got because of “free will”? Did you meet your wife because of “free will”, or was it because of a random quirk of Fate? Everything that happens to you is essentially an accident. It is simply a matter of you being in the right (or wrong) place at the right time. It’s all luck. What skill is involved? Even if you are intelligent how can you claim the credit? Had you been born in a poor country with bad schools and neglectful parents, with bad genes, do you think you would still be so smart? What exactly are you controlling E.J.? I don’t see that you are controlling anything. Appearances don’t make reality

18th December 2002, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

I have created one poll in the entire time I have been posting. In response to a claim made by Franko that "the vast majority" of posters believed a certain thing. I ran the poll which demonstrated that the "vast majority" of posters believed exactly the oposite.

Yes, the poll did prove my point...

I'm sorry, your English is much better than my spanish but I'm not sure I understand? If you mean are the majority always right then my answer is no, they are not. If you look at the poll it is not asking peoples opinions of right or wrong. It is simply asking if they believe Franko's position is consistent. Franko clamed people held a certain opinion, I demonstrated that they don't....simple.

Well S&S, I still don't believe that video of yours shows anything paranormal.....

Now thats an interesting point. I agree with you that people who behave badly draw attention, I'm trying to mend my ways....I intend to never use the word "Franko" again...oops, see what you made me do, I used the word again....

I don't fear much.....I certainly fear no man and very few women. Whats your point about fear?

[B]

Hi The Fool:

I appreciate you finally answered my questions.

Anyway Tricky did it first and was clear enough, although the questions were directed to the author of this poll.

The Fool. your poll is not honest enough in your questions, the 3 questions are dedicated to don't give a chance to Franko, he will always lost whatever the results, and you know that, so this poll will never prove nothing.

I don't care if you "beleive or not " in "my" video. First : is not my video. I s a tape that all the tv networks have.
I agree that you beleive in a digitized version, not in a broadcast tape.

I also had a lot of polls dedicated to me, even Hal Bidlack made one. Polls are not proof of nothing , Bidlack moved "my" thread of the banter no matter the majority didn't want it.

About fear: Ask James Randi about me, or wait until he is man enough to write about my challenge.

Thanks,

S&S

The Fool

18th December 2002, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi The Fool:

I appreciate you finally answered my questions.

Anyway Tricky did it first and was clear enough, although the questions were directed to the author of this poll.

The Fool. your poll is not honest enough in your questions, the 3 questions are dedicated to don't give a chance to Franko, he will always lost whatever the results, and you know that, so this poll will never prove nothing.

I don't care if you "believe or not " in "my" video. First : is not my video. I s a tape that all the tv networks have.
I agree that you beleive in a digitized version, not in a broadcast tape.

I also had a lot of polls dedicated to me, even Hal Bidlack made one. Polls are not proof of nothing , Bidlack moved "my" thread of the banter no matter the majority didn't want it.

About fear: Ask James Randi about me, or wait until he is man enough to write about my challenge.

Thanks,

S&S

Option 1 is EXACTLY Franko's stated position. how is this not fair? I am quite sure Franko himself would agree that his position is correctly summarised by the phrase "Franko's position is clear - no free will"

Listen carefully....Franko stated that people on this forum clearly understood what his position is (on free will) I tested that with a poll and demonstrated that the vast majority of people are NOT clear what his position is.....He constantly stated things that are a contradiction. Read the poll again S&S everyone seems to understand it but you.... Polls will never prove if you are right or wrong, they can prove if people agree that you are right or wrong........ Understand? Franko made a claim about what people's views were, the poll tested that statement and demonstrated that it was wrong.

as for your tape..... It is a piece of rubbish, It shows an unidentifable blur on a section of video footage. It will never amount to proof of anything, get over it. How many times do people have to tell you this. I think you were appropriately dealt with by JREF. Personally, I would not even have wasted time replying to you.

As For James Randi not being "man enough", how long do you intend to cry like a child because you can't get people to agree with you?

18th December 2002, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

As For James Randi not being "man enough", how long do you intend to cry like a child because you can't get people to agree with you?

Hi The Fool:

Is the opposite , I want Randi to tell all the world that I am a charlatan , and that he did a great job analyzing the video on internet.

Remember that his commentaries are about charlatans and freaked videos and pictures.

You are wrong again, I challenged the JREF and they gave me a poor answer, that's the real reason of his BIG silence.Just fear.

Thanks,

S&S

The Fool

18th December 2002, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi The Fool:

Is the opposite , I want Randi to tell all the world that I am a charlatan , and that he did a great job analyzing the video on internet.

Remember that his commentaries are about charlatans and freaked videos and pictures.

You are wrong again, I challenged the JREF and they gave me a poor answer, that's the real reason of his BIG silence.Just fear.

Thanks,

S&S
Fear of what , are you going to sue him? Firebomb the JREF building? I'll only say this one more time. If I had recieved your application trying to make some sort of stupid paranormal claim out of a tragic event like the the twin towers I would have placed it in the nearest bin..... I think you got a reply that was more than adequate considering the stupidity of the claim. Now get over it.

MRC_Hans

18th December 2002, 11:43 PM

Actually, S&S, I have never understood how there could be a Randi challenge for you in "your" video. You have pointed out a feature in a 911 video that could be a UFO (in the meaning unindentified flying object). But even if it could be affirmed to be a UFO, that is not the same as saying that it is paranormal, and even if it WAS paranormal, it could never be "yours" to claim the Randi price for. The only one who might contend for the price would be the person who shot the sequence.

--- And since there exists very probable mundane explanations for the object in the video, I think you should either present additional evidence, or failing that, forget about it.

Hans

wraith

19th December 2002, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Oh, yes. That's right Franko. I forgot about your sock puppet.

There, that's better.

cant take the heat?
;)

wraith

19th December 2002, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

facts often are wraith.

Did I correctly assess fate?

What is you view on destiny ;)

My view....well flower ;)
Fate is a beautiful thing...
I hope that youll see this in Time
;)

wraith

19th December 2002, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
All CWL said was that Wraith was Franko's sockpuppet, and that he obviously, undeniably is, but there are different kinds of sockpuppets. I see two possibilities:

everyone ready for this?
haha

1) Wraith is the same person as Franko, supporting himself, even talking to himself at times. This is not unusual BB practice, and can be useful, although the mutual backpatting is a bit pathetic.

I thought that this was assumed?
:eek:
muahaha

2) Wraith is a different person than Franko, someone who is totally agreeing, looking up to him, adoring him. To be blunt, his head is completely up Frako's ass. That will be more than pathetic.

lol!
something like that
;)

wraith

19th December 2002, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
I for one do not believe that Wraith and Franko are the same person. I have seen too many differences in the way they post. Wraith, for example, has occasionally admitted that we have choices, something Franko has never done.

Listen to me Tricky, YOUR CHOICES ARE FATED!

My theory is that Wraith and Franko live together, possibly college roommates, brothers or even father and son, since they never post at the same time (one computer?). Wraith idolizes Franko and tries to emulate him, but imperfectly. Also, he keeps deviating from time to time from Franko's "Omniworldline". Also, Wraith doesn't appear to be the total horn dog that Franko is. Wraith is also a lot more pleasant and humorous. His spelling is worse.

I honestly don't believe that Franko is clever enough to create a separate persona that has such distinctive characteristics.

LOL!!!
HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
HOLLY HELL!!!
that hit the spot!
Full marks for the entertainment
;)

Wraith, if you are reading this, I hope you will realize that you have the choice to escape Franko's ideological control. Be your own person. I realize that will be difficult since you share living quarters, and Franko can read everything you post. I look forward to the day when you can post your own opinions without fear.

...Tricky is still talking people...

keep on moving
;)

Franko, if you are reading this, I apologize for the unwarranted personal attacks. I, like Gentlehorse, have seen you at your best. Lately though, it has been missing. And missed.

We shall see...
:cool:

wraith

19th December 2002, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Um.... Josh...

This is actually one time where I am rather amused by the fact that someone is quoting Franko (and that I thus am exposed to his nonsense despite the fact that I now have him on "ignore").

Why is the man posting as Franko but talking about "Me and Franko" or "Franko and myself".

Either he forgot that he wasn't logged in as Wraith or he is seriously loosing it (or both of the above of course).

There is of course also the alternative that the mistake is deliberate and that it's all part of Franko's own little smoke and mirrors act.

Anyhow, it's rather pathetic.

hey wraith!
did you read this?
Ill cya in class in 10 yeah?!

wraith

19th December 2002, 03:00 AM

19th December 2002, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by wraith

My view....well flower ;)
Fate is a beautiful thing...
I hope that youll see this in Time
;) Time is.....what?

Who says I dont already wraith? ;)

CWL

19th December 2002, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
I think it is far worse than you can imagine The Foolyfluffikins(if franko can have add ons so can i):D
Radiating Sweetie-pie (I so prefer your add ons),

That is an interesting statement. Care to elaborate?

19th December 2002, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Radiating Sweetie-pie (I so prefer your add ons),

That is an interesting statement. Care to elaborate?
CaressableWonderfulLovablebunnikins

Do I really need to when somethng has now been shown?

CWL

19th December 2002, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower

CaressableWonderfulLovablebunnikins

Do I really need to when somethng has now been shown?

Rabbit-Fluffy-Sunny-Fuzzy-Smooch, :) [The World would be a much better place if everybody had your attitude.]

You are right of course.

Trinity

19th December 2002, 04:16 AM

Eew! I feel left out.

Trinity:(

wraith

19th December 2002, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by radiating-sunflower
Time is.....what?

right now its 12:19 am over here
;)

Who says I dont already wraith? ;)

oh! haha I just assumed
:cool:

wraith

19th December 2002, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Trinity
Eew! I feel left out.

Trinity:(

oh, please join in
;)

Trinity

19th December 2002, 07:03 AM

As one sockpuppet to the other: Get lost, creep!

Trinity

Checkmite

19th December 2002, 08:16 AM

Yes, it is just so obvious that wraith and Franko are the same person...their posts look exactly the same...sure pulled one over on me... :rolleyes:

Seriously wraith...I really do appreciate the way you answer questions instead of posting and reposting like a case-based pseudo-A.I. program. Please, please don't change or start being abusive, like Franko.

Franko

19th December 2002, 08:51 AM

Seriously wraith...I really do appreciate the way you answer questions instead of posting and reposting like a case-based pseudo-A.I. program. Please, please don't change or start being abusive, like Franko.

I wonder what the Wraith would say if he were here?

probably something like ... Shut up Jkorosi -- you worthless doofus!

Checkmite

19th December 2002, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I wonder what the Wraith would say if he were here?

probably something like ... Shut up Jkorosi -- you worthless doofus!

I'm not so sure, Franko. I wonder if he would've said anything.

Meanwhile, at least we can have a decent and engaging discussion with him in the Determinism thread, without him shouting bigoted played-out slurs at the "evil A-Theists."

...how does he do it? Hmmmm.... :confused:

19th December 2002, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by wraith

right now its 12:19 am over here
;)

oh! haha I just assumed
:cool:
Time is.........?
come on wraith that the best you can do, I think not , think harder deeper, time is ...................

assumed presumed dont it defeats the object.

19th December 2002, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Trinity
Eew! I feel left out.

Trinity:(
Trinitychubbikins

M or F makes it easier

Franko

19th December 2002, 09:18 AM

I'm not so sure, Franko. I wonder if he would've said anything.

The question is what would that Wraith be having Me post right now?

After all … I am merely his “sockpuppet” …

Meanwhile, at least we can have a decent and engaging discussion with him in the Determinism thread, without him shouting bigoted played-out slurs at the "evil A-Theists."

...how does he do it? Hmmmm....

I’m not sure, but I thought I was on your ignore list? You are getting to be like a crack-addict Joshua.

So … just out of curiosity -- A-Theist-Wannabe -- why the name change? What happen to “Jkorosi”?

Franko

19th December 2002, 09:20 AM

Time is.........?
come on wraith that the best you can do, I think not , think harder deeper, time is ...................

Oooo! ... Ooooo!

Let Me Play!!! :D

"Time" is the thing that A-Theists claim didn't exist before the "Big Bang".

...

... I wonder how Time could NOT exist? I wonder why no A-Theist can explain what that means???

Franko

19th December 2002, 10:25 AM

I gave you my Answer A-theist!

What's yours?

Time is ... ?

19th December 2002, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Actually, S&S, I have never understood how there could be a Randi challenge for you in "your" video. You have pointed out a feature in a 911 video that could be a UFO (in the meaning unindentified flying object). But even if it could be affirmed to be a UFO, that is not the same as saying that it is paranormal, and even if it WAS paranormal, it could never be "yours" to claim the Randi price for. The only one who might contend for the price would be the person who shot the sequence.

--- And since there exists very probable mundane explanations for the object in the video, I think you should either present additional evidence, or failing that, forget about it.

Hans

Hi MRC_Hans:

You are not a fool. Your reply have the logical of a defender of the money of the JREFchallenge, but not the logical of an skeptic.

Here is my application:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7041&pagenumber=2

The Internet is full of interpretations of that same "paranormal event", they applied the word "ufo" , missile, etc.
I give you some examples:
http://www.deansplanet.com/markmywords_wtc_ufo.html

http://www.artbell.com/graphics19.html

http://www.artbell.com/graphics19.html

http://edenex.iespana.es/edenex/analisiswtc.html

Don't forget that I made the observation, denuntiation and proffesional analysis the same week of that tragic success.

I said it was a paranormal event (according to Randi rules)during a tragic event , transsmited "live" to all the world, and easily demostrated if you go to your nearest tv. station and find the broadcast tape.I did the correct and rational analysis, JREF just studied an internet tape.

So why James Randi still refuses to write about it?
Why he always write about others tricked videos or pictures of UFOS of differents events or locations?
He is afraid of what?
His commentaries are about charlatans and fools challenges, he always mockery on them, why not about this challenge or this particular Event?

Thanks,

S&S