Regarding Franko... [Archive] - Page 3

whitefork

25th November 2002, 06:15 AM

Another quote:

[Discussing the partial reflection of light by glass]

Try as we might to invent a reasonable theory that can explain how a photon "makes up its mind" whether to go through glass or bounce back, it is impossible to predict which way a given photon will go. Philosophers have said that if the same circumstances don't always produce the same results, predictions are impossible and science will collapse. Here is a circumstance -- identical photons are always coming down in the same direction to the same piece of glass -- that produces different results. We cannot predict whether a given photo will arrive at A or B [reflected or pass through]. All we can predict is that out of 100 photons that come down, an average of 4 will be reflected by the front surface [of the piece of glass]. Does this mean that physics, a science of great exactitude, has been reduced to calculating only the probability of an event, and not predicting exactly what will happen? Yes. That's a retreat, but that's the way it is: Nature premits us to calculate only probabilities. Yet science has not collapsed.

Richard Feynman, QED. Page 19. (Nobel Prize in physics, 1965)

If you use arguments from physics to try and prove your position, you will attract the attention of physicists, and they will offer an opinion about your understanding of their science. If you talk about logic, you'll have the opinion of logicians.

Suppose you take your theory to a physicist, and he rejects it on account of your representation of Quantum theory. You can say it's because he is atheistic and is predisposed to reject deism on that ground.

You go to a theologian, and he sees that business about the Goddess creating one universe but not the others. He will say, that's interesting, but you're rehashing Plotinus, Proclus, and the Gnostics, and they have a more solid theological grounding. Read their works and the critiques, and get back to us. Your theologian may be an atheist, too.

Sooner or later, you may run out of acceptable peers to review your work.

Mordred

25th November 2002, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by wraith

If I flip a coin, it seems as if youre saying that the outcome comes out from no where.

No, I've never claimed that a coin toss was a random event (perhaps you should stop attacking my statements by pointing out flaws in arguments that I haven't made). If you idealize a coin toss as an example, it can be thought of as random, but in reality it is not.

buggered if I know
;)

So you wish me to believe that you're interpretation of the universe is correct, yet you cannot provide an explanation for a readily observable phenomenon which can be easily explained by quantum mechanics? That is hardly what I would call convincing.

ABI

25th November 2002, 09:31 AM

Wraith’s first post:

Originally posted by wraith

[materialises...]

Here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=148348#post148348 )

Franko’s first post after departure :

Originally posted by Franko

[...materializes]

... I was summoned?

Here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=201756#post201756)

Franko=Wraith
:rolleyes:

Franko

25th November 2002, 04:05 PM

Mordred:

Ooops … meant to post this the other day …

Did you see me claiming to be an agnostic? Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism.

IS THERE A GOD?

1) YES or TRUE (Theist/Deist)
2) NO or FALSE (Atheist)
3) MAYBE? … or UNKNOWN/NOT ENOUGH INFO (Agnostic)

Play semantics all you want Mordred. Why should I care?

You believe that the Universe is the result of magic (ultimately incomprehensible[Heisenberg/Bell]), and you believe that you have magic “free will powers” that are utterly incomprehensible. You are a mystic, and you are a mystic regardless of how many “magic sheepskins” the A-Theist seminary bestows upon you, assuring us of your “Scientific Wisdom by Divine Proidvence”.

Those who use it as such are doing so incorrectly. I lack a belief in a god. Therefore, I am an atheist.

Since there is no evidence that a flipped coin will land “Heads” up all the evidence indicates that it will land “Tails” up?

The Fact of the matter is … you HATE the idea of a superior force controlling you, and deep down, you dread the thought of existing perpetually.

Incidentally, I asked an interesting question that I don't think has been answered yet...

Can you (or anyone else for that matter) provide an explanation for the interference pattern that arises in the double slit experiment using a deterministic model?

The interference pattern ONLY occurs when no observation is made of the individual slits. No Observation, means Not enough information, means Agnosticism. Of course if you are an Atheist with magic “free will” powers, not enough information should mean FALSE (slit #1) – shouldn’t it?

Franko

25th November 2002, 04:11 PM

Titanpout whined:

Mordred. wraith is Franko. See the gentlehorse thread.

TP

(pretty much given up on even pretending to defend the Cult of A-Theism any more)

So then after a while … he starts getting hissy because NO ONE is paying ANY attention to his crying like a little girl so …

ABI (Newbie) a.k.a. Titanpout trying to hide his shameful Obsession with me:
Wraith’s first post:
(I’m really Serpent’s sock-puppet)

Franko’s first post after departure :
(I am really the Wraith’s sock-puppet)

Franko=Wraith

Yes? … and … Your Point?!?!?

Titanpout = ABI

So What?

Franko

25th November 2002, 04:14 PM

Titanpoint,

I don't think the Gentlehorse thread proves that wraith is Franko.

For what it's worth, I don't think they are the same person.
I have no troulble getting Franko to expand on his ideas.
With wraith it's like getting blood out of a stone.

regards,
BillyJoe (over and out).

I'm sorry Billyjoe, but Titanpout has already made up your mind for you, so please don't question his judgment or we will have to start several derogatory threads about you and jointly whine to the moderators that you be banned for expressing an opinion that differed from Ms. Prissy-pants-and-Prozac.

Mordred

25th November 2002, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Play semantics all you want Mordred. Why should I care?

You can disagree and not care all you want...as long as you understand my position on the topic and do not use this disagreement to assign to me a position that I have never taken.

You believe that the Universe is the result of magic (ultimately incomprehensible[Heisenberg/Bell]), and you believe that you have magic “free will powers” that are utterly incomprehensible.

Case in point. I have never claimed to have free will. I have told you this repeatedly, and yet you keep insisting that I somehow have. Either show me where I have claimed to have free will...or admit that you are in error in this regard and move on.

You are a mystic, and you are a mystic regardless of how many “magic sheepskins” the A-Theist seminary bestows upon you, assuring us of your “Scientific Wisdom by Divine Proidvence”.

I'm an empiricist. If judging theories based on how well they can explain and predict our actual observations of the universe is mysticism...you must once again be using a definition that no one else uses.

The interference pattern ONLY occurs when no observation is made of the individual slits. No Observation, means Not enough information, means Agnosticism. Of course if you are an Atheist with magic “free will” powers, not enough information should mean FALSE (slit #1) – shouldn’t it?

What a great non-answer. Are you sure you understand exactly what is going on in the double slit experiment? According to you, a photon should only ever go through one slit whether it is being measured or not, correct? Then why is it, when we don't measure at the slits to see which one a photon goes through, it creates an interference pattern, which exactly matches what we would expect if the photon went through both slits? Agnosticism and free will have absolutely nothing to do with this. If you make a measurement and break down the wave function, the photon will behave just as would be expected classically, going through one slit or the other, like a nice little particle. If you don't break down the wave function, it creates an outcome for which it seems the only possible explanation is that the photon went through both slits. Can you explain this using your model?

Franko

25th November 2002, 10:44 PM

Mildred:

You can disagree and not care all you want...as long as you understand my position on the topic and do not use this disagreement to assign to me a position that I have never taken

Go back and read the posts!

I said that you were an A-Theist from the start.

You hemmed and hawed and pretended like you weren't really. You tried to pretend that you weren't just a brain-washed Religious fanatic ...

But in the end you couldn't recite the Lord's prayer, and you had to concede you are an A-Theist.

just like I said.

I'm right about you in all the other ways too. You'll see it sooner or later ...

De_Bunk

25th November 2002, 10:47 PM

Mordred

25th November 2002, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Mildred

First, I ask for the last time that you extend the courtesy of referring to me by my correct name.

Go back and read the posts!

I said that you were an A-Theist from the start.

Amazing!!! Especially since I have been saying that I am an atheist since the start. What a wonderous victory on your part...now if you would only start using the correct definition of the word.

But in the end you couldn't recite the Lord's prayer, and you had to concede you are an A-Theist.

You never asked me to recite the lord's prayer. I can do it now if you like :p Of course it holds no meaning for me. Can it really be called a concession on my part if I have stated quite plainly beforehand that I'm an atheist? Again, what an astounding rhetorical coup for you...

I'm right about you in all the other ways too. You'll see it sooner or later ...

Again, incredibly convincing logic. Absolutely ironclad.

Mind addressing any of the arguments I have actually made...or even making any of consequence yourself? Explanation of quantum tunneling? Explanation for the double slit experiment? Contention that the tensor calculus used by Einstein in GR is "simple" mathematics? Proof that the universe must adhere to an arbitrary system of logic? Any emprical evidence at all for your positions?

wraith

25th November 2002, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Mordred

No, I've never claimed that a coin toss was a random event (perhaps you should stop attacking my statements by pointing out flaws in arguments that I haven't made). If you idealize a coin toss as an example, it can be thought of as random, but in reality it is not.[/B]

youre the one who used it as an analogy
lol

So you wish me to believe that you're interpretation of the universe is correct, yet you cannot provide an explanation for a readily observable phenomenon which can be easily explained by quantum mechanics? That is hardly what I would call convincing.

I dont have to know how a plane actually flies. What I need to know is why it flies. Same thing with our little discussion. Whats one thing that you know of, in which you have the complete information, where the outcome is different than expected.

wraith

25th November 2002, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by ABI
Wraith’s first post:

Here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=148348#post148348 )

Franko’s first post after departure :

Here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=201756#post201756)

Franko=Wraith
:rolleyes:

where did you come from?

let the big boys handle this ok...
;)

Mordred

26th November 2002, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by wraith
youre the one who used it as an analogy
lol

I used rolling dice to illustrate a concept. I believe it was Franko who first introduced the whole coin flip deal. As I stated, I never said it was random, and pointed out then that it is only so if you idealize it.

I dont have to know how a plane actually flies. What I need to know is why it flies.

It never occurred to you that knowing how could potentially illuminate why? You seem to have your own particular conception of how anyway...the problem being that it doesn't seem to conform to what we have actually observed of reality.

[b[Same thing with our little discussion. Whats one thing that you know of, in which you have the complete information, where the outcome is different than expected. [/B]

As far as we know...quantum tunneling. This is just you restating once again a hidden variable interpretation based objection. The problem is that we have no indication that these hidden variables exist. We have no way of knowing if they do, no idea how we would measure them, no indication that they are needed to explain any phenomena at all. Accepting that...why should I believe that they are there?

wraith

26th November 2002, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Mordred

I used rolling dice to illustrate a concept. I believe it was Franko who first introduced the whole coin flip deal. As I stated, I never said it was random, and pointed out then that it is only so if you idealize it.[/B]

I denied that concept from memory
;)

It never occurred to you that knowing how could potentially illuminate why? You seem to have your own particular conception of how anyway...the problem being that it doesn't seem to conform to what we have actually observed of reality.

Well, I never really told how I believed how it worked...
It was more about why yours didnt cut the bill
:)

As far as we know...quantum tunneling. This is just you restating once again a hidden variable interpretation based objection. The problem is that we have no indication that these hidden variables exist. We have no way of knowing if they do, no idea how we would measure them, no indication that they are needed to explain any phenomena at all. Accepting that...why should I believe that they are there?

I dont buy into this hocus mumbo jumbo
;)

Mordred

26th November 2002, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Well, I never really told how I believed how it worked...
It was more about why yours didnt cut the bill
:)

Oh yeah, I remember, it doesn't cut the bill because it is consistant with all the experimental evidence and doesn't presuppose unnecessary variables without proof in order to conform to an arbitrary logical system.

I dont buy into this hocus mumbo jumbo
;)

Great, not buying into hocus mumbo jumbo you are then conceding that there is no evidence at all for the existance of "hidden" or as of yet undiscovered variables, correct?

Loki

26th November 2002, 12:34 AM

I dont buy into this hocus mumbo jumbo
And your only alternative relies upon some "unknown/unseen" variables. Surely we invoke your "Lack of evidence = unknown" rule here : you can't explain Quantum Tunnelling, therefore your position is "I don't know". This is clearly different from "it's deterministic".

Would this be accurate? :

"I don't accept QM Probabilities and I don't accept determinism".

wraith

26th November 2002, 12:44 AM

rofl
did you read my "replay" scenario

Fate - ALL THE WAY

Franko

26th November 2002, 09:09 AM

Loki said:
And your only alternative relies upon some "unknown/unseen" variables. Surely we invoke your "Lack of evidence = unknown" rule here : you can't explain Quantum Tunnelling, therefore your position is "I don't know". This is clearly different from "it's deterministic".

Would this be accurate? :

"I don't accept QM Probabilities and I don't accept determinism".

So Loki ... You really are claiming that QM is magical and ultimately incomprehensible -- aren't you?

You are saying that if you were sent back in time with no memory of the "cycle" that things would happen differently? (Yes or No?)

Franko

26th November 2002, 09:12 AM

Mildred,

Since Loki is claiming that QM is magical, and since I asked you about this directly the other day and you failed to respond (surprise - surprise), howz about fessing up?

Do you believe that QM (the Universe, the Big Bang) is ultimately comprehensible, or incomprehensible, and what is your reason for believing this?

Q-Source

26th November 2002, 10:21 AM

Franko
Either the explanation for QM and the “Big Bang” (i.e. the nonexistence of time and space) are ultimately comprehensible, or they are not. If they are comprehensible, then the Universe is ultimately Deterministic, Objective, and Logical. If they are ultimately incomprehensible, then regardless of what you want to call it they are Unpredictable, Subjective, Random, Magic, and Supernatural.

Mordred

How does comprehensibility imply determinism? Can you not comprehend probability or multivalent logic? I can. The people who built the mathematical basis for these things sure could...otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do so in the first place. You should also note, that the universe is subjective (relativity anyone?), and that unpredictable and uncertain are not the same things. I can predict the outcome of events, I just cannot do so with absolute certainty.

Quantum Mechanics says that if you want to know the speed of a particle you can't determine its position. That makes many macroscopic events uncertain (but statistically predictable).

On the other hand, Franko claims that the problem is that they seem to be unpredictable (probabilistic) because we don't have enough information about both: their position and speed at the same time.

Is it possible that Science will be able to determine both characteristics of a particle in the future? or are they exclusive?.

According to Franko this is possible :rolleyes:

Q-S

whitefork

26th November 2002, 10:38 AM

Franko

26th November 2002, 10:53 AM

Q-Source,

Quantum Mechanics says that if you want to know the speed of a particle you can't determine its position. That makes many macroscopic events uncertain (but statistically predictable).

On the other hand, Franko claims that the problem is that they seem to be unpredictable (probabilistic) because we don't have enough information about both: their position and speed at the same time.

Exactly. When you don’t make an observation you have no idea which slit the particle went through. You can’t tell … so it could have been either, and that is exactly what you see.

But the second you put a working detector on a slit (or both slits), then suddenly (and magically if you are an A-Theist/Pseudo-materialist) the particle starts picking a specific slit to go through.

Surprise! Surprise! :rolleyes:

Is it possible that Science will be able to determine both characteristics of a particle in the future? or are they exclusive?.

According to Franko this is possible :rolleyes:

Q-S

Don’t be rolling your eyes at me like that Mystic-Chick! If you are claiming that You will never be able to do it, then you are claiming that you KNOW that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible and magic in nature.

The Christians won’t suffer w Witch to live, not because they Hate magic, but because they KNOW that ultimately there is no magic. Ultimately everything is explainable, it’s comprehensible, it’s understandable. The only people who’d claim otherwise are people who … deep down … are afraid of the answers … they don’t want to know the Truth …

… it scares them …

Franko

26th November 2002, 11:07 AM

Whitefork (Full-blown A-Theist Religious fanatic)

Feynman … isn’t he the guy that all of the A-Theist think is such a genius because he figured out that when you put a rubber-band in ice water it loses its elasticity??? :rolleyes:

Another quote:

[Discussing the partial reflection of light by glass]

Try as we might to invent a reasonable theory that can explain how a photon "makes up its mind" whether to go through glass or bounce back, it is impossible to predict which way a given photon will go.

Impossible? What if you are the photon?

Is it still impossible then? If “Yes”, then how does the photon do it – magic?

Philosophers have said that if the same circumstances don't always produce the same results, predictions are impossible and science will collapse.

i.e. it’s magic. That is what I have been saying. I guess that makes me a “Philosopher”?

Here is a circumstance -- identical photons are always coming down in the same direction to the same piece of glass -- that produces different results.

When you say that the “photons are the same”, what exactly do you mean? Have the two photons had the same exact histories? How is that even possible? Two photons cannot have the exact same entropy conditions, and source or point of origin, ergo, in what way are they the same?

Isn’t this like claiming that if you conduct an experiment with two individual people, that you will should get the same results, because you are using two identical “Human Beings”? What makes you believe that photons are more uniform that “humans” (on the quantum scale)?

We cannot predict whether a given photo will arrive at A or B [reflected or pass through]. All we can predict is that out of 100 photons that come down, an average of 4 will be reflected by the front surface [of the piece of glass]. Does this mean that physics, a science of great exactitude, has been reduced to calculating only the probability of an event, and not predicting exactly what will happen? Yes. That's a retreat, but that's the way it is: Nature premits us to calculate only probabilities. Yet science has not collapsed.

Richard Feynman, QED. Page 19. (Nobel Prize in physics, 1965)

We cannot predict whether a given person will arrive at a red traffic light [stop or pass through]. All we can predict is that out of 100 people that reach the intersection in question, an average of 4 will be compelled to run the “red” light. Does this mean that physics, a science of great exactitude, has been reduced to calculating only the probability of an event, and not predicting exactly what will happen? Yes. That's a retreat, but that's the way it is: Nature permits us to calculate only probabilities. Yet science has not collapsed, only A-Theism and psuedo-materialism.

If you use arguments from physics to try and prove your position, you will attract the attention of physicists, and they will offer an opinion about your understanding of their science. If you talk about logic, you'll have the opinion of logicians.

Suppose you take your theory to a physicist, and he rejects it on account of your representation of Quantum theory. You can say it's because he is atheistic and is predisposed to reject deism on that ground.

That’s true. No real “scientist” would dare to make a priori assumptions (has YOU have done) and simply assume that there is no “God”. That is absurd. It is not science, it is religious dogma pure and simple.

You go to a theologian, and he sees that business about the Goddess creating one universe but not the others. He will say, that's interesting, but you're rehashing Plotinus, Proclus, and the Gnostics, and they have a more solid theological grounding.

Excellent then follow their belief system if you think it is so great.

Read their works and the critiques, and get back to us.

You brought it up. You go read them if you are interested A-Theist.

Your theologian may be an atheist, too.

Lots of people mislabel themselves.

The worst type of deception is self-deception. It is the root of all evil.

Sooner or later, you may run out of acceptable peers to review your work.

There seems to be no shortage here … or anywhere else I post.

You on the other hand … you never say anything new or interesting. I find you routinely predictable. You are a devout religious fanatic, you are almost completely incapable of independent thinking. You’re a-Theism has made you a mere husk of what you might have been …

Q-Source

26th November 2002, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Q-Source,

Don’t be rolling your eyes at me like that Mystic-Chick!

oh Franko!, this is why I like you :)

posted by Franko

If you are claiming that You will never be able to do it, then you are claiming that you KNOW that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible and magic in nature.

I am not claiming anything :mad: (this is why I don't like you sometimes...)

I am asking a question: is it possible to determine speed and position at the same time?
You say yes
QM says No (I think, that's why I asked Mordred...)

posted by Franko

The Christians won’t suffer w Witch to live, not because they Hate magic, but because they KNOW that ultimately there is no magic. Ultimately everything is explainable, it’s comprehensible, it’s understandable. The only people who’d claim otherwise are people who … deep down … are afraid of the answers … they don’t want to know the Truth …
… it scares them …

I think that all we know at the moment is thanks to many people that work everyday to reach that Truth. The same people that you hate so much, but from who you get so much.

Scare of what?, of what Truth?, why that Truth is not clear, evident?

Q-S

whitefork

26th November 2002, 11:23 AM

i.e. it’s magic. That is what I have been saying. I guess that makes me a “Philosopher”?

Maybe.

A physicist you sure aren't.

Franko

26th November 2002, 11:48 AM

A physicist you sure aren't.

Coming from you whitefork ... that's music to my ears.

… but just out of curiosity, how exactly have you divined this? Are you capable of magically deducing anyone’s occupation over the Internet? How exactly does your mystical power function? Does it have anything to do with your magic “free willy powers” (wishful thinking)?

BTW … what was Einstein’s occupation when he came up with the idea for Relativity?

whitefork

26th November 2002, 11:50 AM

Patent clerk.

Just out of curiousity, Franko, do you know anything at all about Quantum Mechanics, or do you have a VB program that combines terms into more-or-less grammatical sentences and send them out?

Franko

26th November 2002, 11:56 AM

Patent clerk.

Well since he wasn’t an official “high priest” of the one true faith. I guess we can simply dismiss his “theories” as the ramblings of a mad-man … ?

Just out of curiousity, Franko, do you know anything at all about Quantum Mechanics, or do you have a VB program that combines terms into more-or-less grammatical sentences and send them out?

1) I am a computer program – an algorithm (or alternately)
2) I am merely a figment of your subconscious imagination (still an algorithm).

Take your pick.

whitefork

26th November 2002, 11:59 AM

If that's the case, get a better debugger. :)

Franko

26th November 2002, 12:57 PM

If that's the case, get a better debugger.

Look who's talking ... :rolleyes:

Mordred

26th November 2002, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Mildred,

Since Loki is claiming that QM is magical, and since I asked you about this directly the other day and you failed to respond (surprise - surprise), howz about fessing up?

Do you believe that QM (the Universe, the Big Bang) is ultimately comprehensible, or incomprehensible, and what is your reason for believing this?

If you bother to look back, you will find that I did indeed answer your question. Q-Source even quoted some of it for you. It came in two parts. Yes, the universe does seem to be comprehensible, and Heisenberg never said that it wasn't, unless you can prove that probability leads directly to incomprehensibility (which I asked you to do, and so far you have not). Then, I asked you how comprehensibility would imply determinism (a question you have also yet to reply to).

Mordred

26th November 2002, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source
Is it possible that Science will be able to determine both characteristics of a particle in the future? or are they exclusive?.

I'm going to answer this for you like any true scientist should, even though I'm sure Franko will pounce on it as some kind of evidence for a victory. Is it possible that we will someday be able to determine both momentum and position with arbitrary precision in violation of the uncertainty principle...yes.

However, now I will also qualify that statement as I think any physicist would. If we were to ever accomplish this feat, it would have to be by some physical means not known to us at this time. It would essentially rewrite a fundamental part of quantum mechanics and our physical interpretations of it. It would then require a new theory which would take this into account, continue to explain all the experimental evidence currently explained by quantum mechanics, any new experimental evidence that is uncovered, and retain the predictive powers currently demonstrated by quantum mechanics. This includes things like the double slit experiment that I'm going to have a further chat with Franko about in my next post.

All that having been said. As a physicist, I am left asking myself this question...is there any reason at all that I should actually believe this will be the case? I concede it is possible, but is it at all likely given the evidence before me? My honest answer to this is no. There is no indication that the uncertainty principle will ever be "broken". There is no indication of the existance of any hidden variables that would allow a workaround. Quantum mechanics will continue to be refined, generalized, and likely give way in a sense to a new theory in the future...however, there is no indication at all that we will ever return to the classical, Newtonian, clockwork universe interpretation that Franko espouses. Now, I could be wrong of course, but the current evidence available points to this not being the case...and I can only discuss such things as far as the current evidence can take me.

In short, Franko's objections are philosophical ones, and have no empirical basis.

Franko

26th November 2002, 08:32 PM

Mordred,

If you bother to look back, you will find that I did indeed answer your question.

So we get another A-Theist mystery answer that is invisible to everyone but other A-Theists?

Yes, the universe does seem to be comprehensible …

Really? Then explain what it was like before the “Big Bang”, and explain what it is like when there is No Time? Are you honestly claiming that you can make that comprehensible?

Who do you think you are kidding Mordred?

You are really gonna explain how the entire Universe popped out of nothing taking a big doo-doo all over Thermodynamics in the process?

What’s your empirical evidence that the immutable laws of thermodynamics can be violated thusly?

… and Heisenberg never said that it wasn't, unless you can prove that probability leads directly to incomprehensibility (which I asked you to do, and so far you have not).

Well obviously one of us doesn’t understand the meaning or ramifications of the phrase “No Hidden Variables” Since you are the smart “Scientist”, and I am just the whacky “Deist”, why don’t you explain exactly what it means to all of us mere mortals without benefit of your extensive “scientific” background? (blessed by the “One True Faith”)

Then, I asked you how comprehensibility would imply determinism (a question you have also yet to reply to).

I guess, to me, it is self-evident?

When you say that something is Comprehensible, you are claiming that it is the opposite of Random, or Supernatural, or Magic – you are claiming that it is Logical.

If a thing is logical/comprehensible, that means (it implies by necessity) that the “thing” is following a logical sequence. Know the algorithm and all pertinent data, and you can predict the sequence, all the time, with 100% accuracy.

But if the thing is incomprehensible – either the algorithm, or the data – then it is impossible to predict the sequence.

Mordred

26th November 2002, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Q-Source,

Exactly. When you don’t make an observation you have no idea which slit the particle went through. You can’t tell … so it could have been either, and that is exactly what you see.

But once again, that isn't what you see. You don't see that the particle could have went through either. You see an interference pattern. A pattern which could only be produced if the particle actually goes through both slits. When we don't break down the wave function by measuring the particle, it appears to travel both of the possible paths at the same time, and the wave functions along these two paths interfere with each other. That is the only possible explanation for the production of the observed outcome as far as I know. If you can provide another, then do so. I do have to warn you however, that there are also other, more complex instances of particles seemingly traveling multiple paths at the same time. If you wish to do away with this aspect of quantum mechanics you will have to explain them all sufficiently with another model.

But the second you put a working detector on a slit (or both slits), then suddenly (and magically if you are an A-Theist/Pseudo-materialist) the particle starts picking a specific slit to go through.

Surprise! Surprise! :rolleyes:

Not a surprise. Exactly what is predicted. When the measurement is taken the wave function breaks down. This is not unlike finding that a particle is spin up when you measure it, but acts just as it is both spin up and spin down beforehand.

Franko

26th November 2002, 08:44 PM

Q-Source,

oh Franko!, this is why I like you

Right back at ya – Darling! ;) (She’s a hotty)

I am not claiming anything (this is why I don't like you sometimes...)

Ohhh, but Sweety, you are so beautiful when you are angry. … hehe …

I am asking a question: is it possible to determine speed and position at the same time?
You say yes
QM says No (I think, that's why I asked Mordred...)

Right … theoretically – I’d say Yes. The particle itself definitely knows its speed and position. If it doesn’t … then who or what does know?

Its kind of like you Q-Source. Imagine that you are a particle. Your last name begins with the letter “A” thru “M” you end up going through one slit; your last name begins with the letters “N” thru “Z” and you go thru slit #2. You know where you are (position), and how fast you are going (speed), and you know BOTH at the same time.

I think that all we know at the moment is thanks to many people that work everyday to reach that Truth. The same people that you hate so much, but from who you get so much.

I told you before … I don’t Hate the entities that carry it … I Hate the idea (meme) itself.

I don’t have to thank them for anything, other then maybe trying to annihilate us all. You don’t have anything to thank them for either.

As for being scared of the Truth … don’t ask me why? I guess some entities are just intrinsically insane?

Mordred

26th November 2002, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Mordred,

So we get another A-Theist mystery answer that is invisible to everyone but other A-Theists?

The answer is there in plain view for anyone to read. If you have a problem with it...find it incomplete or unacceptable in some way...then ask me to clarify it for you. Do not claim that I simply did not answer. Doing such a thing would be considered by me to be something I call lying.

Really? Then explain what it was like before the “Big Bang”, and explain what it is like when there is No Time? Are you honestly claiming that you can make that comprehensible?

Hmmm...we went from talking about the universe itself, to what existed before the universe. Have you ever considered that one might be comprehensible while the other is not? The universe as it exists today seems to be comprehensible. Before the universe existed, such questions are much more up in the air. I do believe that you are mixing definitions of comprehensible all throughout this to suit your needs. Do you constantly mean comprehensible as in able to be comprehended (understood), or do you mean it as you have described it below (comprehensible=logical)? They are not the same thing. Can you not understand something that is illogical? Would you also mind defining what constitutes logical? Are you limiting this to only those things that are valid in a single system of logic? What about those that are valid in some, but not others? Why should we choose one system over the others?

Outside of all this. I believe that the concepts you ask about might be comprehensible (logical under a certain system). However, I do not know if we are capable of comprehending (understanding) them. I think I discussed this in the nothing thread...we are not well equipped to deal with such things conceptually. We have begun dealing with them mathematically with some success.

You are really gonna explain how the entire Universe popped out of nothing taking a big doo-doo all over Thermodynamics in the process?

What’s your empirical evidence that the immutable laws of thermodynamics can be violated thusly?

I would never venture to do such a thing. I could however explain how the universe originated from nothing without breaking any of the laws of thermodynamics. In fact I have in other threads, and other have as well, and they have linked to articles which go more in depth on the subject. I suggest reading the recent threads about big bang theory again.

Well obviously one of us doesn’t understand the meaning or ramifications of the phrase “No Hidden Variables” Since you are the smart “Scientist”, and I am just the whacky “Deist”, why don’t you explain exactly what it means to all of us mere mortals without benefit of your extensive “scientific” background? (blessed by the “One True Faith”)

I have never called you wacky. I have never claimed to be a one true anything. I bothered to do the work to secure a degree in physics. Doing so I feel justified in referring to myself as a scientist or a physicist. I have never claimed this makes me somehow superior to you outside of the knowledge that comes from a more in depth, formal study of a subject.

The ramification of the problems with the hidden variable interpretaion is that one must accept the Copenhagen interpretation as superior (as it does not suffer from the same problems and is more parsimonious), and therefore accept indeterminancy.

I guess, to me, it is self-evident?

Quite convincing.

When you say that something is Comprehensible, you are claiming that it is the opposite of Random, or Supernatural, or Magic – you are claiming that it is Logical.

If a thing is logical/comprehensible, that means (it implies by necessity) that the “thing” is following a logical sequence. Know the algorithm and all pertinent data, and you can predict the sequence, all the time, with 100% accuracy.

Again, I think you are mixing definitions within your arguments. I contend that the universe does seem to be comprehensible, but does not conform to the arbitrary system of logic you wish to impose on it.

wraith

27th November 2002, 12:30 AM

just for ***** and giggles, why chose the name "Mordred"?

King Arthur was 50 times the king as he was, and probably still is...
:eek:

Q-Source

27th November 2002, 07:48 AM

Q-Source: Is it possible to determine in the future the position and speed of a particle?

Mordred:
I'm going to answer this for you like any true scientist should, even though I'm sure Franko will pounce on it as some kind of evidence for a victory. Is it possible that we will someday be able to determine both momentum and position with arbitrary precision in violation of the uncertainty principle...yes.

Mordred,

I don't have the slightest doubt about your intellectual honesty.

Science is always opened to evaluate new possibilities, new theories and new descriptions about the Universe. I don't think that any true scientist has a-priori conclusion about anything, however when it comes to the God question then it seems that scientific-atheists hold a conclusion, but the true is that nobody has ever tested the hypothesis that there is a God.

posted by Mordred

It would essentially rewrite a fundamental part of quantum mechanics and our physical interpretations of it. It would then require a new theory which would take this into account, continue to explain all the experimental evidence currently explained by quantum mechanics, any new experimental evidence that is uncovered, and retain the predictive powers currently demonstrated by quantum mechanics.

Yes, now QM provides a very good approach to understand the Universe, and as a human race, we still have a huge amount of time to improve or develop new theories that can explain everything.
How many years since QM exists?, nothing if we compare it to how old is the Universe.

posted by Mordred

All that having been said. As a physicist, I am left asking myself this question...is there any reason at all that I should actually believe this will be the case? I concede it is possible, but is it at all likely given the evidence before me? My honest answer to this is no. There is no indication that the uncertainty principle will ever be "broken". There is no indication of the existance of any hidden variables that would allow a workaround. Quantum mechanics will continue to be refined, generalized, and likely give way in a sense to a new theory in the future...

So, what you say is that with the current scientific knowledge that we have at the moment (QM), it is not possible to attempt to explain or suggest that the Universe behaves in a different way...

In short you say that :

posted by Mordred

Franko's objections are philosophical ones, and have no empirical basis.

I do not think that Franko thinks that his objections have empirical basis (am I correct?). What he says is that the current knowledge does not provide the ultimate answers and explanations about the Universe and us. The only problem is that, instead of taking what we have (scientific approach), he just dismisses it.

Q-S

Q-Source

27th November 2002, 08:09 AM

posted by Franko

Right … theoretically – I’d say Yes. The particle itself definitely knows its speed and position. If it doesn’t … then who or what does know?

Oh, I see. The particle itself KNOWS its speed and position. The particle is conscious.

posted by Franko

Its kind of like you Q-Source. Imagine that you are a particle. Your last name begins with the letter “A” thru “M” you end up going through one slit; your last name begins with the letters “N” thru “Z” and you go thru slit #2. You know where you are (position), and how fast you are going (speed), and you know BOTH at the same time.

I see clearly now, because you consider that humans are particles you implied that it is possible to determine position and speed at the same time.

posted by Franko

I told you before … I don’t Hate the entities that carry it … I Hate the idea (meme) itself.

I remember, but you seem to forget it very often. Thanks to those entities that carry those memes, we have reached such level of understanding...

posted by Franko

I don’t have to thank them for anything, other then maybe trying to annihilate us all. You don’t have anything to thank them for either.

As for being scared of the Truth … don’t ask me why? I guess some entities are just intrinsically insane?

Ah! the Truth.... I wonder why YOU are so scared to answer questions about the "Truth" :confused: .

Nevermind, I know the answers to my questions.

Q-S

Franko

27th November 2002, 12:59 PM

Q-Source,

Oh, I see. The particle itself KNOWS its speed and position. The particle is conscious.

That would depend on how you define the term “conscious”.

All I am saying is that just because you don’t “know” where the particle is, doesn’t mean that the particle doesn’t “know” where it is. If the particle didn’t know (if TLOP didn’t know) then how can you even claim that the particle exists? If it exists, then it has a speed AND a position. Mordred, Heisenberg, and Bell are claiming that it doesn’t – they are claiming it is magic.

I see clearly now, because you consider that humans are particles you implied that it is possible to determine position and speed at the same time.

For yourself … sure, isn’t that rather obvious?

I remember, but you seem to forget it very often. Thanks to those entities that carry those memes, we have reached such level of understanding...

You are kidding yourself Source. The entities that carry that meme have done nothing but harm us. They produce Nothing, they simply consume and annihilate. They are worthless unless they can be forced to alter their course.

All scientific progress is made by Optimists. Being an A-Theist crushes the intuition.

Ah! the Truth.... I wonder why YOU are so scared to answer questions about the "Truth"

Which question is that?

Mordred

27th November 2002, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by wraith
just for ***** and giggles, why chose the name "Mordred"?

King Arthur was 50 times the king as he was, and probably still is...
:eek:

I don't believe that Mordred was ever king, as he died before Arthur. I used to go by Merlin online about six years ago, but that seemed an oft overused name. I chose Mordred because I have loved Arthurian legend since I first read it at around eight years old...and I find Mordred to be an interesting character who is often overlooked or misunderstood.

Franko

27th November 2002, 02:24 PM

Ohhh Mordred is perfect for you you Necromancer ...

Mordred

27th November 2002, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source
Mordred,

I don't have the slightest doubt about your intellectual honesty.

Science is always opened to evaluate new possibilities, new theories and new descriptions about the Universe. I don't think that any true scientist has a-priori conclusion about anything, however when it comes to the God question then it seems that scientific-atheists hold a conclusion, but the true is that nobody has ever tested the hypothesis that there is a God.

I don't think I particularly like the term scientific-atheist. I am a generally scientific thinker by nature. I am also an atheist. While the two are obviously linked, I would never claim that science has proven that no god exists. That is not the reason for my atheism. I don't really have a conclusion to the question does a god exist, if that is meant to imply conclusiveness. I have a current position. That position can and has changed in the past, it may again in the future. Either way, all I can rightly say anything about can only be said based on the evidence currently available to me. Anything else is wild speculation in my eyes. The reason that most god hypotheses have never been tested scientifically is that they are supernatural in nature.

Yes, now QM provides a very good approach to understand the Universe, and as a human race, we still have a huge amount of time to improve or develop new theories that can explain everything.
How many years since QM exists?, nothing if we compare it to how old is the Universe.

I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. One of my points against what Franko seems to believe though, is that if you look at the evolution of scientific thought from the beginning (at least the recorded beginning) you can see it tend to be moving in certain directions. One revolution was away from the more philosophical methods of the Greeks to empirical methods. Another, away from the clockwork universe of classical physics to the relativistic, indeterminant universe of modern physics. Franko is behind the curve on both of these scores. It doesn't bother me so much that he wants to hold on to these things for whatever reasons he has...I could chalk that up to a simple disagreement and just have fun arguing it. What bothers me is how he presents his position and how he goes about attacking mine. He constantly misuses and misapplies scientific terminology in his own little belief structure. This is the same kind of thing that a lot of New Age types have been doing in recent years in order to imply some form of scientific validity in what they say. He constructs strawmen of current physical theories. He calls me a mystic for accepting them as the best current explanations of the universe (even though they are based strictly on empiricism). I see his whole approach as a direct affront to science itself, and physics in particular. As a physicist I'm obviously quite likely to take issue with it.

So, what you say is that with the current scientific knowledge that we have at the moment (QM), it is not possible to attempt to explain or suggest that the Universe behaves in a different way...

Well, obviously it is possible to attempt it...but any new explanation would have to explain the same observations that quantum mechanics explains, others that it cannot, and do it in a better way in order to displace quantum mechanics...which is exactly what Franko would need to do in order for me to believe his whole scheme. If he could provide a better explanation for the things we actually observe, I would believe him...but from what I've seen of his beliefs, he cannot explain the observations that quantum mechanics can quite easily. When I have asked him to explain them he has either sidestepped, ignored me, or misinterpreted the experimental results to better suit him.

I do not think that Franko thinks that his objections have empirical basis (am I correct?). What he says is that the current knowledge does not provide the ultimate answers and explanations about the Universe and us. The only problem is that, instead of taking what we have (scientific approach), he just dismisses it.

Q-S

I don't think our current knowledge gives any ultimate answers either. I don't know if we will ever find those answers. I hope we will someday. I am sure however, just as Franko's hero (and one of mine as well) was, that the best way to get to those answers is through the scientific method. There is no indication that this method is going to lead us back to determinism at this point.

Mordred

27th November 2002, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Franko
All scientific progress is made by Optimists. Being an A-Theist crushes the intuition.

And you know this how? There is a certain need for optimism in scientific research. You have to have a kind of belief in your own abilities and in the idea that whatever you are attempting in fact can be done. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with your outlook on life or the universe overall. Besides which, atheism does not necessitate pessimism (unfounded assumption, prove it). I would call myself a realist in regards to my view of life, and an optimist in regards to the future of scientific inquiry.

wraith

27th November 2002, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Franko
That would depend on how you define the term “conscious”.

All I am saying is that just because you don’t “know” where the particle is, doesn’t mean that the particle doesn’t “know” where it is. If the particle didn’t know (if TLOP didn’t know) then how can you even claim that the particle exists? If it exists, then it has a speed AND a position. Mordred, Heisenberg, and Bell are claiming that it doesn’t – they are claiming it is magic.

Can I get an Amen!?!

Aardvark_DK

28th November 2002, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Franko
The entities that carry that meme have done nothing but harm us. They produce Nothing, they simply consume and annihilate.
This is lifted straight from Mein Kampf, isn't it?

Franko

10th December 2002, 11:07 AM

You know … new born babies sleep about 20 hours out of every 24 (unfortunately non-contiguous).

So I was wondering … What do babies dream about?

I mean, they haven’t done anything yet, so what experiences do they have to base a dream on?

Q-Source

10th December 2002, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Franko
You know … new born babies sleep about 20 hours out of every 24 (unfortunately non-contiguous).

So I was wondering … What do babies dream about?

I mean, they haven’t done anything yet, so what experiences do they have to base a dream on?

What are you talking about Franko?

You changed your previous post, what for? :confused:

De_Bunk

10th December 2002, 11:33 AM

Q-Source

10th December 2002, 11:46 AM

Leave me alone De_Bunk

Find somebody else that can help you to embarrase yourself...

I won´t do it anymore

Good luck!

Q-S

Franko

10th December 2002, 11:57 AM

What are you talking about Franko?

You changed your previous post, what for?

I'm talking about babies.

What do you suppose they dream about?

What can they dream about -- they haven't had any experiences yet ... have they?

Franko

10th December 2002, 12:01 PM

Hope this helps explain everything.....

No it doesn't. Why are you so scared of me De-Bungler?

Why all the logical fallacies?

Why not just make your case for your "free willy" god religious fanatic?

You don't like being exposed as the giant hypocrite that you are moron-boy -- do you?

run along to the place where no one will dare question your beloved precious cult non-skeptic ... www.infidels.org

Q-Source

10th December 2002, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Franko

I'm talking about babies.

What do you suppose they dream about?

What can they dream about -- they haven't had any experiences yet ... have they?

Is it an analogy?

They must dream about what they have experienced in their short lives.

Probably about their mothers, the sound around, the smell, the food, something like that.

I watched a TV programme last night. Even animals (just mammals) dream. Isn´t it strange?

Q-S

De_Bunk

10th December 2002, 12:20 PM

Franko

10th December 2002, 12:25 PM

They must dream about what they have experienced in their short lives.

Maybe they dream about being back in the womb?

But that begs the question … what did they dream when they were in the womb? Did they dream of the days when they were but a lowly sperm?

I wonder what sperm “dream” of?

Probably about their mothers, the sound around, the smell, the food, something like that.

Maybe, but 20 hours a day – based on 4 hours of waking experience? Something seems a tad odd about that.

According to the LD babies sleep so much, because they have a low tolerance to this Universe when they first arrive. They need to build up their resistance.

I watched a TV programme last night. Even animals (just mammals) dream. Isn´t it strange?

From a materialistic POV I think it is very strange. But from an LD POV it makes perfect sense. All living creatures are Gravitons, all living creatures must periodically cycle through lower energy states.

Can you control what happens in your dreams “Q”?

Ever have lucid dreams?

Franko

10th December 2002, 12:26 PM

.....I have no sense of embarrassment....

Yeah Bung-hole, I think every poster on this forum with a brain figured that out ages ago. :rolleyes:

Q-Source

10th December 2002, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Franko

According to the LD babies sleep so much, because they have a low tolerance to this Universe when they first arrive. They need to build up their resistance.

According to the LD?, I don´t think it is exclusive of your philosophy.
In general, we don´t remember anything before being self- aware. But... there are exceptions to this rule...;)

Originally posted by Franko

From a materialistic POV I think it is very strange. But from an LD POV it makes perfect sense. All living creatures are Gravitons, all living creatures must periodically cycle through lower energy states.

It is strange but it is also true. So, LD says that animals are also gravitons???

If they are inferior gravitons, in a lower level of evolution, it means that they can evolve over time, right?.
I have heard that before. It is equal to the karma and reincarnation stuff. But, in LD, is it possible to go back as an inferior graviton?

Originally posted by Franko

Can you control what happens in your dreams “Q”?

Ever have lucid dreams?

No, I haven´t experienced a lucid dream. Have you?

Q-S

De_Bunk

10th December 2002, 12:54 PM

Franko

10th December 2002, 01:00 PM

Q-Source,

According to the LD?, I don´t think it is exclusive of your philosophy.
In general, we don´t remember anything before being self- aware. But... there are exceptions to this rule...

You are ALWAYS self-aware, from the moment you spring from the void, but your self-awareness is always increasing, or decreasing. Let’s say that at come given moment you have an amount of self-awareness equal to X. 10 years later you have self-awareness X + 25 (you’ve grown, you’ve evolved).

Now what happens is, when you cross a certain threshold, lets say you reach a self-awareness level of 100. At that point you may begin to “forget” stuff you were aware of at anything below SA: 20.

It is strange but it is also true. So, LD says that animals are also gravitons???

Yes.

If they are inferior gravitons, in a lower level of evolution, it means that they can evolve over time, right?.

Yes. Also recall that Superior Gravitons tend to control Inferior ones. Especially over time. (short time a lion controls you – long time you control lion).

I have heard that before. It is equal to the karma and reincarnation stuff. But, in LD, is it possible to go back as an inferior graviton?

I don’t want to confuse the issue, but there is a kind of reincarnation in LD. When you die here you are reincarnated in the Metaverse (assuming you are intrinsically good). If you are intrinsically evil you get dumped back into the Abyss (reincarnated there).

But it’s better I you don’t think of it as reincarnation. It’s just your Graviton traveling from one energy state to another. Depending on where you go your memories remain largely intact. Higher = metaverse, lower = the abyss.

No, I haven´t experienced a lucid dream. Have you?

Yeah. They are pretty cool.

Franko

10th December 2002, 01:02 PM

De-Bungy,

Right...im getting bored here on this board...

Which explains why you are diligently following me around like a well trained dog?

Franko

12th December 2002, 10:16 AM

Damn -- check it out ... I am an Illuminator!

And to think a few weeks ago I was merely a postard.

I guess I really am learning some new things on this board ...

c4ts

12th December 2002, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Like i didnt know already...

So scoot back off to Quake...dress up as Elf..and run around the house pretending your Gandalf or whoever...

But...your post about dreaming was beginningto look interesting...unitl i realised it was just another ridiculous troll thread..."Do sperm dream"...another question no one can ever answer....

Cant any of you see...all Franko does is pose questions that have no correct answer....

He is playing you all for fools...and you lot, who seem compelled to answer this moron....seem to think he is being all deep and meaningful...

He's laughing his a** off at the ridiculous things he posts here...and laughs even harder at the fools who are now trying to answer this bullsh*t.....

He can never answer your responses......he hasnt the faintest idea...he thinks up these posts and threads off the top of his head..

Right...im getting bored here on this board...

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail...after a while you wanna kick it up the a** for being so stupid...

De_Bunk

I can't imagine how anybody could keep that up for over 4000 posts and not start to believe it themselves.

Franko

12th December 2002, 10:53 AM

I can't imagine how anybody could keep that up for over 4000 posts and not start to believe it themselves.

Yeah ... we all know that A-Theists don't believe ANYTHING ... :rolleyes:

Whenever you want to provide evidence for "free willy". Apparently De-Bungler has been too busy arguing that elves and dwarves are goblins are more real then the Dungeonmaster. :rolleyes:

c4ts

12th December 2002, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Yeah ... we all know that A-Theists don't believe ANYTHING ... :rolleyes:

Whenever you want to provide evidence for "free willy". Apparently De-Bungler has been too busy arguing that elves and dwarves are goblins are more real then the Dungeonmaster. :rolleyes:

Franko, the A-Theists don't believe you. I don't believe you. Very few posters believe you. The reason why is because: THIS IS A BOARD FOR SKEPTICS, SET UP BY THE RANDI FOUNDATION!! If you make extraordinary claims and do not provide extraordinary evidince, few people are going to believe you. It's like me registering to a Televangelist message board, using logic, and wondering why nobody understands my posts.

Franko

12th December 2002, 12:49 PM

Franko, the A-Theists don't believe you. I don't believe you. Very few posters believe you. The reason why is because: THIS IS A BOARD FOR SKEPTICS, SET UP BY THE RANDI FOUNDATION!! If you make extraordinary claims and do not provide extraordinary evidence

Actually you A-Theists are the NONSKEPTICS!

First you assert that there is no evidence for God, but then you refuse to prove your claim, then you assert that you are not controlled by a higher power, but you refuse to prove your claim. The truth is your beliefs are based on nothing more then your pessimism and insane wishful thinking.

YOU are NO SKEPTIC. You are simply a cynic pretending to be a skeptic. If you want a place where no one will question your absurd unfounded religious beliefs I suggest you try … www.infidels.org

… few people are going to believe you.

Speak for YOURSELF A-Theist, or please cite your evidence that you speak for more than yourself here.

It's like me registering to a Televangelist message board, using logic, and wondering why nobody understands my posts.

What the in the hell are you babbling about you whiny pathetic little A-Theist nitwit???

c4ts

12th December 2002, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Actually you A-Theists are the NONSKEPTICS!

First you assert that there is no evidence for God, but then you refuse to prove your claim, then you assert that you are not controlled by a higher power, but you refuse to prove your claim. The truth is your beliefs are based on nothing more then your pessimism and insane wishful thinking.

YOU are NO SKEPTIC. You are simply a cynic pretending to be a skeptic. If you want a place where no one will question your absurd unfounded religious beliefs I suggest you try … www.infidels.org

Speak for YOURSELF A-Theist, or please cite your evidence that you speak for more than yourself here.

What the in the hell are you babbling about you whiny pathetic little A-Theist nitwit???

What is your basis for saying that I'm not a skeptic?

c4ts

12th December 2002, 12:58 PM

So what about God? You said I was a cynic, not a skeptic. You can prove that. Here is what you need to do:

1) Provide evidence of me being cynical, but not skeptical
2) Prove that a skeptic cannot also be a cynic
3) Hope I don't provide any solid evidence to disprove your theory

Franko

12th December 2002, 01:04 PM

c4ts:
What is your basis for saying that I'm not a skeptic?

You claim there is no evidence for God. Can you prove this claim?

Come on NON-SKEPTIC ... back up your claim. No double standards here ...

c4ts

12th December 2002, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Franko

You claim there is no evidence for God. Can you prove this claim?

Come on NON-SKEPTIC ... back up your claim. No double standards here ...

What double standards? You made two claims and you're asking me to back one so you will back the other. How about I make a claim and back it, and you support the claim you've already made. Would you prefer that?

Aardvark_DK

12th December 2002, 01:46 PM

Why the hell do people keep discussing anything with Franko? Why not just find yourself a nice brick wall to bang your head against?

c4ts

12th December 2002, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
Why the hell do people keep discussing anything with Franko? Why not just find yourself a nice brick wall to bang your head against?

Some of us need stress relief.

Franko

12th December 2002, 01:59 PM

What double standards?

Your double standard.

Look, there is no evidence that when I flip this coin it will land “Heads” up. I guess according to you that means it will definitely land “Tails” up?

There is no evidence that X + Y = 17. I suppose that according to you that means that X + Y = 17 is FALSE – definitely NOT TRUE?

That’s the same thing you are doing with “God” and you’re a-Theism, and I realize that guys like YOU and Aardvark really really hate it when I point out how foolish and absurd your “Logic” is.

If you don’t like being exposed as the stupid nitwit that you obvious are perhaps you should run along so you can be with your fellow Religious fanatics: www.infidels.org

You made two claims and you're asking me to back one so you will back the other. How about I make a claim and back it, and you support the claim you've already made. Would you prefer that?

The only claim that I am making is that You don’t have “free will”, and you have NO EVIDENCE that there is NO EVIDENCE for God. Your claim is simply insane wishful thinking and self-delusion on your part. I realize that you like being insane, and therefore you will refuse to provide any evidence for your beliefs.

Just what we need around here, another A-Theist that wants to demonstrate what it is NOT to be a SKEPTIC.

Aardvark whined:
Why the hell do people keep discussing anything with Franko? Why not just find yourself a nice brick wall to bang your head against?

Aardyvark, refuses to provide a scrap of evidence for any of the nonsense he believes either. You two make a nice couple
… :rolleyes:

Aardvark_DK

12th December 2002, 02:03 PM

Woohoo! I finally got a Franko nickname! (Not the most imaginative, but I'm thankful for what I get.)

Franko

12th December 2002, 02:08 PM

Woohoo! I finally got a Franko nickname! (Not the most imaginative, but I'm thankful for what I get.)

Enjoy it pissant. Soon you will cease to exist.

c4ts

12th December 2002, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Your double standard.

Look, there is no evidence that when I flip this coin it will land “Heads” up. I guess according to you that means it will definitely land “Tails” up?

There is no evidence that X + Y = 17. I suppose that according to you that means that X + Y = 17 is FALSE – definitely NOT TRUE.

That’s the same thing you are doing with “God” and you’re a-Theism, and I realize that guys like YOU and Aardvark really really hate it when I point out how foolish and absurd your “Logic” is.

If you don’t like being exposed as the stupid nitwit that you obvious are perhaps you should run along so you can be with your fellow Religious fanatics: www.infidels.org

The only claim that I am making is that You don’t have “free will”, and you have NO EVIDENCE that there is NO EVIDENCE for God. Your claim is simply insane wishful thinking and self-delusion on your part. I realize that you like being insane, and therefore you will refuse to provide any evidence for your beliefs.

Just what we need around here, another A-Theist that wants to demonstrate what it is NOT to be a SKEPTIC.

Franko, your statement was that I was a cynic, and therefore only pretending to be a skeptic because I can't be both at the same time. That's a positive statement and it can be proven. I EVEN SHOWED YOU ONE WAY OF DOING IT! Now prove it, since you are the one who made the claim in the first place. You have made an unsupported argument against me. I merely ask that you support it. Stop brining up irrelevant things like "is there a God," because God or not, you're still not answering me. And if I say "yes Franko, I believe you" so you can get on to explaining your statement that I am not a skeptic, you can just use the instance where I said "yes Franko, I believe you" as evidince against me. You have about 2 posts left before I give up on you. Be assured that when people give up on you, it's not always becuase you're right and they're wrong.

Franko

12th December 2002, 02:18 PM

Franko, your statement was that I was a cynic, and therefore only pretending to be a skeptic because I can't be both at the same time. That's a positive statement and it can be proven. I EVEN SHOWED YOU ONE WAY OF DOING IT! Now prove it, since you are the one who made the claim in the first place.

You want me to prove that I believe YOU are a cynic?

Other then the fact that I am claiming to believe you are a cynic how do you expect me to prove it?

You have made an unsupported argument against me.

No it is supported. I really DO believe you are an idiot cynic and complete and total brainwashed religious fanatic. Do you really believe that you can prove I don’t believe it?

Ohh, I can’t wait …

I merely ask that you support it.

You are an A-Theist.

You believe that you have magic “free willy” powers which you cannot prove.

Once you pretend that you control your own Destiny it is relatively easy for you to claim that there is no evidence for god.

Then you make the claim that you will cease to exist when you die – based on no evidence.

Then you make the claim that existence is meaningless – based on no evidence.

Then you make the really ridiculous claim that A-Theists are just as moral as Theists! Hehehe! Hysterical!

Stop brining up irrelevant things like "is there a God," because God or not, you're still not answering me. And if I say "yes Franko, I believe you" so you can get on to explaining your statement that I am not a skeptic, you can just use the instance where I said "yes Franko, I believe you" as evidence against me. You have about 2 posts left before I give up on you.

Ohh you are hooked now little Graviton. I bet you won’t be able to resist me if you try.

Be assured that when people give up on you, it's not always becuase you're right and they're wrong.

No … ultimately, that is exactly the reason. But in the short term it is because A-Theists are spineless cowards and adherents the ultimate Fear-Based Religion.

c4ts

12th December 2002, 02:32 PM

c4ts

12th December 2002, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Then you make the really ridiculous claim that A-Theists are just as moral as Theists! Hehehe! Hysterical!

Ohh you are hooked now little Graviton. I bet you won’t be able to resist me if you try.

No … ultimately, that is exactly the reason. But in the short term it is because A-Theists are spineless cowards and adherents the ultimate Fear-Based Religion.

Weren't you also making the claim that "A-Theists" were immoral becuase they didn't fear divine consequence?

The Fool

12th December 2002, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Franko

You believe that you have magic “free willy” powers which you cannot prove.

So do you little Franko, so do you.......oops, sorry, you only believe you have free will "sometimes"...Are you going to provide us with proof for your Free willy? I expect not. You demand others prove what you yourself believe...now that is truly hilarious.

Franko

12th December 2002, 03:39 PM

One problem: belief is somehow supported. You convict someone of a crime because you believe they are responsible, but there's this whole thing between conviction and punishment called a trial, which determines whether or not the accused person is guilty or not guilty. The trial is where you look at evidence! You don't sentence people to life in prison because you believe they're guilty,

Ohh we have plenty of evidence on YOU.

Plus you have insulted the judge, and her followers don’t take kindly to that.

… so don't go assuming I'm not a skeptic just because you believe I'm not a skeptic.

You are obviously NOT a SKEPTIC because of YOUR actions.

If you don’t want to be perceived as a nitwit A-Theist, then I suggest you stop acting like a nitwit A-Theist.

It appears that you bring up God because you know I can't prove it to you but you can prove it to yourself, and try to use that to distract me from the fact that you don't know why you said I wasn't skeptic. I admit it's funny in a stupid sort of way, but still, that statement is unsupported.

I am not even sure what you are rambling about any more?

The Fool

12th December 2002, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Franko

They Fear being controlled. They Fear God, they fear Fate.

So instead they pretend that they have magic "free willy" powers.

It would be funny and cute if it weren't so sad ...

would this be the same "free willy" powers that logical deists get "sometimes"?

Franko

12th December 2002, 03:51 PM

Weren't you also making the claim that "A-Theists" were immoral becuase they didn't fear divine consequence?

They Fear being controlled. They Fear God, they fear Fate.

So instead they pretend that they have magic "free willy" powers.

It would be funny and cute if it weren't so sad ...

The Fool

12th December 2002, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Franko
So instead they pretend that they have magic "free willy" powers.

are these the same powers you believe exist "sometimes"?

Franko

13th December 2002, 09:03 AM

Fool you really are a dense little turd aren't you?

I don't expect you to understand "control" you still haven't managed to get the concept of "evidence" down yet.

As in, what is your evidence for non-existent "free willy"?

You are like the elephant. he was utterly obsessed with the idea of "free will" he just had to have it, or it was going to make him insane.

he became very obsessive regarding me and this issue ... just like you have become very obsessive about it.

Why are you so fixated on Me, Fool? Shouldn't You be off trying to find that "killer-evidence" for your magic powers so you can shut me up once and for all?

What is your evidence for "free willy" Fool?

Come on ... you do want to pretend to be a Skeptic don't you? A-Theists are required to pretend to be Skeptics it hurts recruitment if you can't keep up the facade that you are not a Religion ...

De_Bunk

13th December 2002, 09:46 AM

Franko

13th December 2002, 09:53 AM

De-Bungler...

Still posting garbage are you....

I’m waiting for YOU to demonstrate the “superiority” of your belief system.

The one singular point that you have repeated in nearly every post you have ever made..

Your “free willy” God doesn’t exist A-Theist (cynical non-Skeptical book-burner) – deal with it.

BTW....Does anyone know what Franko's point is...after all this time...

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

Or does anyone else think that this total idiot is a trolling kook...

We are all aware of what YOU want everyone to believe De-Flunked. I have noticed you getting bitch-slapped by several of the other A-Theists lately. What does that tell you religious fanatic?

I don’t suppose you ever intend on presenting ANY evidence for your dogmatic assertions Non-Skeptic?

I didn’t think so. Instead I command you to continue following me around while whining like a pathetic little girl …

If you are truly tired of having your religious beliefs questioned De-Bunked-by-Me then perhaps you should try your Cult’s official site www.infidels.org

De_Bunk

13th December 2002, 10:07 AM

Franko

13th December 2002, 10:26 AM

Is that your response De-Bungler?

Ohhh, that's right -- you can't respond!

You have NOTHING but Dogma and Faith to support your unfounded fanatical religious beliefs!

Yeah, and when you play D&D Elves and Goblins are more real then the DM sitting next to you -- right? :rolleyes:

De_Bunk

13th December 2002, 11:01 AM

Upchurch

13th December 2002, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Titanpoint
..isn't it time the R&P forum just wrote off Franko as severely delusional and just get on with life?
Remeber this? At the time, I agreed with both parts fully, but lately, I've been reminded that life has consequences.

Franko brings nothing of value to this board and his continual repition of straw man arguements has caused, in my opinion, harm to it. Franko's behavior is unacceptable and if there were a movement to remove him from the board, I would be in support of it.

Franko has every right to be an offensive jerk, but that is no reason anyone to put up with him.

Upchurch

CWL

13th December 2002, 12:11 PM

Yea... the Compatabilist View on Free Will Thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=10623&perpage=40&pagenumber=3) could have been a perfectly enjoyable discussion on the historical origin of the concept of "free will".

Instead it degenerated into Franko's very own deleting-reposting-deleting-reposting spamming show. It is virtually impossible to have a serious discussion in the midst of all his straw-men, ad hominems and posting antics.

Franko

13th December 2002, 12:37 PM

CryingWhiningLoser,

Yea... the Compatabilist View on Free Will Thread could have been a perfectly enjoyable discussion on the historical origin of the concept of "free will".

Unfortunately for you Loser, this thread is Regarding Franko and NOT Regarding the Confusionist view on “free willy”. But feel free to post ANY evidence that you have for your ridiculous assertion that you have magical powers CWLunatic.

Instead it degenerated into Franko's very own deleting-reposting-deleting-reposting spamming show. It is virtually impossible to have a serious discussion in the midst of all his straw-men, ad hominems and posting antics.

Ohhh boo-hoo-hoo, when are you going to provide your EVIDENCE for “free willy” CWL, or when are you going to CONCEDE that YOU have been WRONG all along, and your religious beliefs are nothing but a farce – insane wishful thinking and self-delusion?

CWL

13th December 2002, 12:44 PM

http://www.jamezbrown.com/mysmilies/contrib/edoom/sleeping.gif

Franko

13th December 2002, 12:59 PM

De-Bungler,

Explain to me how not believing in anything religious whatsoever....is a religion...

Define “Religion”.

How else am I suppose to know that you and I are referring to the same thing.

For me a Religion is ones metaphysical beliefs regarding the nature and origin of the Universe. Are you claiming that A-Theism does not fit this description?

Or are you saying non-belief is similiar to a religion...

There is no such thing as NON-Belief.

If there is, then explain exactly what you mean.

If I flip a coin, I call it “Heads” or “Tails”, where is the non-belief exactly? If I call “Heads” that is a non-belief in “Tails”, but really it is a BELIEF in “HEADS”.

This is basic logic and statistics De-Bungler, is you’re a-Theism based entirely on a faulty understanding of basic logic and statistics? That’s sure what it looks like …

You seem to making a statement that not believing in God is a recognised religion...

I am making the statement that You A-Theists are JUST as Religious as ANY other Religion, if not moreso. You believe that you have the “One True Faith”, a monopoly on the Truth, that you are “superior” to all other religions, and that any other variety of Theist is a nitwit by comparison.

In short, you believe and act EXACTLY the same as ANY other religious fanatic I have ever observed. Yet you want me to believe you are fundamentally different? You’ll have to make a better case …

Or, once again, do you mean its alike to a religion..

A-Theism is just another brand of Theism. It is just another religion claiming to have a monopoly on the Truth, claiming to show the faithful the right and true path, and claiming to be superior to ALL other belief systems.

This religion you keep talking about...

1) Is it a legally recognised religion...you know recognised by law.....and is stated so.

What does being legally recognized have to do with being a Religion? Are you claiming that a religious person who’s religion is not recognized by some government agency is not really Religious?

Are you serious?

2) Does everyone know of this religion...

There may be someone living in a cave somewhere who doesn’t know what A-Theism is. So what? If one person in the world doesn’t know what you believe that makes it not a Religion? I gues no one is religious if that is the definition.

3) Are there recognised places of worship...registered legally as a "Place of Worship"

Are you seriously claiming that ALL religions must have a temple and weekly mass services? I guess that means Logical Deism isn’t a religion either? Or the ancient Roman, Greek and Egyptian “religions” weren’t religions either according to you?

4)) What recognised titles are its leaders given...and are they registered as "religious leaders"

Yes and yes.

“Scientist” = Priest
“Physicist” = High Priest
“Nobel Prize Winner” = Saint or Demigod

5) What country did it originate....who created it...

Ohh A-Theism has been around since the dawn of Time – don’t you think?

Or are you going to ignore this....

Sensible questions from me...just asking you to clarify a point..

But i have no doubt you will not or cannot answer...

So much for that prophecy De-Bunk. I think you better get over this “free will” business before you start divining the future …

Anyway...before you ignore the questions above...nip over to Banter and read Hal Bidlacks new post about public suspension..

Not long now.....Dont worry....

You keep right on posting the same thing over and over again....just spamming the boards with the same thing....Please..continue...

Ohh is that a threat De-Bungler?

Who really posts the same nonsense over and over again Non-Skeptic? If you really don’t want to hear any dissenting religious opinions perhaps you should find a more appropriate board where your delicate sensibilities will not be offended you pathetic, whiney, little religious fanatic.

www.infidels.org

I predict YOU’LL NEVER provide any evidence for “free willy” – you can’t, and deep down you KNOW it (loser-boy).

Upchurch

13th December 2002, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Unfortunately for you Loser, this thread is Regarding Franko and NOT Regarding the Confusionist view on “free willy”.
Very true. This thread started not to discusso free will, but about what should be done about Franko. Personally, I believe he represents everything being a skeptic is not. He is closed minded, unthinking, unyielding in the face of evidence, and illogical in his argument.

I appriciate an opposing point of view and love a good discussion, but that is not what Franko offers. One can only guess at his motives, but they are not to have civil discussions with those who differ from him.

While temporary suspension would be welcome, Franko represents the first case where I feel banning is called for. Should the occasion ever arise where a vote is called for, I'm voting him off the island.

Upchurch

Franko

13th December 2002, 02:54 PM

UpPunk,

Very true. This thread started not to discusso free will, but about what should be done about Franko. Personally, I believe he represents everything being a skeptic is not.

Which explains why YOU believe in things you can’t prove (”free will”), and I don’t.

He is closed minded, unthinking, unyielding in the face of evidence, and illogical in his argument.

Evidence? What is your “evidence” for “free will”? So far you have presented NONE.

I appriciate an opposing point of view and love a good discussion, but that is not what Franko offers. One can only guess at his motives, but they are not to have civil discussions with those who differ from him.

Ohh you lying fanatic. You have devoted a great many posts to me. I wonder why? Do you know what the definition of Fear is Upchunk?

Fear … is the sudden realization that you are fighting in the battle of Armageddon for the wrong side.

While temporary suspension would be welcome, Franko represents the first case where I feel banning is called for.

Whine whine whine. Even if they BANNED me Upchunk (pathetic loser) that won’t make what you believe any less FALSE. Me being banned doesn’t make “free willy” = TRUE. (boo-hoo-hoo) :(

Maybe you should try a Non-fallacious argument for a change Non-Skeptic?

Or maybe you could be a Man and concede defeat since it is so obvious you are defeated?

Are you going to cry for us some more. Come on you little girl, dry those tears!

Should the occasion ever arise where a vote is called for, I'm voting him off the island.

How unpredictable? Upchunk wants JREF to be another Infidel.org junior? Maybe you should just cut to the chase Upchunk?

Here is the link: www.infidel.org.

I won’t be back posting there for a while yet. If you run along now you could have an A-Theist-bashing-free, totally non-skeptical environment just like you crave.

But I seriously doubt that JREF is going to acknowledge that Solipsism is True and force everyone here to accept your IGNORE list, you goose-stepping, book-burning moron.

You are a True religious fanatic, and lots of people are seeing it. How does it feel Upchunk?

Jedi Knight

13th December 2002, 02:58 PM

It is really pathetic that the biggest troll on the forum (De_Bunk), calls for the banning of Franko (one of the smartest guys on the forum).

Every post De_Bunk makes is an appeal to popularity logic fallacy, incomplete sentences and void completely of paragraphs of any substance.

De_Bunk couldn't out-debate a gerbil.

JK

hal bidlack

13th December 2002, 03:08 PM

Nobody gets banned for their ideas, period.

I would ask all to try, ever so hard, to be a tad more civil. Again, I can't force you to be, but can we drop the level of vitral a tad?

I think we have really done all we can in the 'banging our heads against the wall' area. So if we could, say, adopt the model of the House of Commons, things would be nicer :).

There, if you want to insult someone, you must be clever about it. For example, "you are an idiot" would not be allowed, but "bidlack's a fine intellect, when measured by counting the number of brain cells alone" or "Bidlack is the model of decorum, assuming one uses the model crafted by the visigoths" would be just peachy.

let's play nice, be witting, and let's see if we can't just get along? :)

Finally, when we start new threads, shall we strive to keep them from being focused singularly on the posts and comments of a single member? Again, I'm asking, as I can not direct in this area.

Can you tell I'm a stuffy old prude? :p

humbly but in hope,

De_Bunk

18th December 2002, 10:09 AM

Same old..same old....:rolleyes:

Franko

18th December 2002, 10:14 AM

UpTroll,

Very true. This thread started not to discusso free will, but about what should be done about Franko. Personally, I believe he represents everything being a skeptic is not.

How so, because I won’t believe in “free will” based on nothing more than your say so? Or is it because I am NOT a “smart” A-Theist like yourself? Are only A-Theists “skeptics” according to you UpTroll?

You claim that there is no evidence for God. This is patently false. How does making obviously false claims make YOU a Skeptic?

You are a non-skeptical Troll UpChimp. You are no different that that idiot De-Bungler, just nobody knows you or cares who you are other than you follow me around on this forum incessantly whining because I won’t believe your claims based on heresy.

He is closed minded, unthinking, unyielding in the face of evidence, and illogical in his argument.

Evidence? What evidence? I keep asking you for EVIDENCE OVER AND OVER again YOU NEVER present any.

So where is your Evidence UpTroll … lets see it. Start with “free will” what is Your evidence for “free will”?

What is your evidence that there is No God?

I appriciate an opposing point of view and love a good discussion …

That is obviously a lie.

.. but that is not what Franko offers.

I’ll debate you on anything. The problem is you offer no evidence. You are simply a fanatical religious nitwit who expects people to take your word for everything you say. But you NEVER support your claims.

Where is your evidence for “free will”? Why do you believe you have it?

Why do you believe that people will be moral without the notions of rewards and punishment?

What is your evidence that there is no god?

What is the difference between “random” and “magic” (I contend there is none).

What is your evidence that Matter makes consciousness?

How do you know that Solipsism isn’t True?

What makes you believe that “matter” even exist? How do you account for Einstein and Energy?

If Human action is NOT algorithmic, then how are YOU claiming it works?

How can you call yourself a Skeptic when you refuse to answer any questions about your beliefs?

One can only guess at his motives …

Your motives are easy to guess. You liked being an A-Theist with a “superior” metaphysical belief system. You liked coming here and talking trash to people who you knew you were “better“ and “smarter” than (Theist and deist). Come to find out you aren’t as smart as you thought, and you want to pretend that it is My fault.

… but they are not to have civil discussions with those who differ from him.

I have civil discussion with people who want to be civil. Unfortunately that doesn’t include you or the other hard-core fanatical A-Theists attempting to take over this Skeptic’s site for your own selfish and evil purposes. You have no desire for “discussion” UpTroll, and everyone here knows it. You are a devoted fanatical religious Troll here to spout off about how much better you are then the 90%+ of the general population stupid enough to believe what the evidence clearly indicates.

While temporary suspension would be welcome, Franko represents the first case where I feel banning is called for. Should the occasion ever arise where a vote is called for, I'm voting him off the island.

Begone A-Theist Troll! If anyone needs to be BANNED from this site it is You and the rest of your fanatical little cult. Besides … Your master De-Bungler is probably lonely without your constant adoration and praise …

I suggest you try this site. (www.infidels.org )You won’t find anyone questioning your precious religion there. JREF is not for YOU. It is a site for SKEPTICS – NOT Losers with a chip on their shoulder and a superiority complex from the cult of A-Theism.

Mossy

18th December 2002, 10:20 AM

(to Upchurch from Frannie)
Originally posted by Franko

I’ll debate you on anything.

Really? By "debate" do you mean discussion where both people can have a reasonable expectation to ask questions - and have those questions answered?

If so - count me in. I'd like to discuss fatalism, shall I start a new thread?

(if fatalism has been redefined in The Lexicon, please mention that before hand)

-Ed

Franko

18th December 2002, 10:23 AM

Really? By "debate" do you mean discussion where both people can have a reasonable expectation to ask questions - and have those questions answered?

If so - count me in. I'd like to discuss fatalism, shall I start a new thread?

Sure Mossman, I am assuming you know nothig of Fate, because your prophecies NEVER seem to come TRUE.

So obviously you believe in "free will" -- I don't.

Why should I believe that You or I have "free will"?

What evidence do you have that would convince me to believe what you believe?

Franko

18th December 2002, 10:25 AM

BTW ... I know that some people tried to email me today.

I have cleared out my old mail (again).

Please resend the emails.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Mossy

18th December 2002, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Franko

So obviously you believe in "free will" -- I don't.

Why should I believe that You or I have "free will"?

What evidence do you have that would convince me to believe what you believe?

Okay, but before I start the fatalism thread:

1) Repeat after me: "Mussy does not believe in free-will the way I have defined it." I have been very clear about this, were Franko to ask, "Mussy, do you believe in free-will?" Mossy would answer, "No." (unfortunately, Franko hasn't asked but we're being hypothetical)

2) Does The LD Lexicon have an entry under "Fatalism" - or do you use the standard philosophical definition? For reference, something like:

link (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/f.htm#fatm)

Belief that every event is bound to happen as it does no matter what we do about it. Fatalism is the most extreme form of causal determinism, since it denies that human actions have any causal efficacy. Any determinist holds that indigestion is the direct consequence of natural causes, but the fatalist believes that it is bound occur whether or not I eat spicy foods.

That's it - then we can have a nice pleasant discussion about fatalism.

-Ed

Franko

18th December 2002, 10:38 AM

Mussy,

Okay, but before I start the fatalism thread:

Ohhh, there is no need to start a new thread. We can post right here.

1) Repeat after me: "Mussy does not believe in free-will the way I have defined it." I have been very clear about this, were Franko to ask, "Mussy, do you believe in free-will?" Mossy would answer, "No." (unfortunately, Franko hasn't asked but we're being hypothetical)

So you don’t believe in “free will” now Mussy?

Very good, I can see that I am having some effect on your Fate. I don’t know if that is a good thing or not from your POV.

Okay so you are conceding to the FACT that you are totally and completely controlled by TLOP – correct?

TLOP controls/makes YOU controls/makes CAR

Are you also claiming to be more or less conscious then your CAR?

How about TLOP?

Explain your reasoning.

2) Does The LD Lexicon have an entry under "Fatalism" - or do you use the standard philosophical definition? For reference, something like:

I just gave my definition of Fatalism in here the other day. I will try and find it and repost it here.

Essentially there are a few differences between Fatalism and determinism. In a way it is accurate to say that Fatalism is a “hard-core” form of Determinism. I would say that the main semantic difference between the two terms is that Fatalism implies the ability to predict the predetermined events in advance, whereas Determinism does not necessarily imply this. That is the main difference in my mind.

Mossy

18th December 2002, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Mussy,

So you don’t believe in “free will” now Mussy?

Never did, Frannie. Had you stopped telling me I did long enough to read the numerous times I explicitely stated, "I do not believe in your free will" (word for word quote, by the way), then you would already know this.

Very good, I can see that I am having some effect on your Fate. I don’t know if that is a good thing or not from your POV.

(italics mine)Interesting statement, we'll get to that later.

Okay so you are conceding to the FACT that you are totally and completely controlled by TLOP – correct?

Effectively yes - I do believe there is wiggle room, but for the purposes of a discussion on fatalism, I'm willing to set that aside for now.

Are you also claiming to be more or less conscious then your CAR?

Always did claim to be more.

How about TLOP?

What about it?

Explain your reasoning.

For what, for not believing in your free-will? Let's use your example: I can't fly.

I just gave my definition of Fatalism in here the other day. I will try and find it and repost it here.

Essentially there are a few differences between Fatalism and determinism. In a way it is accurate to say that Fatalism is a “hard-core” form of Determinism. I would say that the main semantic difference between the two terms is that Fatalism implies the ability to predict the predetermined events in advance, whereas Determinism does not necessarily imply this. That is the main difference in my mind.

I think that meshes with my understanding of fatalism (minus the prediction part). For example, if I am sick and have a serious illness, yet am fated to get better, it doesn't matter whether or not I go to the hospital. (does that match what you're saying?)

How does the prediction element come in?

-Ed

Franko

18th December 2002, 12:03 PM

Mussy,

[Do you still believe in “free willy A-Theist?] Never did, Frannie. Had you stopped telling me I did long enough to read the numerous times I explicitely stated, "I do not believe in your free will" (word for word quote, by the way), then you would already know this.

That’s not what you have said, and there are plenty of people here who know it Mussy.

But that is okay, I have been kicking your ass around for a good while, and now you quietly want to concede defeat on this point. Okay … I’ll let it go. So now you are an A-Theist Determinist – is that correct?

You believe that all of your actions are controlled by TLOP and have been preordained since the moment of the “Big Bang” – is this correct?
Franko:
Okay so you are conceding to the FACT that you are totally and completely controlled by TLOP – correct?

Mussy:
Effectively yes - I do believe there is wiggle room, but for the purposes of a discussion on fatalism, I'm willing to set that aside for now.

Wait, wait, wait, Mr. wishy-washy A-Theist. How much wiggle room was there in the great FLAT-EARTH vs. ROUND-EARTH debate? It is either One or the other – not “Sorta Both”!

Where is this wiggle room you are referring to? Either your actions are determined, or you are claiming they are magical – which is it?

Franko:
Are you also claiming to be more or less conscious then your CAR?

Mussy:
Always did claim to be more.

Good. But you may want to have a chat with that knucklehead Trixy. Apparently he is convinced that all right thinking A-Theists should be of the belief that your CAR is more conscious.

Franko:
How about TLOP?

Mussy:
What about it?

Mussy, I will be more than happy to simply remind people of what an idiot you are if you don’t actually want to have a serious discussion.

TLOP controls/makes YOU controls/makes CAR

You have already stipulated that YOU are more conscious then CAR. So what about TLOP? Are you claiming to be more or less conscious then TLOP? What is your reasoning (and/or Logic) for making this claim? (why do you believe this, by what chain or thought?)

Franko:
Explain your reasoning.

Mussy:
For what, for not believing in your free-will? Let's use your example: I can't fly.

Explain your line of reasoning for concluding that TLOP is a non-conscious magical wonder-force?

I think that meshes with my understanding of fatalism (minus the prediction part). For example, if I am sick and have a serious illness, yet am fated to get better, it doesn't matter whether or not I go to the hospital. (does that match what you're saying?)

How does the prediction element come in?

I am saying that a Determinist believes that all things are Determined, but that fact – in and of itself – does not imply the ability to predict the outcome in advance. Fatalism is a belief similar to Determinism, except that Fatalism implies you can always (ultimately) predict the outcome in advance.

De_Bunk

18th December 2002, 12:34 PM

Mossy..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Franko

I’ll debate you on anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im sorry...i refuse to believe Franko actually posted that...

Do you seriously want us all to believe that Franko has other things to post about...

No...

It would make me look a kook...

Franko cannot post about anything else.....

Can you point to a post where Franko has seriously debated or participated in any other thread and not quoted anything concerning TLOPs, TOAST...CARS...ELFS...GOBLINS..and GODDESSES...that skeptics are religious....or Atheism is a religion...

Dont think so somehow...

Franko is a one point poster...a joker...a spamming troll...

Answers every question with the same answer...

Please...dont try and pretend that Franko actually has another point of view...

I dont want to be made to look like i'm making everything up...

;)

De_Bunk

18th December 2002, 12:41 PM

I rest my case...:D

Franko

18th December 2002, 01:06 PM

Unless you want to make a point about the discussion I suggest you run along A-Theist-Toll-boy ...

www.infidels.org

Your fellow religious fanatics await!

Mossy

18th December 2002, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Mussy,

That’s not what you have said, and there are plenty of people here who know it Mussy.

Find one, Fran. Fine one person here who has ever seen me type the words, "I believe in free will". You can't - because it hasn't happened.

I have, however, stated repeatedly some of the following: "I think the concept of free will is meaningless", and numerous times, "Frannie, I don't believe in your free will".

Right now you have an opportunity to make someone else look like a moron for a change - all you have to do is show where I have ever claimed this. Go ahead, search away, you won't find a single time I have said that.

But that is okay, I have been kicking your ass around for a good while, and now you quietly want to concede defeat on this point. Okay … I’ll let it go. So now you are an A-Theist Determinist – is that correct?

The universe may, in fact, be deterministic - I don't know. Our current understanding of science suggests it isn't - but perhaps we are missing something. I'm willing to admit that if someone had access to the PLOP (thanks Trixy), then perhaps it would be obviously deterministic.

We don't have it, so I don't know.

You believe that all of your actions are controlled by TLOP and have been preordained since the moment of the “Big Bang” – is this correct?

See above.

Wait, wait, wait, Mr. wishy-washy A-Theist. How much wiggle room was there in the great FLAT-EARTH vs. ROUND-EARTH debate? It is either One or the other – not “Sorta Both”!

Mr. wishy-washy? :)

It is either your definition of free will, or fatalism? Says who? You?

I read me some books, and them books seem to give a whole bunch more possibilities.

Seriously Fran, you can't think you're the only person to examine the issue, right? What about all of the other great minds that have examined it, and don't agree with your either-or dilemma?

Where is this wiggle room you are referring to? Either your actions are determined, or you are claiming they are magical – which is it?

See above.

Good. But you may want to have a chat with that knucklehead Trixy. Apparently he is convinced that all right thinking A-Theists should be of the belief that your CAR is more conscious.

You're misrepresenting him, he's never said that. Hmmmm, maybe you did misrepresent my position on purpose?

Mussy, I will be more than happy to simply remind people of what an idiot you are if you don’t actually want to have a serious discussion.

Oh I'm trying to have a serious discussion - I'm also avoiding arrogance, lies and 12 year old name calling (aside from "Frannie", you know you like it), care to reciprocate?

If you'd like to show everyone what an idiot I am - here is your opportunity.

TLOP controls/makes YOU controls/makes CAR

You have already stipulated that YOU are more conscious then CAR. So what about TLOP? Are you claiming to be more or less conscious then TLOP? What is your reasoning (and/or Logic) for making this claim? (why do you believe this, by what chain or thought?)

I believe the laws of physics (PLOP, not TLOP) are not conscious.

I believe consciousness stems from our brains, thus I don't believe the laws of physics are conscious.

(anticipating from your previous responses): Begging the question? No, proceding from the only information I have. I don't have any information that consciousness comes from anywhere else, if I see any evidence I'll consider it. Do you have any to show me?

Explain your line of reasoning for concluding that TLOP is a non-conscious magical wonder-force?

See above.

I am saying that a Determinist believes that all things are Determined, but that fact – in and of itself – does not imply the ability to predict the outcome in advance. Fatalism is a belief similar to Determinism, except that Fatalism implies you can always (ultimately) predict the outcome in advance.

So if I am seriously ill, but fated to get better, then it doesn't matter if I seek medical attention?

-Ed

hammegk

18th December 2002, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Mossy

So if I am seriously ill, but fated to get better, then it doesn't matter if I seek medical attention?

-Ed

Duh. You would also be "fated" to either 1) seek medical attention, 2) or not, before the live/die fate. :p

But cheer up. I too don't mind typing before engaging brain. :D

Mossy

18th December 2002, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Duh. You would also be "fated" to either 1) seek medical attention, 2) or not, before the live/die fate. :p

That's true as well, but with this question I'm specifically referring to the "choice" I make (even if it isn't really a choice).

If I'm fated to live to be a healthy 100 year old man, then I don't have to worry about going to the doctor - even when I'm sick. (of course that would already be decided as well, by my question is more addressing the person's perspective)

-Ed

Franko

18th December 2002, 03:07 PM

Mussy,

Fine one person here who has ever seen me type the words, "I believe in free will". You can't - because it hasn't happened.

I could FIND no Fine person who claimed you didn’t believe in “free will”. In fact, I think you are lying and you do believe you have magic powers. You are just too embarassed to admit it any longer. You A-Theists are sooo pathetic ...

I have, however, stated repeatedly some of the following: "I think the concept of free will is meaningless", and numerous times, "Frannie, I don't believe in your free will".

What are you talking about? I don’t believe in “free will” Mussy -- but you knew that …

Right now you have an opportunity to make someone else look like a moron for a change - all you have to do is show where I have ever claimed this. Go ahead, search away, you won't find a single time I have said that.

Ohh please Mussy. Everyone knows that the reason you are so obsessed with me is that because I have wiped the floor of the R&P up with your worthless ass more times than can be counted.

Allow me to do it again …

The universe may, in fact, be deterministic - I don't know. Our current understanding of science suggests it isn't - but perhaps we are missing something.

Our current understanding of Sigh-ence suggests that things are not determinable?

How can you even conduct Sigh-ence if you can’t determine anything Mussy?

Do you just randomly select words from a dictionary when you make posts? You should try stringing them together into coherent sentences that actually reflect the way things work in reality.

I'm willing to admit that if someone had access to the PLOP (thanks Trixy), then perhaps it would be obviously deterministic.

I guess Trixy making a PLOP on you would be a predictable outcome, now that you mention it …

We don't have it, so I don't know.

So what you are claiming is that because you don’t KNOW what the complete Laws of Physics are then obviously we can (should) conclude that they don’t really exist, and instead things happen magically and supernaturally.

That is great for you A-Theists with your magical supernatural belief system, but most people don’t believe in magic Mussy. Most people are looking for a logical explanation of how things work. Especially people who are Skeptics.

You believe that all of your actions are controlled by TLOP and have been preordained since the moment of the “Big Bang” – is this correct?

Just a simple Yes or No will do.

Franko:
How much wiggle room was there in the great FLAT-EARTH vs. ROUND-EARTH debate? It is either One or the other – not “Sorta Both”!

Mussy:
It is either your definition of free will, or fatalism? Says who? You?

I thought You said you didn’t believe in “free will”? Is this another example of you honestly stating your beliefs Mussy (A-Theist)?

Do YOU control your actions Mussy, or does TLOP (ultimately). It is a simple question, why are you so terrified of answering it? Why all the lies and obfuscation? Why can’t you A-Theists ever just state what you believe, and why you believe it?

You think this makes you and the A-Theists look like you know what you are talking about? It makes you look like an idiot religious fanatic desperately trying to defend his absurd dogmatic claims by any illogical means possible.

I read me some books, and them books seem to give a whole bunch more possibilities.

You read some books!?!? Hehehe … well good for you Wussy.

… And these possibilities are?

Why mention the “books”, but not the other possibilities? So you don’t believe in “free will” Mussy? What do you believe exactly? Should we try and read your mind, or are you going to tell us? Perhaps I should just ask Stimpson, or Trixy, or De-Bungler what you believe. It is pretty obvious that they are all much smarter than you are.

Seriously Fran, you can't think you're the only person to examine the issue, right?

No.

What about all of the other great minds that have examined it, and don't agree with your either-or dilemma?

yeah … and now here you are … an A-Theist.

So what are you saying Mussy, the issue has already been decided by the great minds of the past and there is nothing new to be said or discovered? What are you doing in this forum then.

Did you some here simply to demonstrate how much smarter you were then stupid theist with their “crazy” beliefs in “invisible gods”? Did you come here just so you could pat guys like TP and De-bungler on the back about how much more “superior” you are with your magic “free will” powers, and no consequences for your actions?

I believe the laws of physics (PLOP, not TLOP) are not conscious.

I believe consciousness stems from our brains, thus I don't believe the laws of physics are conscious.

Yeah, but where did your brain stem from? Didn’t Tlop make your brain? And if TLOP made your brain, then how can TLOP be less complex and conscious than its creation?

How can a non-conscious force control a conscious one?

Besides I thought you said you don’t believe in “free will”? That means YOU aren’t doing squat – TLOP is doing everything, you are just watching. How does just watching make you more conscious then the thing doing the doing?

TLOP moves you, and it needs to perceive you to move you. You on the other hand ONLY perceive. You don’t do any of the actual moving yourself. So how can the thing that merely perceives be greater than the thing which perceives and moves (acts)?

That doesn’t make any sense.

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

What you are claiming Wussy, is that YOU are superior (more conscious) to both CAR and TLOP, but clearly that doesn’t make any sense. For you to claim that you are more conscious then TLOP is as absurd as claiming that your CAR is more conscious then YOU.

What have you to say about this obvious contradiction in your beliefs?

(anticipating from your previous responses): Begging the question? No, proceding from the only information I have. I don't have any information that consciousness comes from anywhere else, if I see any evidence I'll consider it. Do you have any to show me?

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

Don’t lie and say you don’t have this information Mussy. You simply choose to ignore it because you are insane – you Fear God and the idea of Fate. But don’t say that you don’t have ANY evidence for God. You have the evidence You just don’t want it to be True.

TLOP controls YOU in exactly the same way that you control your CAR. Perhaps your CAR is out in the parking lot this very instant telling the other nearby CARs how there is no evidence for MUSSY, and that the CAR has “free will” and controls its own Destiny. There is no evidence for the “invisible supernatural omnipotent Driver”, that is only a fairy tale that naïve stupid Theist CARs believe.

Franko:
Explain your line of reasoning for concluding that TLOP is a non-conscious magical wonder-force?

Mussy:
See above.

“See Above”? Are you making a reference to God Mussy, or just praying for guidance, because I didn’t see you present ANY evidence that TLOP is a non-conscious magical mystery force like you claim.

Just explain how a non-conscious force controls a conscious one, and please provide an example of a time when a rock, or chair, or charcoal briquette controlled your actions.

Are Dogs inferior or superior to You Mussy? Do you tend to control your pet dog, or does your pet dog tend to control you? Who tells who what they get to eat more often? Who tells who when they are allowed to go to the bathroom ?

So if I am seriously ill, but fated to get better, then it doesn't matter if I seek medical attention?

You mean kind of like if you are Fated to win the lottery you don’t have to actually buy a ticket?

Mossy

18th December 2002, 03:40 PM

Well, that didn't last long...

I could FIND no Fine person who claimed you didn’t believe in “free will”. In fact, I think you are lying and you do believe you have magic powers. You are just too embarassed to admit it any longer. You A-Theists are sooo pathetic ...

Step one: Make repeated accusation.
Step two: Claim that "every knows it", or anything to that effect (I believe your last one with me was, "I'll go back and find the proof that you're lying")
Step three: Concede that you can't back it up but resort to, "I just know you're lying, because I've decided atheists are liars, and you're an atheist, and you're a big liar-head!"
Step four: Stand proud and defiant at what is clearly profound and flawless argumentation.

Okay, thanks Frannie. That was fun - you may now resume lying and representing your deity in the only way you know how.

-Ed

Franko

18th December 2002, 03:50 PM

I thought you wanted to discuss your beliefs Mussy?

Why won't you explain why TLOP must be a non-conscious mystery force?

Mossy

18th December 2002, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Franko
I thought you wanted to discuss your beliefs Mussy?

Why won't you explain why TLOP must be a non-conscious mystery force?

Actually, Fran, I wanted to discuss fatalism - but as a starting point I wanted you to ditch the whole "prove free-willy" line, since I have clearly stated that I don't believe in it. But you, Fran, are unwilling to even admit that some people might know their own personal beliefs better than you. If you are going to approach the whole thing as yet another, "I know what you believe better than you do" thing - then I won't waste my time.

I wrongly assumed you might know something about fatalism - silly me.

Second, do you honestly consider this type of crap a "discussion":

I think you are lying and you do believe you have magic powers. You are just too embarassed to admit it...
Everyone knows that the reason you are so obsessed with me is that because I have wiped the floor of the R&P up with your worthless ass more times than can be counted.
Do you just randomly select words from a dictionary when you make posts? You should try stringing them together into coherent sentences that actually reflect the way things work in reality
I guess Trixy making a PLOP on you would be a predictable outcome
It makes you look like an idiot religious fanatic desperately trying to defend his absurd dogmatic claims by any illogical means possible.
It is pretty obvious that they are all much smarter than you are.
Did you some here simply to demonstrate how much smarter you were then stupid theist with their “crazy” beliefs in “invisible gods”? Did you come here just so you could pat guys like TP and De-bungler on the back about how much more “superior” you are with your magic “free will” powers, and no consequences for your actions?
Don’t lie and say you don’t have this information Mussy. You simply choose to ignore it because you are insane – you Fear God and the idea of Fate.

(and that was just in one post, folks! Impressive!)

That isn't even counting the misrepresentation, lies or dodges in the last post! Quite the debate!

So, if you'd like to have a discussion or debate, no problem. Once again, just let me know.

-Ed

Franko

18th December 2002, 10:51 PM

Actually, Fran, I wanted to discuss fatalism - but as a starting point I wanted you to ditch the whole "prove free-willy" line, since I have clearly stated that I don't believe in it.

Actually, Wussy, I wanted to have a back and fourth discussion on equal footing without your typical double standards. A discussion in which you explain what you believe, and why you believe it, and then I explain what I believe, and we debate which way makes more sense. But as a starting point I wanted you to ditch the whole A-Theist Double Standard of assuming that everything you believe is TRUE, and everything that I believe is FALSE.

That isn’t debate or discussion Wussy. That is you pretending that Solipsism is True. But unfortunately we both know you aren’t pretending and Solipsism is True.

But you, Fran, are unwilling to even admit that some people might know their own personal beliefs better than you.

You claimed that you didn’t believe in “free will” I wanted to see if you meant it since you have lied to me so many times in the past. As usual for our discussion you are off to lying again right from the beginning. This is why conversation with your kind is nearly impossible. Until you are willing to honestly and fairly discuss what you believe, not much can be accomplished by conversing with you other than continually pointing out how you are no different than any other brainwashed Religious fanatic who is unable to logically prove the absurd nonsense he believes.

If you are going to approach the whole thing as yet another, "I know what you believe better than you do" thing - then I won't waste my time.

If you are unwilling to answer any questions regarding your beliefs then you never really wanted to have a conversation in the first place. Your whole reason for being in this forum has NOTHING to do with Skepticism, and everything to do with you trying to feel better about yourself and your miserable existence by badmouthing Christians, and talking about how much superior you are to “Religious people”. That isn’t Skepticism Wussy, that is called bigotry. If you are superior to anyone it is only because you were blessed by the divine luck of TLOP and the Initial State.

I wrongly assumed you might know something about fatalism - silly me.

Even if I could do your thinking for you, I never would on that topic in particular.

So, if you'd like to have a discussion or debate, no problem. Once again, just let me know.

And anytime you want to finish explaining how it is not logically inconsistent for you to claim that Your CAR is more conscious then YOU are … let me know …

TLOP controls/makes YOU controls/makes CAR

Mossy

19th December 2002, 12:18 AM

Seven outright lies, and three blatant misrepresentations in that one post, Fran, nicely done!

-Ed

MRC_Hans

19th December 2002, 12:26 AM

Nice Darwin Fish, Mossy. Is it your own?

Hans

Mossy

19th December 2002, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Nice Darwin Fish, Mossy. Is it your own?

Hans

Yeah, it's pretty old now and my views have changed quite a bit - but I still dig it...

-Ed

Loki

19th December 2002, 03:16 AM

Franko,

Your whole reason for being in this forum has NOTHING to do with Skepticism, and everything to do with you trying to feel better about yourself and your miserable existence by badmouthing Christians, and talking about how much superior you are to “Religious people”
Right M.O., but the wrong subject. The only poster I can recall who has openly admitted that he is here to "talk trash" to those who hold a differing opinion to himself is, well, you. Didn't you recently describe yourself as "the trashman", and declare that you "enjoy it" and are "good at it"?

Oh, and say "bye" to wraith for me

MRC_Hans

19th December 2002, 06:58 AM

Frank:
And anytime you want to finish explaining how it is not logically inconsistent for you to claim that Your CAR is more conscious then YOU are … let me know …

TLOP controls/makes YOU controls/makes CAR How come that every time this little line of yours is seriously refuted, you ignore it, yet you keep bringing it up in other threads?

Would you mind pointing out a post where somebody claimed that their car was more consious than them?

While you are at it, show me someplace where somebody claims the Earth is flat, like you are also fond of claiming.

Alternatively, stop making claims about what others believe. Instead address their arguments (and your own) in a sensible way, and you might yet end up a respected debater here.

Hans

Franko

19th December 2002, 08:54 AM

That's not and explaination MRC!

Explain how you can be logically consistent and claim that you are more conscious then BOTH your CAR and TLOP at the same time?

The fact that YOU can MAKE and CONTROL a CAR makes you a superior consciousness to a CAR.

The fact that TLOP can MAKE and CONTROL YOU makes TLOP a superior consciousness to a YOU.

It's that simple A-Theist.

Although I can't wait for you to tell us it is not ... :rolleyes:

Franko

19th December 2002, 08:57 AM

Loki,

Right M.O., but the wrong subject. The only poster I can recall who has openly admitted that he is here to "talk trash" to those who hold a differing opinion to himself is, well, you. Didn't you recently describe yourself as "the trashman", and declare that you "enjoy it" and are "good at it"?

Ohhh, I am learning all kinds of new things here my friend. Besides, unlike your pathetic little A-Theist buddies, I actually am a Skeptic, and not simply a religious fanatic.

MRC_Hans

19th December 2002, 08:27 PM

Explain how you can be logically consistent and claim that you are more conscious then BOTH your CAR and TLOP at the same time?

The fact that YOU can MAKE and CONTROL a CAR makes you a superior consciousness to a CAR.

The fact that TLOP can MAKE and CONTROL YOU makes TLOP a superior consciousness to a YOU.

It's that simple A-Theist.
The fact is that I have explained it several times and you have ignored it.

If you want to address my explanation you are welcome to find it and do so.

It's that simple, Frank.

Hans

Franko

19th December 2002, 10:44 PM

Franko:
Explain how you can be logically consistent and claim that you are more conscious then BOTH your CAR and TLOP at the same time?

The fact that YOU can MAKE and CONTROL a CAR makes you a superior consciousness to a CAR.

The fact that TLOP can MAKE and CONTROL YOU makes TLOP a superior consciousness to a YOU.

It's that simple A-Theist.

MRC_Hans:
The fact is that I have explained it several times and you have ignored it.

If you want to address my explanation you are welcome to find it and do so.

It's that simple, Frank.

Hans

Ohh come-come now my little A-Theist chum, just who are we kidding? You are the fulfillment of my prophecy – A-Theists are masters of talking without actually telling you anything.

Where is this wondrous logically valid explanation of yours??? I would think that if you had done it, the Fool, and Trixy, and CWL, and the rest of the loonie tunes would have something more to gossip about then what my Spring wardrobe will look like.

Come on Hanna!! You can do it!

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

How can you rationalize your claim that there is no evidence for “god” … and – at the same time – explain how YOU can possibly be more conscious (superior too, more complex than) both TLOP and CAR at the same time? What you are asserting is obviously flawed and logically inconsistent. 90%+ of the world’s population can perceive it … why can’t you?

Upchurch

19th December 2002, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Franko
You are the fulfillment of my prophecy – A-Theists are masters of talking without actually telling you anything.
Not really so much a prophecy as a claim. A prophecy would be more along the lines of, A-theists will talk without actually telling you anything. It also has the advantage of being subjective enough as to be open to interpretation.

Upchurch

ImpyTimpy

19th December 2002, 11:10 PM

The Fool

19th December 2002, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Where is this wondrous logically valid explanation of yours??? I would think that if you had done it, the Fool, and Trixy, and CWL, and the rest of the loonie tunes would have something more to gossip about then what my Spring wardrobe will look like.

Well now that you mention it ........come up with the final position on free will yet, does it include some explanation of all the statements you made that may contradict the final version of your cult dogma on free will?

Ignoring and/or attempting to belittle the inconsistency will not make it go away....come on franko, you can do it. The goddess needs your support, don't go to water in the face of one simple question...

"I do have free will or choice of what I will wear"

does free will mean free will in this quote or does free will mean something that is not free will that you still call free will......make sense??

MRC_Hans

19th December 2002, 11:52 PM

Ohh come-come now my little A-Theist chum, just who are we kidding? You are the fulfillment of my prophecy – A-Theists are masters of talking without actually telling you anything.

Where is this wondrous logically valid explanation of yours??? I would think that if you had done it, the Fool, and Trixy, and CWL, and the rest of the loonie tunes would have something more to gossip about then what my Spring wardrobe will look like.

Come on Hanna!! You can do it!

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

How can you rationalize your claim that there is no evidence for “god” … and – at the same time – explain how YOU can possibly be more conscious (superior too, more complex than) both TLOP and CAR at the same time? What you are asserting is obviously flawed and logically inconsistent. 90%+ of the world’s population can perceive it … why can’t you? Your lapse into insult mode indicates that you are cornered. I really dont see why it should be my problem that you are too lazy (or scared?) to look back into the earlier posts on this subject, but what the hell:

You can start by answering this question:

If your assumption of hierachy:

TLOP > Driver > Car

is correct, how come TLOP cannot drive my car without me?

And, please present evidence that 90%+ of the world population believes that the laws of physics is a conscious entity.

Hans

20th December 2002, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Franko
You are the fulfillment of my prophecy – A-Theists are masters of talking without actually telling you anything.

What a delightful gem..pot calling kettle spring to mind reading that.

;)

20th December 2002, 02:19 AM

TLOP > Driver > Car

is correct, how come TLOP cannot drive my car without me?

Technically the car can drive without you.. you actually only turn the car to enable it to drive, you mearly steer the car, accelerate its speed, brake to stop it.
The car itself does drive providing it has fuel and battery requirement to start the engine, if you leave it in gear it will run off on its own :D

MRC_Hans

20th December 2002, 04:06 AM

Flower:
Heheh, still, the result is usually messy whenever tlop "decides" to take a drive. ;)

Hans

Franko

20th December 2002, 08:43 AM

radiating-un-flower:

Technically the car can drive without you.. you actually only turn the car to enable it to drive, you mearly steer the car, accelerate its speed, brake to stop it.

So you are claiming that CARs are equal or superior in consciousness to a HUMAN then?

The car itself does drive providing it has fuel and battery requirement to start the engine, if you leave it in gear it will run off on its own

So you are claiming that CARs are equal or superior in consciousness to a HUMAN then?

Because unless you want to pretend that Your CAR (or TOAST) is superior to YOU, then you can’t pretend that there is no evidence for “God” and claim to be “logically consistent” at the same time.

Of course how “logically consistent” is someone who claims that their CAR is superior in consciousness to them?

When you drive your Car radiating-A-Theist, do YOU control the CAR, or does the CAR control YOU?

Franko

20th December 2002, 08:45 AM

As deluded as Franko is, he does pose an interesting philosophical question. Is the Universe just a giant body of conciousness? Sort of a question of, are we just parts of a larger concious system, just like our cells are a part of us?

So I am delusional for bringing up an interesting question A-Theist fanatic?

I wonder who is really delusional in reality???

CWL

20th December 2002, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Franko

So I am delusional for bringing up an interesting question A-Theist fanatic?

I wonder who is really delusional in reality???

Franko old buddy,

You will be pleased to hear that you are temporarily off ignore as I am hoping that you will explain how quantum gravity works.

This is your chance not only to bring up intersting questions but to provide interesting answers.

Don't be a stranger (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11458).

MRC_Hans

20th December 2002, 09:03 AM

When you drive your Car radiating-A-Theist, do YOU control the CAR, or does the CAR control YOU? Hey, Frank, dont duck MY question. If tlop is a consciousness superiour to me, how come tlop cannot drive the car at least as well without me? How come driving becomes dangerous when the driver is drunk?

Hans

Franko

20th December 2002, 09:10 AM

Hey, Frank, dont duck MY question. If tlop is a consciousness superiour to me, how come tlop cannot drive the car at least as well without me?

For the same reason you can't Control your Car without arms, hands, and eyes.

How come driving becomes dangerous when the driver is drunk?

Dangerous for who? The driver or TLOP?

Franko

20th December 2002, 09:12 AM

You will be pleased to hear that you are temporarily off ignore as I am hoping that you will explain how quantum gravity works.

Why would I do any favor for a stupid sh*thead hypocrite like yourself who can't (or won't) defend any of his own beliefs and contributes NOTHING to this site but a bunch of whiney complaints to the moderators and loads of ass-kissing to the other "superior" A-Theists.

CWL

20th December 2002, 10:17 AM

Frannie-Wannie-Fluffie-Snuggles,

But I did post my thoughts on morality: here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11382). See in particular my reply to Joshua Korosi.

As to me reporting you to the moderators; Oops, your paranoia is showing again. Forgot to take our pills today did we?

Your turn: Quantum gravity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11458)?

Franko

20th December 2002, 10:28 AM

Say what?

Your posts there don't address any of the questions that made you run and hide from me the other day.

Don't you remember how I pointed out all of your hypocritical statements regarding the concept of rewards and punishments, and then you threw a little temper tantrum and put me on your IGNORE list?

Everyone else here remembers ...

CWL

20th December 2002, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Say what?

Your posts there don't address any of the questions that made you run and hide from me the other day.

Don't you remember how I pointed out all of your hypocritical statements regarding the concept of rewards and punishments, and then you threw a little temper tantrum and put me on your IGNORE list?

Everyone else here remembers ...

Don't worry Frankie. You will soon be back on my ignore list. Just thought I'd give you a fair opportunity to explain quantum gravity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11458) first. I simply could not resist this unique opportunity to expose you for the intellectual charlatan and pseudo skeptic that you are. I must say, the sound of crickets is so far overwhelming.

As to me not addressing the question of acting moral without fear of punishment your assertion that I have not done so is of course a blatant lie (as usual). I quote from the link submitted above:

Originally posted by CWL
I would like to add another factor as to why non-belivers in punishment or reward after death act moral - and I believe that such factor is in fact the underlying reason for one's concern of one's reputation etc.

We humans are a social animal. One of the secrets behind our evolutionary success is co-operation, i.e. using our individual intelligence in combination with the intelligence of other human beings.

I would argue that evolution has to a large extent sorted out humans with extreme anti-social behaviour. This is done even today - people who cannot resist acting immoral are banished from society.

I would therefore further argue, that for the majority of human beings, evolution has bestowed unto us an intrinsic compassion for other human beings. This explains why one gets a guilty conscience when one commits an immoral act. I think that this it is this instinctive will to act moral - in the best interest of the flock or tribe - that generally makes most people abstain from criminal behaviour.

If we could only tap into those instincs and apply them to all of mankind instead of just the family, flock, tribe our country, I believe that the world would be a much better place.

shemp

20th December 2002, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by CWL

Don't worry Frankie. You will soon be back on my ignore list. Just thought I'd give you a fair opportunity to explain quantum gravity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11458) first. I simply could not resist this unique opportunity to expose you for the intellectual charlatan and pseudo skeptic that you are. I must say, the sound of crickets is so far overwhelming.

As to me not addressing the question of acting moral without fear of punishment your assertion that I have not done so is of course a blatant lie (as usual). I quote from the link submitted above:

CWL, yours is the 666th post in this thread. Clearly, you are doomed to eternal hellfire! ;)

CWL

20th December 2002, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by shemp

CWL, yours is the 666th post in this thread. Clearly, you are doomed to eternal hellfire! ;)

Ssssh! Don't tell You-Know-Who. I think the Einstein thingy is beginning to put him off the scent. http://mbpower.m4driving.sm/smilies/ups/icis/ices_angel_g.gif

CWL

20th December 2002, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
You can start by answering this question:

If your assumption of hierachy:

TLOP > Driver > Car

is correct, how come TLOP cannot drive my car without me?

Denmark, twelve points. Danemark, douze points. :D

Franko

20th December 2002, 01:40 PM

CryingWhineyLawyer,

Don't worry Frankie. You will soon be back on my ignore list.

Well, since you seem unable or unwilling to actually explain ANY of the whacky nonsense YOU believe that doesn’t surprise me one bit, CWL.

Just thought I'd give you a fair opportunity to explain quantum gravity first.

Ohh, I can explain the things I believe CWL, it is YOU who cannot and will not.

Predictable behavior from your typical hypocritical A-Theist Religious fanatic …

I simply could not resist this unique opportunity to expose you for the intellectual charlatan and pseudo skeptic that you are.

… By putting me on your IGNORE list and then dedicating all of your posts to me?

Why do I get the feeling that even Fool, MRC, and Trixy are having problems swallowing that load of A-Theist “logic”???

If you really think you are Fooling ANYONE then you are even more deluded than I thought. But after all these weeks, it is truly hysterical watching you completely implode like this, for all to see.

I must say, the sound of crickets is so far overwhelming.

Yes … one wonders why a religious fanatic and Troll such as yourself even bothered coming to the Religion & Philosophy section of a SKEPTICS forum in the first place. Obviously you NEVER had any intention of explaining What you believe, and Why you believe it. You are only here to spread your hypocrisy, hate, and cynicism.

As to me not addressing the question of acting moral without fear of punishment your assertion that I have not done so is of course a blatant lie (as usual). I quote from the link submitted above:

I would like to add another factor as to why non-belivers in punishment or reward after death act moral - and I believe that such factor is in fact the underlying reason for one's concern of one's reputation etc.

So what? Christians and other believers in the afterlife ALSO have reputations to worry about. How is this making A-Theists MORE moral? It makes them less and obviously so.

We humans are a social animal. One of the secrets behind our evolutionary success is co-operation, i.e. using our individual intelligence in combination with the intelligence of other human beings.

Actually the Dinosaurs were around far longer and had no such code. Your artificially imposed moral code does nothing to further evolution, unless you have EVIDENCE that it does – do you have such evidence, or are we to take your words on Faith alone?

How do Nuclear weapons increase our chance for survival (or anything else’s chance)?

I would argue that evolution has to a large extent sorted out humans with extreme anti-social behaviour.

Do you mean like the way professed A-Theists represent only a tiny part of the overall population? Are you claiming that nature is sorting you out so that you can be driven to extinction?

This is done even today - people who cannot resist acting immoral are banished from society.

Right … and when you die You are going to suffer the consequences for your immoral A-Theistic existence and be banished from “society”.

I would therefore further argue, that for the majority of human beings, evolution has bestowed unto us an intrinsic compassion for other human beings.

Ahhh, if only Wishful Thinking making things True you might have an actual argument here CW-Troll.

This explains why one gets a guilty conscience when one commits an immoral act.

Ohh, the old A-Theist magic rears its head. So you are using your magic mind powers to determine that all people who commit immoral acts have a guilty conscience about it? You certainly don’t seem to be very guilty about the constant lies you spread about this forum. Why should anyone believe your ridiculous claim?

You have presented no evidence for your magic mind powers, and without them you have no idea what people feel in their “conscience”. According to MANY A-Theist the “conscience” doesn’t even exist. In fact there are A-Theists on this VERY BOARD who have stated plainly that the consciousness itself is merely an “illusion”.

I think that this it is this instinctive will to act moral

Ohhh, so now it is INSTINCTIVE to act morally???

If that is the case, then why do we need police, courts, lawyers, and a penal system? Why do we need to force people to do what you claim is INSTINCTIVE?

Your line of reasoning is contradictory and makes no logical sense.

… in the best interest of the flock or tribe - that generally makes most people abstain from criminal behaviour.

In WHO’S best interest CWLoser?? Yours … or Mine?

Was Hitler doing what was in the best interest of the Jews? Is that what you are claiming? When the KKK lynched a black person, that was in the black person’s best interest according to you?

If we could only tap into those instincs and apply them to all of mankind instead of just the family, flock, tribe our country, I believe that the world would be a much better place.

And you claim that theists are naïve?

This is no logical argument CWL! For the love of the Goddess – have you EVER actually WON a court case?

Are you really a Lawyer CWL, or just a “legal secretary”? There IS a difference – you know?

20th December 2002, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Franko
radiating_sunflower:

So you are claiming that CARs are equal or superior in consciousness to a HUMAN then?

So you are claiming that CARs are equal or superior in consciousness to a HUMAN then?

Because unless you want to pretend that Your CAR (or TOAST) is superior to YOU, then you can’t pretend that there is no evidence for “God” and claim to be “logically consistent” at the same time.

Of course how “logically consistent” is someone who claims that their CAR is superior in consciousness to them?

Franko honeybunch put a civil tongue in your head when you address me sweetie in future please.

Simply sweetie the car drives itself, I control where it goes,I control its velocity and I contol where it stops.

Darling Frankie, A car is not consious, car does not think therefore it is not.

God well all that depends on which god we are discussing. You yourself say goddess, which goddess do you worship to?.
So do you then deny gods exsistence?

Define superior?

When you drive your car radiating-sunflower, do you control the car, or does the car control you?

Frankokins, Dont you know? Bless yur little cotton socks,:D

Let Aunty r_s tell you now sit down on the nice comfywomfy chair, dont spill your milk and cookies and listen to Aunty careflly withut interruptions.

Once upon a time in a far far away land a man created a car. He said to his wife " You know dearest what puzzles me is do I control the car or does it control me?" His wife looked on sympathetically and replied" Darling, you work in harmony, neither one is in control, for one needs the other to move or be moved, the car relys on you for fuel yourely on it s fuel to move,." The man nodded and gave his wise wife a kiss on the cheek and they and the car lived in harmony the rest of there lives. Then end.

:D

Franko

20th December 2002, 02:08 PM

Franko honeybunch put a civil tongue in your head when you address me sweetie in future please.

Not even pretending to be a heterosexual any more De-Bungler?

Simply sweetie the car drives itself

THE CAR DRIVES ITSELF?

Do all A-Theists believe this, or just the fanatics like yourself Titanpout, CWL, Trixy, Fool, etc.?

I control where it goes …

Kind of like TLOP controls where YOU go?

I control its velocity and I contol where it stops.

Kind of like TLOP controls YOUR velocity, and where YOU stop?

Darling Frankie, A car is not consious, car does not think therefore it is not.

Yeah … but TLOP said the same thing about YOU.

God well all that depends on which god we are discussing.

There is more than One? … ohhh do go on …

You yourself say goddess, which goddess do you worship to?

You know, De-Bungler I have a LOT of trouble telling you and UCE, and the Fool apart. In all honesty you could be the same entity and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference from my POV.

So do you then deny gods exsistence?

hehehe … you expect anyone here to take you serious De-Bungler/Fool/UCE?
You yourself say goddess, which goddess do you worship to?

Since you obviously don’t want to be a Skeptic, and since you obviously aren’t really interesting in Religion or Philosophy why don’t you run along and join the other religious fanatics of your cult? www.infidels.org

20th December 2002, 02:16 PM

Franko I have to hand it to you, a big XXXXXX I have never laughed so much in my life bar pillory’s one-sentence lines, but you surpass ed yourself.

Yes I am heterosexual, no I am FEMALE and no way am I de_bunk, and I think de_bunk would be glad of that.

I may share the same island as him but that is as far as him and me go

Oh no it got funnier, De-Bungler/Fool/UCE as far as I am aware they are men I am not.

Sweetheart I am just me, I don’t need to be anybody else, if I feel the calling a I’ll let you in on a little secret, I will tell you upfront because that’s the kind of woman I am.

Franko honeybumpf, are you going to act like an intelligent person that I thought you were or are you going to keep floundering around like the proverbial cod?

You see I lost any sense of respect for you when you resorted to throwing your rattle out of the pram. You should know yourself I said quite clearly that I would continue to speak with you and anyone until they act like a spoilt brat and ruin any chance of a sane mature conversation, that was against what I was told and by doing so giving you the benefit of the doubt I also got ignored by those who are narrow and shallow minded not to respect my right to talk with whom I want and when I want.

Now if you can revert to being the person I believe you are, all that happier this will be and normality will prevail.

If you continue to act in a manner to gain attention the wrong attention then like a child having a temper tantrum I will treat you accordingly by ignoring you and asking everyone else to do so, no attention you should be given. Now you don’t want that do you?

Now can we behave polite and civilised?

20th December 2002, 02:41 PM

Franko Cult no I like to think for myself and not be brainwashed and bullied thank you.
I would say I had free will to do as I please but within thewritten laws and unwritten laws we all dutifully follow I don't have so much of that liberty.

Franko

20th December 2002, 02:46 PM

Yeah ... w h a t e v e r!

DO you have any evidence for this "free will" you speak of? I hear all the A-Theists claiming it is real, but obviously it is even more invisible then the Christain God.

I thought A-Theists only believed in things they had evidence for?

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of Atoms.
You obey the laws of Physics.

20th December 2002, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Yeah ... w h a t e v e r!

DO you have any evidence for this "free will" you speak of? I hear all the A-Theists claiming it is real, but obviously it is even more invisible then the Christain God.

I thought A-Theists only believed in things they had evidence for?

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of Atoms.
You obey the laws of Physics.

I am not an atheist now are you going to act in a civilised and calm manner to enable a resonable mature discussion or not.

I would like an apology for your uncalled behaviour towards me if you would be so kind and mature to do so.

CWL

20th December 2002, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Franko
CryingWhineyLawyer,

Well, since you seem unable or unwilling to actually explain ANY of the whacky nonsense YOU believe that doesn’t surprise me one bit, CWL.

You are quoting my explanation in the very post I am replying to now.

Ohh, I can explain the things I believe CWL, it is YOU who cannot and will not.

Predictable behavior from your typical hypocritical A-Theist Religious fanatic …

If you can explain why don't you? The floor is yours. Go ahead. There is a whole thread dedicated to the subject, just for you: Quantum Gravity (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=273932#post273932)

… By putting me on your IGNORE list and then dedicating all of your posts to me?

I admit that I check in on your posts now and then when I feel like a giggle.

Why do I get the feeling that even Fool, MRC, and Trixy are having problems swallowing that load of A-Theist “logic”???

Is it "A-Theist logic" that you are on my ignore list? That's a fact Franko, not logic. You never could tell the difference could you?

If you really think you are Fooling ANYONE then you are even more deluded than I thought. But after all these weeks, it is truly hysterical watching you completely implode like this, for all to see.

I am indeed not fooling anyone. At least you got that right.

Yes … one wonders why a religious fanatic and Troll such as yourself even bothered coming to the Religion & Philosophy section of a SKEPTICS forum in the first place. Obviously you NEVER had any intention of explaining What you believe, and Why you believe it. You are only here to spread your hypocrisy, hate, and cynicism.

If I am a "religious fanatic" like you claim, what better place for me to be than on in the Religion & Philosophy Section? As to being a skeptic - no by your definition (never admitting any mistake) I certainly am not. According to a normal dictionary (an "A-Lexicon" as you might call it), then yes Franko I consider myself a skeptic.

So what? Christians and other believers in the afterlife ALSO have reputations to worry about. How is this making A-Theists MORE moral? It makes them less and obviously so.

No it doesn't. The same factors obviously make christians and atheists alike (=humans, you know) act moral.

Actually the Dinosaurs were around far longer and had no such code. Your artificially imposed moral code does nothing to further evolution, unless you have EVIDENCE that it does – do you have such evidence, or are we to take your words on Faith alone?

What I said was that one of the secrets of human success is using our individual intelligence in combination with the intelligence of other human beings. Um... are you implying that Dinosaurs were intelligent in the human sense of the word? Isn't that rather... corny of you?

How do Nuclear weapons increase our chance for survival (or anything else’s chance)?

Our problem is that we tend to apply our intrinsic compassion towards other human beings only on the family, group or country (like I pointed out - DOH!). Nuclear weapons is clearly a result of other instincts related to the protection of the family, group or "tribe" if you will. These insticts may indeed be dangerous and we need to be aware of them and surpress them if we want to survive as a global species.

You are in fact making the mistake of tapping into such destructive insticts as we speak. "It's the theists against the athiests". "Tribe against tribe". In the words of your friend Jedi Knight - neolithic thinking.

Do you mean like the way professed A-Theists represent only a tiny part of the overall population? Are you claiming that nature is sorting you out so that you can be driven to extinction?

Do you mean like the way znabotic Q-Tips represent only a quidatic part of the overall znoop?

That's as much sense as the above makes. Your paranoia is showing again Franko. There is no such thing as an atheist conspiracy. Seek help man.

Right … and when you die You are going to suffer the consequences for your immoral A-Theistic existence and be banished from “society”.

Who says? You? Einstein was no believer in reward or punishment after death. Yet you claim that he made it into Heaven. Why not me? Who made you the Divine Sorting Hat anyway?

Ahhh, if only Wishful Thinking making things True you might have an actual argument here CW-Troll.

No, it's evident. Don't you feel ashamed when you've done something wrong? Is it more likely that that is due to:

a) social behaviour inherited through the evolutionary process; or
b) a divine being pointing its finger at you?

Ohh, the old A-Theist magic rears its head. So you are using your magic mind powers to determine that all people who commit immoral acts have a guilty conscience about it? You certainly don’t seem to be very guilty about the constant lies you spread about this forum. Why should anyone believe your ridiculous claim?

Not all people. Most people. There is of course the occasional sociapath, but they are in fact rather unusual. From your answers I can (through my "A-Theist magic) conclude that:

a) you have studied no Psycology and/or Sociology;
b) you have studied little or no Humanities; and
c) you have no or very limited contact with other human beings.

Again, due to c) I would advise you to seek help.

You have presented no evidence for your magic mind powers, and without them you have no idea what people feel in their “conscience”.

Just because you have no conscience and feel the need to fear punishment does not mean that normal people do not have it.

Actually, in your case I am glad you believe in punishment after death Franko. A-God knows what you would do otherwise.

According to MANY A-Theist the “conscience” doesn’t even exist. In fact there are A-Theists on this VERY BOARD who have stated plainly that the consciousness itself is merely an “illusion”.

1) Please provide evidence as to your assertion that "According to MANY A-Theist the "conscience" doesn’t even exist."

2) Do you seriously not know the difference between the term "conscience" and "consciousness"? Strange for someone who is bright enough to figure our how quantum gravity works...

Ohhh, so now it is INSTINCTIVE to act morally???

Yes sir. That I am contending. Glad you ask me about one of my assertions for a change instead of your own A-Theist straw-men.

Anyway, I thought you would appreciate the concept of intrinsic morality. Is that not what you are contending yourself?

If that is the case, then why do we need police, courts, lawyers, and a penal system? Why do we need to force people to do what you claim is INSTINCTIVE?

Alas, there are abnormal poeple who lack this compassion (sociopaths).

And, alas, the instincts I am talking about are by some only applied to a small group of people (this was all that was necessary in nature). They can be applied to larger groups (and in fact on all humanity) but that must be a conscious choice.

And yes Franko, even for us Secular Humanists there is such a thinng as "temptation" which must be resisted for the common good, or for a long term "maximum perceived benefit" as you might put it. If you think of our earlier discussions you may recall that I was (and am) in complete agreement as to your definition of a "moral act".

I wish you would expand on that thinking (which was very insightful and interesting) instead of campaining against an atheist constpiracy which does not exist.

Your line of reasoning is contradictory and makes no logical sense.

Perhaps you did not have the patience to consider my line of reasoning?

Anyway, read the "Humanist Moral Code" again, and try to do it without prejudice. There are some interesting posts there.

In WHO’S best interest CWLoser?? Yours … or Mine?

Ultimately, BOTH our interests. If we share, we run less risk of totally screwed in the end. Rather simple no?

Was Hitler doing what was in the best interest of the Jews? Is that what you are claiming? When the KKK lynched a black person, that was in the black person’s best interest according to you?

No, on the contrary. In exterminating jews and lynching black people humanity as such is being hurt. Not only do I hurt and outraged on behalf of the invididuals that have been (and are) lost through such atrocities when I tap in to my intrinsic compassion, but think also of what potential benefits to mankind (i.e. to you) that are lost when a human being dies. What was lost in the concentration camps? What has been lost through the strange fruit of Southern USA? The cure for AIDS? The cure for cancer?

And you claim that theists are naïve?

No I don't. Some are and some aren't. Just like atheists.

This is no logical argument CWL! For the love of the Goddess – have you EVER actually WON a court case?

Yes I have, but that has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion.

BTW. Hint: The last statement regarding ("a better world") was indeed not an argument, nor was it intended to be one. The first step in argument analysis is indeed learning to recognize arguments. Well done.

Are you really a Lawyer CWL, or just a “legal secretary”? There IS a difference – you know?

I am a fully qualified Swedish attorney with an LL.M. and university studies in Humanities in my baggage. Not that it matters. Try reading the arguments instead of concentrating on the person.

Franko

20th December 2002, 03:05 PM

I am not an atheist

Sure if you say so, however, I hope you won’t mind too much if I maintain my own opinion.

… now are you going to act in a civilised and calm manner to enable a resonable mature discussion or not.

Look who’s talking!

Do I even know you?

I would like an apology for your uncalled behaviour towards me

What uncalled for behavior are you referring to specifically?

if you would be so kind and mature to do so.

Kind and mature are relative terms. Do you consider Titanpout, De-Bungler, Fool, CWL, MRC, Trixy, Aardvark, Evildave, etc, etc, kind and mature?

I have the feeling our definitions of those terms may not be the same?

So what are you doing in R&P anyway?

You certainly don’t seem interested in discussing or explaining your metaphysical beliefs … ?

If you were you would be providing me with the evidence for your magic “free will” powers right about now.

But I didn’t expect someone like you to actually concede that you don’t have any evidence for the things you believe.

20th December 2002, 03:29 PM

Franko I am talking about me and you I am not talking about the others or including them. I am sure they can sort themselves out withyou if they so wish as so can you.

Now, can I have an applogy for your sudden turn of agressive behaviour towards me and move on to act in more productive civilised manner or not?

Do you know me, I doubt that providing the information under you avatar is correct, do you wish to know me then, that is fine by me and I will return the compliment.

Regarding your shallow opinon you have that right, however there is a but, to gain an opinon you must know all there is to make it, you do not.

You do not know me or what my beliefs or othewise are, you are making not a fair opinon but a prebiased judgement based on what the others do or did.

I am calm and civilised and have been towards you all along until you chose to group me with the others and be blinded by your own rage towards them Franko, do not tar me with the same brush you tar yourself with or others with. Should yu contine being agressive and unnecessary then I will publically ask for all to ignore you and hope that they see I am being just and concerend for your behaviour by asking of such, I do not wish to do this and hope you can see reason and we can move onto a far more stable postings.

I have not knocked your beliefs I have an opnion of you based on your recent behaviour towards me, which is a fair assement at this time.

now can we move on and canI get the apology for your irratinal behaviour.

To judge one person by the actions of a group is unjust and immature.

Franko

20th December 2002, 03:43 PM

Now, can I have an applogy for your sudden turn of agressive behaviour towards me and move on to act in more productive civilised manner or not?

What aggressive behavior are you referring to specifically?

You engaged me in this discussion with typical A-Theistic condescension.

Regarding your shallow opinon you have that right, however there is a but, to gain an opinon you must know all there is to make it, you do not.

How do YOU know what I know?

What are you babbling about?

Are you going to explain and defend your beliefs or not?

You do not know me or what my beliefs or othewise are, you are making not a fair opinon but a prebiased judgement based on what the others do or did.

If your beliefs were logical and based on evidence then you would be explaining them and defending them instead of putting on this little dog and pony show for us all.

I have already seen this little passion play a hundred times before. If you doubt me, then read any of CWL’s posts, or Trixy’s, or Fool’s, or De-Bunglers, or Titanpoo’s, or Evildave’s, or any of the other borg drones. You all spout the same nonsense, and none of you can explain what you believe, or why you believe it.

But you aren’t a religion … :rolleyes:

… go be a non-religion elsewhere Chicky, I ain’t buying crazy today.

I am calm and civilised and have been towards you all along until you chose to group me with the others and be blinded by your own rage towards them Franko, do not tar me with the same brush you tar yourself with or others with.

I have no idea what you are talking about Sweet-pea.

If you aren’t an A-Theist, then why don’t you simply explain what you believe, and why you believe it. Are you expecting me to read your mind?

Should yu contine being agressive and unnecessary then I will publically ask for all to ignore you and hope that they see I am being just and concerend for your behaviour by asking of such, I do not wish to do this and hope you can see reason and we can move onto a far more stable postings.

Ahhh, so you are De-Bungler/Foool/UCE after all – see, I knew it!

Run along … www.infidels.org

20th December 2002, 05:17 PM

Have it your way,Franko you can be in denial all you like, I have been friendly and politley towards you, you threw that back in my face.

You see Hal said somthing that gave me the clue about your state of mind and more.

Sorry but, I shall no longer give into your desire for any attention for your own gratification.

I ask of the other members to follow suit, as Franko will not get better if you continue to pander to his desire you will only make matters far worse than they are already.

You could be a good debater Franko its sad that your self denial forces the hand of reason to end your sick game.

bye.

Tricky

20th December 2002, 05:51 PM

You know, Franko, you inadvertantly made a very telling statement.

Originally posted by Franko
I have already seen this little passion play a hundred times before.

Yes you have. You have alienated almost everyone who has ever tried to be nice to you. Radiating Sunflower was the soul of courtesy, but because she would not buy into your, ahh... unusual beliefs, you turned on her, just as you have turned on everyone.

Unless you change your debating methods, you will see it a hundred times again too.

It doesn't happen to everybody else. Take a good hard look at yourself and ask, "Am I doing something wrong?". I know you can be a nice guy. I've seen it. I cannot fathom why you choose to behave in a way that drives so many away from you. Go back to the post that Gentlehorse made and read it with introspection.

Franko

20th December 2002, 08:45 PM

Trixy,

I have already seen this little passion play a hundred times before.

Trixy (A-Theist foreman):
Yes you have. You have alienated almost everyone who has ever tried to be nice to you.

I treat the A-Theists in this forum with at least the same respect they treat me. Ask Q-Source, or Soubrette.

Radiating Sunflower was the soul of courtesy, but because she would not buy into your, ahh... unusual beliefs, you turned on her, just as you have turned on everyone.

I didn’t “turn” on anyone. RadiationNunPower magically popped into the forum just as De-Bungler departed. She acted all chummy with you goonies, “She” didn’t seem to have any real interest in RELIGION or PHILOSOPHY other than to sing the praises of more book-burning.

De-Bungler/ReallyNeedsShower:
I will publically ask for all to ignore you and hope that they see I am being just and concerend for your behaviour by asking of such, I do not wish to do this and hope you can see reason and we can move onto a far more stable postings.

So some total stranger to the R&P forum wants to pop in and tell everyone else what they can and cannot read. No one here is actually a Skeptic, some Solipsist-wannabe is going to decide for everyone else what thoughts are allowed to go into your head. Obviously you are all to stupid (according to RadiatingFunPower/De-Funk) to decide what you want to read on your own.

RadiatingDeBunglerinaDress:
You see Hal said somthing that gave me the clue about your state of mind and more.

You see De-Bungler makes 3 complaints a day to poor Hal demanding that I be BANNED from JREF immediately so Her and Titanpoo can convert it to Infidels.org junior and get on with ridiculing their mental inferiors (Theists) and spreading their pessimistic fantasies.

And You agree with this person and support them Trixy … Bravo!

Once again you demonstrate your true colors Tricky. What’s next, religious fanatic? Are you going to start manufacturing fictitious quotes and attributing them to me so you can continue pretending your delusions are real (like the Fool and Whodini have done)?

Or perhaps you will place me on your IGNORE list and then dedicate entire threads in homage to me?

Or perhaps you will simply go the De-Bungler/Titanpoo/Elephant route and completely implode before us?

What was this person’s point? I didn’t here them asking any real questions. She just seemed to make a bee line for me and insist that I tell her “something” (god knows what she wanted to hear?).

Unless you change your debating methods, you will see it a hundred times again too.

I like taking out the trash, besides Eternity is a long Time …

It doesn't happen to everybody else. Take a good hard look at yourself and ask, "Am I doing something wrong?"

Have You been asking yourself that question lately Trixy?

I know you can be a nice guy. I've seen it. I cannot fathom why you choose to behave in a way that drives so many away from you. Go back to the post that Gentlehorse made and read it with introspection.

You are gentlehorses anti-particle. You dirty his name merely by speaking it.

Franko

20th December 2002, 08:55 PM

RS,

Have it your way, Franko …

Have it My way? It seems more like you are simply whining because you didn’t get it Your way (whatever that was?).

… you can be in denial all you like

What am I in denial about Sweetheart?

… I have been friendly and politley towards you, you threw that back in my face.

Actually, it appears that you have come here deliberately solely to harass me, because I haven’t seen you make any substantive posts regarding RELIGION and/or PHILOSOPHY (see forum heading above). As best I can tell you have no reason to pop into the R&P forum other than to announce that you think I should be IGNORED.

Do you have some RELIGIOUS or PHILOSOPHICAL issue you would like to discuss, or are you simply another A-Theist Troll?

You see Hal said somthing that gave me the clue about your state of mind and more.

… And why on Earth would Hal Bidlack be discussing my state of mind with You, pray tell?

Sorry but, I shall no longer give into your desire for any attention for your own gratification.

I’ve heard De-Bungler, and UpCroll, and CWL, and MRC, and Evildave, and a host of others say that 100 times a piece. Tell me something I don’t know Hon.

I ask of the other members to follow suit, as Franko will not get better if you continue to pander to his desire you will only make matters far worse than they are already.

Translation: DO AS THIS A-THEIST COMMANDS! HER JUDGMENT IS SUPERIOR TO YOURS! WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS IS A FORUM FOR SKEPTICS AND FREETHINKERS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT???

You could be a good debater Franko its sad that your self denial forces the hand of reason to end your sick game.

bye.

cry me a river …

Tricky

20th December 2002, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Trixy,
I treat the A-Theists in this forum with at least the same respect they treat me. Ask Q-Source, or Soubrette.
I have spoken with both QS and Sou. Their comments were very insightful and did not insult you. But they have more patience than I, which I do not deny. However, the person who has the patience to deal with you is rare. A number have tried it, and the vast majority now ignore you. Why do you suppose that is? But no, you don't treat people with respect if they do so to you. Latimer, Stimpy and a number of other very intelligent people have simply decided that you have nothing to offer. Or at least, that what you have to offer is not worth the price.

Originally posted by Franko

I didn’t “turn” on anyone. RadiationNunPower magically popped into the forum just as De-Bungler departed. She acted all chummy with you goonies, “She” didn’t seem to have any real interest in RELIGION or PHILOSOPHY other than to sing the praises of more book-burning.
LOL. De_Bunk is a crazy person. I cannot believe you would think him capable of making such a complex and interesting sock puppet as RS. She was chummy with everybody, and most of all you. She hung on your every word. You loved it. But, like most intelligent people, she started to point out the logical flaws in it. That is the sin you cannot forgive. What made you so bitter?

Originally posted by Franko
So some total stranger to the R&P forum wants to pop in and tell everyone else what they can and cannot read. No one here is actually a Skeptic, some Solipsist-wannabe is going to decide for everyone else what thoughts are allowed to go into your head. Obviously you are all to stupid (according to RadiatingFunPower/De-Funk) to decide what you want to read on your own.
Of course, RS never said such a thing. As always, you are making wild extrapolations, which you not only think are infallible, but which you think gain credence by repetition. This is a bad plan, Franko. It does not work. If it did, you wouldn't have to repeat this scenario so many times.

Originally posted by Franko
You see De-Bungler makes 3 complaints a day to poor Hal demanding that I be BANNED from JREF immediately so Her and Titanpoo can convert it to Infidels.org junior and get on with ridiculing their mental inferiors (Theists) and spreading their pessimistic fantasies.

And You agree with this person and support them Trixy … Bravo!
This is another thing that turns people off, Franko. Baseless accusations. I don't know if De_Bunk makes complaints or not, and neither do you. This information is not available to you. It is simply another of your wild extrapolations. I do know you are lying about me though. I could try asking if Jeff or Linda would release the information about the complaints I have made, though I doubt they would. I certainly have no fear of what they would say. You, on the other hand, would be shown, once again, to be a liar. But I guess that is no longer novel.

Originally posted by Franko
Once again you demonstrate your true colors Tricky. What’s next, religious fanatic? Are you going to start manufacturing fictitious quotes and attributing them to me so you can continue pretending your delusions are real (like the Fool and Whodini have done)?
LOL. I might. Of course, if I did so, it would be in the context of a satire. You are so easy to parody, Franko. Fool and Whodini are simply copying your tactics.
Ask yourself, have you ever claimed people said things which in fact they didn't? Remember, the search function will make it easy to prove you wrong. You see, this is what I don't get about you. You set yourself up to be slapped down. Your lies are so blatent and obvious and so easy to disprove. I really think you are smarter than that. You let your anger make a fool out of you. (Sorry Fool :D)

Originally posted by Franko
Or perhaps you will place me on your IGNORE list and then dedicate entire threads in homage to me?
As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, I will never put you on ignore. I need to see what you are doing so I can counter it. I am your nemesis. You cannot beat me. I am older and wiser and trickier than you. The best you can hope for is to outlive me. But to do that, you must control your anger, or you will die of an aneurism at a young age.

Originally posted by Franko
Or perhaps you will simply go the De-Bungler/Titanpoo/Elephant route and completely implode before us?
Well, De_Bunk has not imploded. He has always been crazy. UCE had some problems that were not related to the JREF Forums. Titanpoint is doing just fine, as far as I can tell. I am quite fine too, thanks. However, I will be giving you a brief respite. I will have very limited computer access during the holidays, so I will only be able to manage an occasional rasberry. I'm sure you will miss me. Don't worry though. I'll "materialize" again before you know it.

Originally posted by Franko
What was this person’s point? I didn’t here them asking any real questions. She just seemed to make a bee line for me and insist that I tell her “something” (god knows what she wanted to hear?).
Then either you weren't listening or else you didn't understand. She asked lots of lucid questions and asked them very nicely, even tolerating you flirting in order to get an answer. What was it that flipped the switch, Franko? What made you change from lothario to lout? Truly, I'm curious.

Originally posted by Franko
I like taking out the trash, besides Eternity is a long Time …I don't doubt that trash is the only thing that would go out with you. :p

Tricky said
Take a good hard look at yourself and ask, "am I doing something wrong?"
--------
Franko said
Have You been asking yourself that question lately Trixy?

I constantly ask myself that. If I find something that I am doing offends most people, then I try to find out what it is and modify my behavior. However, if I find sombody who wants to be offended, then I do all I can to oblige them. You're welcome.

Originally posted by Franko
You are gentlehorses anti-particle. You dirty his name merely by speaking it.
Hmm. I wonder if Gentlehorse would see it that way. Why don't you ask him? I consider him a friend and a very admirable person. I don't think it is your place to be speaking for him.

See you in the new year. Spend some time working on new material.

Q-Source

21st December 2002, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Not only Q-Source, but Latimer, Stimpy and a number of other very intelligent people have simply decided that you have nothing to offer. Or at least, that what you have to offer is not worth the price.

Tricky,

I am almost sure that you wrote in a hurry and did not notice a little mistake that you made.

I have never said (in public or in private) that Franko has nothing to offer. On the contrary, I have said many times that I find his philosophy interesting.

I don´t agree how he behaves most of the time, I utterly disagree when he insults people. Sometimes it makes me feel ashamed.

You know, it is a waste of time, there are so many interesting topics to discuss in this forum. It is ironic that the people who complain about his behaviour is the same people who make threads about him, who follows him around, who starts war flames, etc.

Tricky, you are a nice guy, you are a gentleman. It is also a pity that you waste so much time in this kind of "arguments".

Q-S

wraith

21st December 2002, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source
I utterly disagree when he insults people. Sometimes it makes me feel ashamed.

awww Q-Cumber....
;)
:cool:

The Fool

22nd December 2002, 04:04 PM

Franko said..

"Are you going to start manufacturing fictitious quotes and attributing them to me so you can continue pretending your delusions are real (like the Fool and Whodini have done)?"

Franko also said

"I like to be spanked by atheists"

"Tlop controls doctor, doctor controls medication, medication controls me"

"Free will is only available to nice moral people like me 'n Jedi"

The Fool said.

" I deny ever deliberately misquoting Franko, I probably just mixed one of his quotes up with something Bethke said, It is sometimes difficult to tell the difference"

The Fool also said.

" I quite like Franko, he makes many valid points and i have never known him to be wrong about anything"

Paul Bethke said

"Frank taught me everything I know"

Franko said.

"I will not do any more dancing until you say please"

Please franko? go back to dancing for my amusement? Tell me the story about heaven, I like that one.

Franko

23rd December 2002, 09:02 AM

So ....

A-Theist Foolaphant, Who do you expect to take you serious any longer in this forum (other than A-Theist fanatics like yourself)???

You are nothing more than a Troll -- by your own admission.

You have no interest or desire in discussing Religion, or Philosophy. You are only interested in Spamming this board with fictitious quotes?

How are your blatent straw-men a valid defense of A-Theism?

If anything I would say that it demonstrates YOU CANNOT defend the things that you want to believe. All you can do is defend your beliefs in a dogmatic logically fallacious manner just like a true Religious fanatic.

How does this make you Non-Religious? It makes you a Religious fanatic of the worst variety. One that will stop at nothing to ensure his dogma is seen as True even when You yourself KNOW it is not.

How do YOUR lies consitute a valid defense of A-Theism? How does your constant deception make you a Skeptic? I would say that it makes you an anti-skeptic -- just a plain old liar (lying A-Theist)

Is making up quotes and falsely attributing them to someone else a valid form of logic in your mind Foolaphant?

Franko

23rd December 2002, 09:07 AM

So Q-Source ...

Remember the other day when i said the Fool "used" you?

What do you think of your little friend now?

Do you agree with his tactics?

Do you believe that it is valid for an A-Theist (at least for one pretending to be a "Skeptic") to make up fictitious quotes?

I mean seriously Source, don't you think there are enough things for us to talk about without making up phoney positions for one another to believe in?

Is lying and making up phoney quotes logical, rational, good, and skeptical in your mind Q-Source???

I know that A-Theists like Loki or Trixy probably would agree with the Fools tactics, but I want to try and gauge how other A-Theists who might actually have a conscience react to this?

Q-Source

23rd December 2002, 10:33 AM

posted by Franko

I know that A-Theists like Loki or Trixy probably would agree with the Fools tactics, but I want to try and gauge how other A-Theists who might actually have a conscience react to this?

I would suggest you to ask some A-theists their opinion. I am just an atheist.

posted by Franko

Remember the other day when i said the Fool "used" you?
What do you think of your little friend now?

My little friend?, why do you say that?. Why are you provoking me Franko?.
It seems that you all are using ME in your flame wars. It is not my style and I won´t take part of it.

posted by Franko

Do you agree with his tactics?

Do you believe that it is valid for an A-Theist (at least for one pretending to be a "Skeptic") to make up fictitious quotes?

I don´t agree with anybody´s tactics. We are adults, most of us realise who has credibility and who doesn´t, who is lying and who isn´t.
It is funny but when you all engage in a flame war, you all behave like children.

posted by Franko

Is lying and making up phoney quotes logical, rational, good, and skeptical in your mind Q-Source???

I notice that you seem to be angry with me and I don´t know why. Are you implying that I endorse that behaviour? . This is what I get for defending your contribution to this forum :rolleyes:

Listen Franko, it is not the first time, it won´t be the last one. My advise, don´t take part of it. It is a waste of time.
Some of your "enemies" (we all know who) have lost credibility because of theirselves. You didn´t need to lift a finger against them.

On the other hand, you should be more tolerant towards people who do not agree with your philosophical stance. They feel the same as you do now, when you insult them or misrepresent their positions. Most of them are nice and you treat them as your worst enemy.

I shouldn´t be saying anything. I shouldn´t be wasting my time here.:mad:

Q-S

Franko

23rd December 2002, 11:31 AM

Ohh Source,

Don't get all bent out of shape.

The fact is you sided with this Loser last week, and come to find out, he was lying to you all along, just like I said.

So you are mad at me for saying -- "I told you so?" :confused:

Don't be so thin skinned Chicky. And, just so you know, the A-Theist Fool fabricating quotes, and CWL and Be-Dungler and Trixy, and all the rest with their shenigans doesn't make me instigating a flame war.

I am just being flamed by these lying, spamming, trolling nitwits. You want to accuse me of being just as guilty is kind of like you blaming a rape victim for being raped. It was Her fault -- She was asking for it.

Loki

23rd December 2002, 01:27 PM

Franko,

I know that A-Theists like Loki or Trixy probably would agree with the Fools tactics,
Hey, how did I get dragged into this!

But since I'm *in* anyway, my only comment is to note that you appear to have some doubt regarding my position. Excellent! Perhaps next year we can have a few conversations in which you consider what I say, rather than just tell me why I'm wrong. Or perhaps not....

... but I want to try and gauge how other A-Theists who might actually have a conscience react to this?
Is it possible for a True Atheist to have a conscience ?

Franko

23rd December 2002, 01:37 PM

Hey, how did I get dragged into this!

Well since you always seem so fond of pointing out that the Knight is a fellow non-A-Theist. I thought it was only fair to return the favor.

But since I'm *in* anyway, my only comment is to note that you appear to have some doubt regarding my position. Excellent! Perhaps next year we can have a few conversations in which you consider what I say, rather than just tell me why I'm wrong. Or perhaps not....

Loki, do you agree with the Foolaphant’s tactics YES or NO? Is it a logically valid argument (in your opinion) to just make up fictitious quotes for the person you are debating?

Does the magic proof of A-Theism involve lying and deceit as the Foolaphant claims? Is lying really the way to prove that something is TRUE and SUPERIOR?

Is it possible for a True Atheist to have a conscience ?

No … A True A-Theist is a Demon, and a Demon has no conscience at all. Fortunately few A-Theists ever achieve enough self-awareness to become Demons.

Loki

23rd December 2002, 01:57 PM

Franko,

I've been advised to give you up for Lent in 2003. Perhaps.

Loki, do you agree with the Foolaphant’s tactics YES or NO? Is it a logically valid argument (in your opinion) to just make up fictitious quotes for the person you are debating?
Hey, an easy question! "No", it's not valid. In fact, it's even worse than inventing opinions for the person you are debating - so I guess that means I rate such behaviour even below your Standard Operating Procedure.

Mind you, I have no idea what the context of this is - if Fool has misquoted you I doubt it was deliberate.

Is lying really the way to prove that something is TRUE and SUPERIOR?
Beginning to doubt your own approach? Only kidding !

Fortunately few A-Theists ever achieve enough self-awareness to become Demons.
Except for Carl Sagan, of course. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and exorcise the last remaining threads of conscience, as I prepare for Demonhood.

Have a good few days Franko - even trashmen need to get out of the gutter occasionally. And a final thought for 2003 from an evil atheist - "less is more". See ya...

Upchurch

23rd December 2002, 02:38 PM

Have a happy, Loki.

The Fool

23rd December 2002, 03:24 PM

Ah Franko no need to cry......have you been misquoted?? Please point out the misquote and I will retract it. You have so many varied positions on free will it is easy to become confused...show me the quote.

while i have you dancing, you may want to offer some further information on the "one free will choice" that you say people have. Thats the one you said I used up deciding to be an evil atheist. How does this free will co-exist with your other "no free will" statements?

also, If I withdraw any misquoteing you can show me, will you stop your usual "so what you are saying is...." line? thats the one where you blatantly inject a straw man version of the question you have been asked. You whine about the difficulty of debating with people when you dodge and duck all attempts to debate.... Don't delay as I'm getting quite bored with you and fee like a break, We should sort this misquote business out before I start ignoring you again.

Franko

24th December 2002, 10:52 AM

Loki,

My little A-Theist friend …

I've been advised to give you up for Lent in 2003. Perhaps.

… and all along I had thought Lent had no significance to the A-Theists!

Franko:
Is it a logically valid argument (in your opinion) to just make up fictitious quotes for the person you are debating? (YES or NO)

Loki:
Hey, an easy question! "No", it's not valid. In fact, it's even worse than inventing opinions for the person you are debating …

Translation: NO

… so I guess that means I rate such behaviour even below your Standard Operating Procedure.

Translation: SORT OF

:rolleyes:

Wishy-washy-ness from an A-Theist! Loki, say it isn’t so!

If Fool wants to make up things for me to believe, then he doesn’t need to come to a Skeptics forum to do that. He can imagine that I believe whatever he wants right from his parent’s basement without ever logging onto the Internet to begin with. Then he can imagine that he is debating me and he is kicking my ass. Because in his imagination, is the only way the Foolaphant is kicking my ass.

Mind you, I have no idea what the context of this is - if Fool has misquoted you I doubt it was deliberate.

He was claiming I believed in “free will”. But I am sure you are aware of his claim, you voted in his poll.

Let me ask you this, how many times have you seen our friend Jedi knight making up fictitious quotes and then FALSELY attribute them to the people he is debating? I have a good sense for deception, and I don’t sense that the Jedi has ever been anything BUT honest with me. I guess that is why you have such a problem with him? You are more comfortable around the Fools, CWLs, Trixys, and De-Bunglers of the world???

Except for Carl Sagan, of course. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and exorcise the last remaining threads of conscience, as I prepare for Demonhood.

Ohhh, I don’t think you have the makings of a good Demon in you Loki. I certainly hope you don’t.

Have a good few days Franko - even trashmen need to get out of the gutter occasionally.

hehehe … I know it is hard to believe Loki, but I like being a trashman … Best job in the Omniverse!

And a final thought for 2003 from an evil atheist - "less is more". See ya...

Yeah … my Goddess keeps telling me the same thing … :confused:

You have a good Christmas, my friend. Happy Holidays! ;)

The Fool

24th December 2002, 04:37 PM

Franko, I quote you a lot, there are a lot of inconsistent quotes to pick from. If I have attributed one to you in error then simply point it out (unless you can't) and I will humbly apologise and correct it.... can you stop crying? and stop using it as yet another diversion from your inconsistent position on free will......
There is no need to cry Franko, tell daddy what happened and i will kiss it better for you.
Have a nice Christmas, hope santa brings you some common sense.

c4ts

24th December 2002, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Have a nice Christmas, hope santa brings you some common sense.

He's probably on Santa's "ignore" list by now.

Franko

26th December 2002, 10:34 AM

Ohh Foolyphant!

You are really obsessed with me now!!!

hehehe ...

How is you making up fictitious quotes and attributing them to me a valid logical proof of your A-Theism? It seems more like a proof of your desperation.

Isn't it about time for you to be making up a new nickname?

The Fool

26th December 2002, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Ohh Foolyphant!

You are really obsessed with me now!!!

hehehe ...

How is you making up fictitious quotes and attributing them to me a valid logical proof of your A-Theism? It seems more like a proof of your desperation.

Isn't it about time for you to be making up a new nickname?
yet you will not? can not?? identify the quote???

gentlehorse

26th December 2002, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

yet you will not? can not?? identify the quote???

Just for the record: Are you denying that you made up fictitious quotes?

The Fool

26th December 2002, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by gentlehorse

Just for the record: Are you denying that you made up fictitious quotes?

I have never deliberately misquoted Franko except in Jest.

ranko said "I like to wear lace underwear".... you get the idea. Ths was done to parody Franko's usual practice of making all sorts of claims about people's position on free will. You don't have to state a belief in free will, Franko will always do it for you...If thats what he is crying about I would be more than happy to say he is correct and has never said he likes to wear lace underwear (pending new evidence appearing at some later date).....

Lately I have quoted numerous examples of Franko's varying position on free will,(never, sometimes, only once...etc) If it is one of those that he is crying about I would be more than happy to withdraw it and replace it with the 3 or 4 more inconsistencies I have yet to use.....Franko (for some reason) won't give me the quote he is crying about. If I have misquoted him I will be more than happy to say so and withdraw it...I have told him this seven times now (yes, I have been counting) yet he still will not say which quote he is crying about.

Gentlehorse, maybe you know the quote he is referring to?

Franko

26th December 2002, 10:36 PM

Fool-a-phant do you honestly believe you have any credibility left on this forum?

So now you are honestly claiming that I have made inconsistent statements, but you cannot quote those very inconsistent statements you are asserting?

Other than as an obvious A-Theist Troll, what EXACTLY do you think your purpose IS on this forum? It certainly doesn't seem to be discussing RELIGION or PHILOSOPHY, and your constant deceitfulness and cynicism cannot be called SKEPTICISM.

www.Infidels.org

Doctor X

26th December 2002, 10:44 PM

I've been advised to give you up for Lent in 2003. Perhaps.

BWA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

--J.D.

Franko

26th December 2002, 10:54 PM

Doctor X intoned:
BWA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Another brilliant insight on the topics of RELIGION & PHILOSOPHY by yet another fanatically religious A-Theist Troll.

Loki, I am sure you are proud to have a new De-Bungler-buddy to replace the old one.

The Fool

26th December 2002, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Franko

So now you are honestly claiming that I have made inconsistent statements, but you cannot quote those very inconsistent statements you are asserting?

well ranko..how about these two?

Most of the time you have 0% control, but every once in a while you have the opportunity to obtain 100% control, at least for a brief time.

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

these quotes are from your "sometimes" version and your "once only" period....you have now shifted back to the "never" position...does this look like consistency to you?

ignoring your inconsistent statements on free will will not make them go away. So now have quoted then yet again you can go back to caiming I have never quoted them....

please explain how I get "one free will choice" Franny.....

Franko

26th December 2002, 11:04 PM

Where is the link, Fool?

Time, Date, Thread?

Besides, I have addressed these already, they have nothing to do with "free will". This isn't the extent of your constant recent obsession with me.

The Fool

26th December 2002, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Where is the link, Fool?

Time, Date, Thread?

Besides, I have addressed these already, they have nothing to do with "free will". This isn't the extent of your constant recent obsession with me.
aaahh! so when you say "free will" you don't really mean free will...you mean something else which you also call free will?

when you said "you do get one free will choice" you were talking about something other than free will? If you were, why did you use the words "free will"???
confusion, confusion, smoke and mirrors...Xena will not be happy franny.

Doctor X

26th December 2002, 11:29 PM

The individual blathers:

Another brilliant insight on the topics of RELIGION & PHILOSOPHY by yet another fanatically religious A-Theist (sic) Troll.

Recognition of his characteristic argumentum ad hominem aside, given that his hypocrisy and cowardice, as exhibited so redulently here, engenders disgust in Gentlemen, one must find humor where one can of course.

--J.D.

Aardvark_DK

27th December 2002, 03:14 AM

"Humour."

wraith

27th December 2002, 03:20 AM

FOOLosophy cant escape your gravity Frankz

reminds me of a star treck episode lol
:)

hey dr dick, whats with the "(sic)" crap after certain words?

Aardvark_DK

27th December 2002, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by wraith
hey dr dick, whats with the "(sic)" crap after certain words?
Look it up, Wraith, you adjectival moron.

wraith

27th December 2002, 05:21 AM

na
Ill be right
;)

The Fool

27th December 2002, 07:45 PM

Franko said...

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

when asked how this "one off" free will system can exist within his "no free will" system Franko replied..

"Besides, I have addressed these already, they have nothing to do with "free will". "

If you have addressed these it must have been in a previous life,
I then asked you the following...

"aaahh! so when you say "free will" you don't really mean free will...you mean something else which you also call free will?

when you said "you do get one free will choice" you were talking about something other than free will? If you were, why did you use the words "free will"???"

the crickets are now chirping awaiting a reply....C'mon ranko, you can do it.....there is still a chance to explain this blatant inconsistency...Xena may still let you keep your job.

Or did I misquote you on this one too??? While I'm here I may as well ask you for the EIGHTH time now to point out which quote I used that was wrong. I really do want you to be able to stop crying, tell me where I hurt you and daddy will kiss it better. If you can show me where you were misquoted I will withdraw it and apologise or you can just continue to cry about it...Its your "free will" choice afterall?

28th December 2002, 10:10 AM

Franko wrote :

Ohh Foolyphant!

You are really obsessed with me now!!!

?

Someone is obsessed with someone...that's for sure.

No charge, Frank. No beliefs, no obsessions, no sock puppets, no expectations, no wish to challenge the beliefs of others and until today no posts on JREF since the summer.

:)

LeFevre

28th December 2002, 10:11 AM

hey UCE, glad to see you still moving :D :cool:

Q-Source

28th December 2002, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Someone is obsessed with someone...that's for sure.

No charge, Frank. No beliefs, no obsessions, no sock puppets, no expectations, no wish to challenge the beliefs of others and until today no posts on JREF since the summer.

The super famous UCE...:D

Newbies already know you.

Welcome back !

Franko

30th December 2002, 09:46 AM

UCE,

Someone is obsessed with someone...that's for sure.

I knew I could smoke you out. If not, the Fool is just as much a mystic as you ever were.

No charge, Frank. No beliefs, no obsessions, no sock puppets, no expectations, no wish to challenge the beliefs of others and until today no posts on JREF since the summer.

Sure my friend … whatever you say.

But the important thing is you are posting as UCE now.

No sock puppets, and you get some of your gravity back.

30th December 2002, 11:08 AM

Frank,

There never were any sock puppets, not mine away. I have only ever posted as UCE and Juggler (well I made a handful of posts as another name but that was a long time ago now). The Fools posts do not represent my views - not even close. Now....if you want me to explain what I think about Free Will and Franko then I might do so, if asked nicely, but please stop attributing the work of others to me. ;)

Geoff.

Franko

30th December 2002, 02:01 PM

UCE,

There never were any sock puppets, not mine away. I have only ever posted as UCE and Juggler (well I made a handful of posts as another name but that was a long time ago now). The Fools posts do not represent my views - not even close.

Actually … Truth be told … I have known for a while that the Fool isn’t you UCE. But it is a moot point. On the issue of “free will” and “god” you share almost identical beliefs, and you are both fanatical in your devotion to this bit of Dogma. Neither of you can prove what you believes, and BOTH of you use the same logical fallacies to try and support your insane wishful thinking about how reality should work (if Solipsism were True).

Besides, I knew the Fool’s true master wouldn’t like being accused of being You any more than you would want to be associated with the Fool. But since you A-Theists all like to play these little hide and seek games (Lord knows you can’t actually defend what you claim to believe), you leave me no “choice”.

Now....if you want me to explain what I think about Free Will and Franko then I might do so, if asked nicely, but please stop attributing the work of others to me.

Are you sure your fragile psyche can handle discussing “free will” with me Elephant?

Ahhh, I guess if it starts to go badly for you, you can always run off again and create another Trolling sockpuppet … ?

If you can’t beat them … whine, cry, and pout a lot. Throw a temper tantrum like CWL, or Upchimp, or MRC, or Evildave, or Lucy Rochelle, or De-Bungler, or Mussy, or Titanpout, or Trixy, or …

btw - I like the new avatar.

The Fool

30th December 2002, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Actually … Truth be told … I have known for a while that the Fool isn’t you UCE.

Truth be told? are you trying a new approach?
If you have "known for a while" why did you post this today...

I guess it is just a “coincidence” that you arrived as I was accusing the A-Theists Fool of “defending” your old position on magic “free willy” powers?

you would make a fine conspiracy theorist Fanko....did you shoot JFK after all????

On reading back through some old threads I now understand why you are paranoid about UCE, He certainly underlined your weaknesses.

I would suggest you arrive at a consistent position on free will before you start discussing the subject with UCE.... Your constantly changing views make debate very confusing...

30th December 2002, 04:12 PM

Frank.

Listen Carefully : I am not an atheist.

:)

The Fool

30th December 2002, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Frank.

Listen Carefully : I am not an atheist.

:)
Good morning to you Elephant. As you can see Franko has deteriorated somewhat since your departure. I'm afraid he is a shell of his former self. He is now basically limited to cutting and pasting his favourite falacy of composition along with the usual question begging and ad-hom.... He still fancies himself as having won something when people abandon debates due to his behavior. Unfortunately I have a perverse pleasure in watching him dance for my amusement....I like to think of it as an e-hobby.

30th December 2002, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Good morning to you Elephant.

Good morning to you too.

:)

31st December 2002, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Ohhh -- just kiss him already and be done with it! :rolleyes:

Do you have a soul, Franko?

edited....

OK you finally answered.

Franko

2nd January 2003, 12:03 PM

So Elephant ...

You have stated that you believe the SOUL and the EGO are two seperate and distinct entities.

Why do you believe this?

2nd January 2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Franko
So Elephant ...

You have stated that you believe the SOUL and the EGO are two seperate and distinct entities.

Why do you believe this?

Ego is everything explicable my materialistic neuroscience. It degenerates as the brain degenerates. It CANNOT survive the death of the brain.

Soul provides Beingness itself, and Will. It is that which is inexplicable by materialistic neuroscience. Beyond that I do not feel it is appropriate to discuss in public the nature of Soul/God-head.

Franko

2nd January 2003, 12:39 PM

Ego is everything explicable my materialistic neuroscience. It degenerates as the brain degenerates. It CANNOT survive the death of the brain.

There is no brain because there is no “matter”. I thought you were not a Materialist?

Ergo, there is no Ego in the manner you describe.

Soul provides Beingness itself, and Will. It is that which is inexplicable by materialistic neuroscience.

In other words, you are claiming that there is no evidence for this belief, so don’t even ask? This is simply a special plead Elephant. This doesn’t prove the existence of the Soul, and it doesn’t prove that the Soul and Ego are independent.

All you are doing is making up your own version of Atheism where you accept the existence of the Soul in order to obtain “free will”.

Unfortunately your version of A-Theism makes even less sense then the regular version. Some how you have managed to do the impossible and you have simply made A-Theism even less consistent logically.

Beyond that I do not feel it is appropriate to discuss in public the nature of Soul/God-head.

Of course not, because you only have your own word and wishful thinking as evidence for it.

You are your Soul my Friend. It only has two parts if you are an insane schizophrenic.

Tell me Elephant what would be the point of existing in this Universe at all if we simply forget everything the moment we die? That kind of defeats the purpose for living in the first place – doesn’t it?

I’ve told you before, in most variations of reincarnation there is no difference from your POV to Geoff being annihilated, and a brand new consciousness being created. All you are doing is claiming that when we die we cease to exist, you are just making a MUCH, MUCH more complicated explanation for it than the A-Theists offer.

Of course if you are the kind of person who wants to forget, I can see where this “theory” would have some appeal. But if losing your memory is what you desire, why not just over indulge in alcohol and mind altering drugs? There is no need to pretend you have a separate Soul and Ego …

Aardvark_DK

2nd January 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Franko
There is no brain because there is no “matter”.
Sorry for being a bit dense, Franko, but is that your claim or is it what you think UCE believes?

Franko

2nd January 2003, 01:28 PM

Sorry for being a bit dense, Franko, but is that your claim or is it what you think UCE believes?

A-Theist, I have no doubt this conversation is well over your head.

The Elephant and myself are talking about something that most A-Theists just don’t comprehend at all – RELIGION and PHILOSOPHY (specifically the nature of the Soul).

Just do your normal thing and assume that we (Theists/Deists) are all insane.

Aardvark_DK

2nd January 2003, 02:01 PM

Does that mean you're not going to answer my question? Can I safely assume that you're a materialist who believes that "There is no brain because there is no “matter”"?

2nd January 2003, 02:48 PM

Frank,

There is no brain because there is no “matter”. I thought you were not a Materialist?

Is there a Sherlock Holmes?

The physical world may be logically equivalent to a fiction, or a mathematical construct, but that does not mean it does not exist at all.

Ergo, there is no Ego in the manner you describe.

Well Pahansiri would agree with that, and so would the Buddha. I would probably describe the ego as a very powerful illusion.

In other words, you are claiming that there is no evidence for this belief, so don’t even ask?

Erm...there is mountains of evidence to explain how brain activity governs most of the content of mental experience.

All you are doing is making up your own version of Atheism where you accept the existence of the Soul in order to obtain “free will”.

I am not an atheist, Frank. I offer no opinion on the existence and nature of God/Gods apart form that I believe the objective existence of Infinity is logically neccesary to explain the existence of anything at all, as well as Free Will.

Tell me Elephant what would be the point of existing in this Universe at all if we simply forget everything the moment we die? That kind of defeats the purpose for living in the first place – doesn’t it?

Well, that is a tough old question, Frankie Baby. Everything we try to acheive is rendered meaningless by death. Or as the existentialists would say...."Life is intrinsically meaningless so you'd better give it some meaning or you are existential toast!"

You are going to DIE Frank!

There is nothing I can say to make that pill easier to swallow. But it is the one thing those silly little 'A-theists' have come to terms with but you haven't.

Attempting to argue that the ego must survive death because otherwise life would be meaningless is like a small child arguing that the tooth fairy must exists otherwise what would be the point in all the stress of losing ones milk teeth! :rolleyes:

I’ve told you before, in most variations of reincarnation there is no difference from your POV to Geoff being annihilated, and a brand new consciousness being created.

I am not a re-incarnationist, although I hold no hard beliefs in this area. I see no reason for believing that 'souls' are recycled.

All you are doing is claiming that when we die we cease to exist, you are just making a MUCH, MUCH more complicated explanation for it than the A-Theists offer.

I am claiming that our EGO ceases to exist. I am also claiming that we were never actually our EGO to begin with. We just think we are. Do you really want me to go into any more detail or have you heard enough yet?

Of course if you are the kind of person who wants to forget, I can see where this “theory” would have some appeal. But if losing your memory is what you desire, why not just over indulge in alcohol and mind altering drugs? There is no need to pretend you have a separate Soul and Ego …

It has nothing to do with what I desire. Desiring immortal existence as Frank Ross does not make it so. Wishing there to be intrinsic meaning to life does not make it so. Believing in hell as a punishment for evil-doers does not make it so.

Franko

2nd January 2003, 03:37 PM

Elephant,

Is there a Sherlock Holmes?

The physical world may be logically equivalent to a fiction, or a mathematical construct, but that does not mean it does not exist at all.

Well I would agree with you there; however, that doesn’t change the fact that you can’t go dig up Sherlock Holmes’ body. And by the same token You are not made of “Matter”. “matter” is just the information that we exchange between us, you aren’t made of it, any more than you are made of 3’s.

If you are claiming that your Soul is bound by matter than that isn’t a Soul. That is materialism – that is when you die you cease to exist. Like I said, you are still an A-Theist Elephant, you have just manage to convince yourself that you are not one.

Well Pahansiri would agree with that, and so would the Buddha. I would probably describe the ego as a very powerful illusion.

What exactly does that mean?

Does that mean that YOU are simply a “very powerful illusion”?

… I wonder if I could dispel you?

Franko: In other words, you are claiming that there is no evidence for this belief, so don’t even ask?

Elephant:
Erm...there is mountains of evidence to explain how brain activity governs most of the content of mental experience.

Yeah, sure … if you are an A-Theists/Pseudo-Materialist!

Which puzzles me, because you keep telling me that you are not?

You aren’t giving me any reason to believe in a Soul Elephant. What is to be gained by this belief? Let me guess, it has all of the benefits of A-Theism (ceasing to exist, no god, no one superior to you, no one to answer to, no consequences for your actions, plus you get the magic bonus of magic “free willy” powers).

Franko:
All you are doing is making up your own version of Atheism where you accept the existence of the Soul in order to obtain “free will”.

Elephant:
I am not an atheist, Frank. I offer no opinion on the existence and nature of God/Gods apart form that I believe the objective existence of Infinity is logically neccesary to explain the existence of anything at all, as well as Free Will.

Do you mean Infinity, or Zero???

… and you still haven’t provided ANY evidence for “free will”. All you have done is claim that we have an Ego and a Soul, but you haven’t explained why this is true (evidence), or How this would account for “free will”? Do the Ego and Soul ever duke it out Elephant? Why have both if you only need one? Explain what you mean?

Franko:
Tell me Elephant what would be the point of existing in this Universe at all if we simply forget everything the moment we die? That kind of defeats the purpose for living in the first place – doesn’t it?

Elephant:
Well, that is a tough old question, Frankie Baby.

Only for an A-Theist …

Everything we try to acheive is rendered meaningless by death.

Only if you are a Pessimistic A-Theist.

Or as the existentialists would say...."Life is intrinsically meaningless so you'd better give it some meaning or you are existential toast!"

Translation: Life (Existence) is meaningless if you are an A-Theist, unless you prtend that it has meaning.

You find this a fulfilling philosophy to live by? I say it certainly explains a lot about you.

You are going to DIE Frank!

Think so? Maybe I am just a figment of your imagination? Maybe I don’t even exist?

There is nothing I can say to make that pill easier to swallow.

You are making it easy for me to swallow??? … why Elephant – I’m touched.

But explain to me, how is YOUR crushing fear and inability to deal with Fate and the consequences for your own actions a weakness on My part? That seems more like a weakness on YOUR part?

You are controlled by Fate my friend. You can pretend all you want, but until you have some evidence that refutes it – it is a fact. Furthermore, it is rather obvious what you have done. Your fear of Fate is sooo overwhelming that instead of concede to the obvious truth you have created an elaborate fantasy belief system whereby A-Theism can be True, and you still get magic “free will” powers, while not having to deal with the consequences of your “free willy” actions.

Why exactly should anyone be moral according to you? You have created the perfect religion for criminals, murderers, rapists, and thieves.

But it is the one thing those silly little 'A-theists' have come to terms with but you haven't.

if you say so …

Attempting to argue that the ego must survive death because otherwise life would be meaningless is like a small child arguing that the tooth fairy must exists otherwise what would be the point in all the stress of losing ones milk teeth!

hehehe … you crack me up!

Okay … so who came up with this system … God?

Why do you A-Theists always have to make God out to be some sort of moron? Elephant Christianity is a better more consistent philosophical system then what you just entailed. What makes you believe that God wouldn’t be at least as bright as the Christians claim? Ohhh, that is right – Solipsism is actually TRUE and YOU are god (if you are reading this now). All of the figments KNOW that no one is smarter than YOU.

So “God” comes up with this elaborate system that runs the gerbils through the wheels and then makes them forget everything? There is no point to it – just make up a reason why. What better nonsense does god have to do? Ohhh, and by the way, there is no reason to be moral ---kill someone on your way out would you? Apparently God (UCE) wants us to reduce the population down by 99.9% so the remaining “enlightened” few can return to the medieval period and be subsistence farmers … :rolleyes:

Franko:
I’ve told you before, in most variations of reincarnation there is no difference from your POV to Geoff being annihilated, and a brand new consciousness being created.

Elephant:
I am not a re-incarnationist, although I hold no hard beliefs in this area. I see no reason for believing that 'souls' are recycled.

Elephant if you die and you aren’t YOU any more than YOU has ceased to exist.

All you are offering is an insaner, more deluded, more complicated version of A-Theism.

Franko:
All you are doing is claiming that when we die we cease to exist, you are just making a MUCH, MUCH more complicated explanation for it than the A-Theists offer.

Elephant:
I am claiming that our EGO ceases to exist.

Yeah … the Ego is YOU.

Prtending that some magical invisible essence “lives on” in the eyes of the Omniconsciousness is great from the POV of the Omniconsciousness.

Unfortunately for you such an entity doesn’t exist, so instead you will be left with nothing but Solipsism. It is already happening to you … don’t you perceive it?

I am also claiming that we were never actually our EGO to begin with. We just think we are.

You just think you are UCE?

Listen buddy, if you aren’t UCE, then no one is.

You really are schizophrenic aren’t you? You need to cut back on the self medication my friend.

Do you really want me to go into any more detail or have you heard enough yet?

I want you to explain why you believe you are not who you believe you are?

If you don’t know who you are … then how do you know anything? I guess Yatzi was right Elephant … your consciousness is just an illusion?

I want you to explain why any “sane” entity would ever come up with this system in the first place? What purpose does it serve?

I want you to explain why anyone has ANY incentive to be moral under this system, and if NOT, then what does that say of YOUR god?

I want you to explain why you feel that cigarettes are so bad if your EGO dies anyway? Doesn’t seem to make any difference to me.

BTW … didn’t you quit smoking??? I thought you were the one who isn’t afraid to die? Seems rather a contradiction …

2nd January 2003, 04:35 PM

I have answered Franko in a PM. If anyone is interested in the answers PM me.

Lucifuge Rofocale

2nd January 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Ego is everything explicable my materialistic neuroscience. It degenerates as the brain degenerates. It CANNOT survive the death of the brain.

Soul provides Beingness itself, and Will. It is that which is inexplicable by materialistic neuroscience. Beyond that I do not feel it is appropriate to discuss in public the nature of Soul/God-head.

Of all the discussion above, the most interesting part is the one you don't want to discuss in public.

What is your evidence to support the "infinite soul" claim ?

3rd January 2003, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale

Of all the discussion above, the most interesting part is the one you don't want to discuss in public.

What is your evidence to support the "infinite soul" claim ?

Unless Infinity is in the equation I see no meaningful source of Free Will. Unless Infinity objectively exists I see no reason why anything should exist. Explaining a single finite Universe is considerably more difficult than explaining an Infinite set of possible Infinite Universes. The existence of Infinity is the easiest (and arguably the only) way to explain the something-from-nothing conundrum.

As for the nature of the soul, and my reasons for not wishing to publicly discuss certain things - well if I told you why I did not wish to discuss them in public it would defeat the object of not discussing them in public. I recall a phrase about pearls and swine - but please don't take that personally. Why discuss fine details of the nature of the soul and the nature of personal reality and metaphysical mechanics with people who poo-poo all metaphysics, and do not accept the basic premise of the existence of soul/god-head at all? It's like discussing Shakespeare with a person that refuses to acknowledge the existence of the English language. The truth can be found, but you have to want to find it rather than wanting to preserve your current belief system. I'm not interested in sharing hard-earned and valuable information about the precise nature of metaphysics with people whose only agenda is to discredit the whole idea of metaphysics. I hope you can see why.

Geoff.

Lucifuge Rofocale

3rd January 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Unless Infinity is in the equation I see no meaningful source of Free Will. Unless Infinity objectively exists I see no reason why anything should exist. Explaining a single finite Universe is considerably more difficult than explaining an Infinite set of possible Infinite Universes. The existence of Infinity is the easiest (and arguably the only) way to explain the something-from-nothing conundrum.

As for the nature of the soul, and my reasons for not wishing to publicly discuss certain things - well if I told you why I did not wish to discuss them in public it would defeat the object of not discussing them in public. I recall a phrase about pearls and swine - but please don't take that personally. Why discuss fine details of the nature of the soul and the nature of personal reality and metaphysical mechanics with people who poo-poo all metaphysics, and do not accept the basic premise of the existence of soul/god-head at all? It's like discussing Shakespeare with a person that refuses to acknowledge the existence of the English language. The truth can be found, but you have to want to find it rather than wanting to preserve your current belief system. I'm not interested in sharing hard-earned and valuable information about the precise nature of metaphysics with people whose only agenda is to discredit the whole idea of metaphysics. I hope you can see why.

Geoff.

So, in short, to obtain evidence of an infinite soul, you have first to believe that there is an infinite soul. Then, you have to reject any known objetive way to obtain knowledge and giving up any hope to peer review (just to be sure that we are not fooling ourselves). And all of this is TOP SECRET. Dear friend, be sure that I can see why.

Lucifuge Rofocale

3rd January 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Why discuss fine details of the nature of the soul and the nature of personal reality and metaphysical mechanics with people who poo-poo all metaphysics, and do not accept the basic premise of the existence of soul/god-head at all? It's like discussing Shakespeare with a person that refuses to acknowledge the existence of the English language. The truth can be found, but you have to want to find it rather than wanting to preserve your current belief system. I'm not interested in sharing hard-earned and valuable information about the precise nature of metaphysics with people whose only agenda is to discredit the whole idea of metaphysics. I hope you can see why.

Geoff.

BTW I spend hours learning and trying to understand hard stuff like genetics, phisycs, neuroscience and so on, then I spend more time and effort trying to make some points and compose a verifiable vision of the universe (at least one that makes sense). But you can't share your "valuable information".

Point taken.

3rd January 2003, 11:32 AM

Lucifuge

So, in short, to obtain evidence of an infinite soul, you have first to believe that there is an infinite soul. Then, you have to reject any known objetive way to obtain knowledge and giving up any hope to peer review (just to be sure that we are not fooling ourselves). And all of this is TOP SECRET. Dear friend, be sure that I can see why.

I have no desire to prove this to you. It is not in my interest to attempt to prove it to you. It makes no difference to me what you choose to believe or not to believe. It is YOU who gains or loses depending on whether or not YOU decide to search for philosophical truth. Philosophy is not science.

BTW I spend hours learning and trying to understand hard stuff like genetics, phisycs, neuroscience and so on, then I spend more time and effort trying to make some points and compose a verifiable vision of the universe (at least one that makes sense). But you can't share your "valuable information".

I don't think you want it, or are ready for it. I think you have an agenda. I think you are far more interested in defending what you currently believe than actually finding out what is true. Genetics, physics and neuroscience are all very good if you want to understand half of the story. I think you already know my recommended route to the truth. Go and take an HONEST look at the mind-body problem, without a belief system to defend. Until that hurdle is crossed you will not be able to accept what I might have to say to you. Also, I am not interested in forcing you to confront the MBP. You must choose to do so. If you are happy that your current beliefs are the closest to the truth you can get then stay there.

:)

Geoff.

Lucifuge Rofocale

3rd January 2003, 11:41 AM

The problem, dear friend, is that when I study those matters, I'm every time more sure that they take account for all the history, EVEN the mind-body problem and HPC.
BTW, knowledge is knowledge, no matter from what source you get it.
So, my agenda now is to get what is missing in my vision of the universe. My tool is the scientific method, because it gives a way to validate.

Maybe you are the one that is recurring to unnecesary entities to explain phenomena? Maybe you could get rid of preconceived notions about a trascendent reality? maybe you could someday want to now what it feels to validate you beliefs?

3rd January 2003, 12:19 PM

Luci

My tool is the scientific method, because it gives a way to validate.

Then you will learn only about science. Science is good. It tells you all about the physical world.

[rest of post deleted because I will not get involved in this sort of pointless conflict. This is supposed to be a philosophy forum - why are you trying to restrict it to science?]

ShottleBop

3rd January 2003, 12:40 PM

You are controlled by Fate my friend. You can pretend all you want, but until you have some evidence that refutes it – it is a fact. Furthermore, it is rather obvious what you have done. Your fear of Fate is sooo overwhelming that instead of concede to the obvious truth you have created an elaborate fantasy belief system whereby A-Theism can be True, and you still get magic “free will” powers, while not having to deal with the consequences of your “free willy” actions.

Why exactly should anyone be moral according to you? You have created the perfect religion for criminals, murderers, rapists, and thieves.

. . . if we are controlled by Fate, and our every action is predetermined by the IS and the TLOP, wouldn't our intrinsic nature as "good" or "evil"--and, thus, our ultimate fate--also be predetermined?

Lucifuge Rofocale

3rd January 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Luci

Then you will learn only about science. Science is good. It tells you all about the physical world.

[rest of post deleted because I will not get involved in this sort of pointless conflict. This is supposed to be a philosophy forum - why are you trying to restrict it to science?]

Ok then. I just would like now you to tell me what kind of answers would I expect from philosophy that are not covered by the philosophy of logical analisys.

Of course I don't want to discuss only science. If not, then I would post mostly in the science forum. I'm more interested in the cosmovision that science can give to us. Much of the questions we now answer with science were once exclusively metaphisycal field. I know you left the forum the last months so you are not aware of some threads where we were discussing the limits of science. I'm interested in closing the circle, so the most relevant questions I can ask you are:

- What are the aspects of knowledge we can't obtain using the scientific method?

- How we can evaluate the truth value of such answers?

Is that ok for you?

Franko

3rd January 2003, 01:41 PM

Shottlebop,

. . . if we are controlled by Fate, and our every action is predetermined by the IS and the TLOP, wouldn't our intrinsic nature as "good" or "evil"--and, thus, our ultimate fate--also be predetermined?

In a way yes … it would be exactly like that.

But the real question, is do you perceive that you are on a Destiny that leads you to a bright future? … or are you on a path of Destiny which ultimately leads you to a dark Fate?

3rd January 2003, 01:47 PM

Ok then. I just would like now you to tell me what kind of answers would I expect from philosophy that are not covered by the philosophy of logical analisys.

That depends how wide reaching your logic is, and how open-minded you are. It also depends whether your approach is reductionist, and attempts to analyse things by breaking them down, or whether you are willing to stand back and take a holistic view of things. You will not find a reductionist answer to questions like "How does something come from nothing?".

- What are the aspects of knowledge we can't obtain using the scientific method?

The answer to that is in Wins signature. "How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?". There is an assumption within mainstream science that many of the questions regarding consciousness have been cleared up, and all that is left is a few loose ends. There is an assumption that the realm of the physical world is vastly greater than the realm of consciousness. There are assumptions that consciousness is not of any cosmic significance and that life itself is not of any cosmic significance. To a certain extent these assumptions are born out of the conditions that science came into being during i.e. it has a historical conflict with Christianity. The same can be said of the issues regarding randomness and directionality in evolution. It is my position that in many of these fields of knowledge a science-only viewpoint will only ever provide half of the picture, just as a science-retarded viewpoint will only ever provide half the picture. Any philosophy worthy of the name should aim to resolve these differences and provide a synthesis of the different views.

- How we can evaluate the truth value of such answers?

That is an extremely simple question which has an extremely complicated answer. Believe me - I have spent a very long time examining this. Reality, as we experience it, is a first-person experience. It cannot be evaluated fully from a third-person perspective, but from a first-person perspective it cannot be verified to others. If I see aliens then I can be sure I saw aliens, even if I can't prove to you I saw aliens. Even then, I cannot be sure that anybody else will have seen the aliens - all I know is what my first-person experience was. Therefore if you want to know the kind of answers that fill in the 'other half' of this picture you have no choice but to go look for them yourself. And if you have already decided that all religion is bunk, all reports of paranormal phenomena are bunk, and that there is no way that beliefs can influence manifested reality or subjective contemplation can lead to transcendent experiences then you will never seriously investigate the religion, never accept that co-incidences might be synchronicities, never experiment with different belief systems and never experience any paranormal phenomena. I can recommend a book that might change your perspective :

"The Taboo of Subjectivity : Towards a New Science of Consciousness" :

http://www.data4all.com/list/500/512000/0195132076

Is that ok for you?

That is fine. I am a bit over-sensitive to people who infer that I do not understand science, or the importance of verifying beliefs. I did not end up being the science & skepticism moderator at the secular web by accident. I ended up being there because I was even more science-biased than you are.

Franko

3rd January 2003, 01:52 PM

Ohh my Goddess!!!

I find myself agreeing with Lucifuge Royalcola?!?! I am not sure what that means. Perhaps it is a sign that the apocalypse is less than 10 years away …

Elephant said:
I have no desire to prove this to you. It is not in my interest to attempt to prove it to you.

Translation: The Truth doesn’t really matter.

It makes no difference to me what you choose to believe or not to believe.

Well, that part I can actually agree with.

It is YOU who gains or loses depending on whether or not YOU decide to search for philosophical truth. Philosophy is not science.

Omp! There it is!

What is the difference between “Philosophy” and “Science”? It’s just lines in your mind. Any “science” that isn’t logical (comprehensible) isn’t Science – not real Science anyway. And any “philosophy” which isn’t logical (comprehensible/understandable) isn’t real Philosophy.

It’s flying an airplane into a skyscraper … for no good reason.

Clash of the A-Theist Titans …

Lucifuge Rofocale:
BTW I spend hours learning and trying to understand hard stuff like genetics, phisycs, neuroscience and so on, then I spend more time and effort trying to make some points and compose a verifiable vision of the universe (at least one that makes sense). But you can't share your "valuable information".

Elephant:
I don't think you want it, or are ready for it. I think you have an agenda. I think you are far more interested in defending what you currently believe than actually finding out what is true. Genetics, physics and neuroscience are all very good if you want to understand half of the story. [ahhh! Now I agree w/UCE!] I think you already know my recommended route to the truth. Go and take an HONEST look at the mind-body problem, without a belief system to defend. Until that hurdle is crossed you will not be able to accept what I might have to say to you. Also, I am not interested in forcing you to confront the MBP. You must choose to do so. If you are happy that your current beliefs are the closest to the truth you can get then stay there.

Okay, so Elephant if you are happy with your beliefs then stay there. Take your own advice, but if you are unwilling to logically defend what you believe; if you are unwilling or unable to explain your beliefs in a comprehensible fashion that can be understood by the people in this forum, then what is your point in being here??

Lucifuge Rofocale

3rd January 2003, 05:47 PM

UCE:

I have been always aware that you know science first hand, now please let me tell you that I know exactly the kind of problems HPC and the mind body problem are. And, because I'm aware that there were holes (ocassionally huge) in our comprehension of the nature of the concioussness phenomena via empirical observation and the traditional scientific method, I MAY understand where do you come from.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

That depends how wide reaching your logic is, and how open-minded you are. It also depends whether your approach is reductionist, and attempts to analyse things by breaking them down, or whether you are willing to stand back and take a holistic view of things. You will not find a reductionist answer to questions like "How does something come from nothing?".

Can I assume you are talking here of more than Quantum Fluctuation?
The relevant question here is: Can you find subjetive answers to ANY question or there are some question that cannot be subjetive answered? The response to "How does something come from nothing?" can be found subjetively?

AFAICS, many of our scientific theories weren't obtained reductionistically. I'm pretty sure that General Relativity and Quantum Theory were "Eureka" experiences, holistic answers to complex problems and weren't obtained little step by little step.

BUT the verification proccess is reductionist per-se. Since you already have the holistic knowledge, a reductionist verification couldn't hurt, doesn't it?

The answer to that is in Wins signature. "How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?". There is an assumption within mainstream science that many of the questions regarding consciousness have been cleared up, and all that is left is a few loose ends. There is an assumption that the realm of the physical world is vastly greater than the realm of consciousness. There are assumptions that consciousness is not of any cosmic significance and that life itself is not of any cosmic significance. To a certain extent these assumptions are born out of the conditions that science came into being during i.e. it has a historical conflict with Christianity. The same can be said of the issues regarding randomness and directionality in evolution. It is my position that in many of these fields of knowledge a science-only viewpoint will only ever provide half of the picture, just as a science-retarded viewpoint will only ever provide half the picture. Any philosophy worthy of the name should aim to resolve these differences and provide a synthesis of the different views.

UCE, the problem with concioussness NOW is that the loose ends are fewer each month. Of course there are still loose ends, but we have some tools to explore concioussness and its relation to the material like never before (pe Trascranial Stimulation). But I get your point. You are talking about how, under those assumptions, we can't develop a complete picture of the subjetive phenomena. Am i right? Because if so, that claim is falsiable.

"The third-person requeriment of science can't account for the first-person nature of conciousness" is also a falsiable claim. Would you please provide an experiment which could convince you that this claim is false?

That is an extremely simple question which has an extremely complicated answer. Believe me - I have spent a very long time examining this. Reality, as we experience it, is a first-person experience. It cannot be evaluated fully from a third-person perspective, but from a first-person perspective it cannot be verified to others. If I see aliens then I can be sure I saw aliens, even if I can't prove to you I saw aliens. Even then, I cannot be sure that anybody else will have seen the aliens - all I know is what my first-person experience was. Therefore if you want to know the kind of answers that fill in the 'other half' of this picture you have no choice but to go look for them yourself.

We have another option: Experiment the effects of the phisycal into conciousness! It's a new way to test assumptions about conciousness that have future. You are right, at first look, subjetive phenomena can be tested by third parties. Do you think this problem is not solvable?

And if you have already decided that all religion is bunk, all reports of paranormal phenomena are bunk, and that there is no way that beliefs can influence manifested reality or subjective contemplation can lead to transcendent experiences then you will never seriously investigate the religion, never accept that co-incidences might be synchronicities, never experiment with different belief systems and never experience any paranormal phenomena.

About this you are very wrong. I don't "decide" that something is false a priori . One tests the claims. When the claims are shown false again and again then you, well, get tired. AND a testable (not subjetive) claim is that belief can influence manifested reality. THAT IS TESTABLE and I of course would change my mind if I see that.

Now your claim that I never experimented diferent belief systems and so on. That claim is false my friend.

I can recommend a book that might change your perspective :

"The Taboo of Subjectivity : Towards a New Science of Consciousness" :

http://www.data4all.com/list/500/512000/0195132076

I'll try to get it.

That is fine. I am a bit over-sensitive to people who infer that I do not understand science, or the importance of verifying beliefs. I did not end up being the science & skepticism moderator at the secular web by accident. I ended up being there because I was even more science-biased than you are.

A bit? I was scared :D See, I want to take just a grasp of that. What was the beggining of your conversion history?