The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by ErV It is observer that either posess true knowledge that object exists, or possess correct knowledge that object doesn't exist (anywhere), or don't know if object exists or not. Note that by "possess knowledge" I mean "have correct, true information without error that correctly represents true state of things in universe, so no doubt or mistake is possible."

Isn't it impossible to have such perfect knowledge (unless you're god )? And so doesn't this imply that rather than 3-state logic we have 1-state logic, i.e. everything is unknown.

Originally Posted by ntubski Isn't it impossible to have such perfect knowledge (unless you're god )?

I don't know. I have no proof of possibility/impossibility of that.

Originally Posted by ntubski And so doesn't this imply that rather than 3-state logic we have 1-state logic, i.e. everything is unknown.

No, you still can explore thoroughly certain area and be sure about some objects that exists there. And you will be able to claim that certain material object isn't visible to you right now.
I.e. you will be able to say that "your car isn't parked here" if parking lot is empty (you got the idea).

P.S. I guess I'll keep away from this discussion for a few weeks. It was entertaining, but I had more than enough of religious-based discussions lately.

WoW , and i always thought that arguing with firm believers of any particular mainstream religion is in vain.

now i've realized that believers are far more consistent in there arguments and logic than agnostics , and if you admit your disbelief in god's existence would cream you up with "wisdom and lectures" concluding with a pseudo fact that implies that the "correct attitude" is to say when being asked about god is something like: 'I don't know , it may or may not exist but never say it does or doesn't exist' .

apparently , an agnostic is a short term for 'self denying confused atheist seeking asylum in the solace of ambiguity' .

and be double cautious with agnostics who openly declare their disrespect for people and their believes.
(i wonder what such breed has lost here anyway)

Cheers

Originally Posted by entz WoW , and i always thought that arguing with firm believers of any particular mainstream religion is in vain. now i've realized that believers are far more consistent in there arguments and logic than agnostics , and if you admit your disbelief in god's existence would cream you up with "wisdom and lectures" concluding with a pseudo fact that implies that the "correct attitude" is to say when being asked about god is something like: 'I don't know , it may or may not exist but never say it does or doesn't exist' . apparently , an agnostic is a short term for 'self denying confused atheist seeking asylum in the solace of ambiguity' . and be double cautious with agnostics who openly declare their disrespect for people and their believes. (i wonder what such breed has lost here anyway) Cheers

I agree with Erv. You must be a kid. I also presume that you are not a technical person; such a person would never permit such muddle-headed illogic to go on.

Originally Posted by jiml8 I agree with Erv. You must be a kid. I also presume that you are not a technical person; such a person would never permit such muddle-headed illogic to go on.

What do you think you know about me ?
if you and erv wanna go together then fine , and i don't care or mind.

but please spare me this bullics in the token 'you're a kid' because it shows that only kids say such things.

as for my technical knowledge , it speaks for itself , I'm multi lingual programmer (C/C++ , java , php , sql ,lisp and many more)
as for technical non computer stuff , i can write books to fill libraries.

you don't have any idea who you're talking to ,do you?

and as for the 'illogic' , it's your '3 state i dunnu' what that is.

just spare me the flaming , you and erv go troll somewhere else.

P.S i have no respect for ppl like you , who refuse to respect other ppl and there thoughts.

Originally Posted by entz This message is hidden because entz is on your ignore list.

Dude, you are wasting your time.
You failed to prove your point and provide interesting dialogue.
If you still want to argue, you'll have to wait few months or years until I change my mind and unignore you. Otherwise it'll be same as talking to wall.

Originally Posted by ErV Dude, you are wasting your time. You failed to prove your point and provide interesting dialogue. If you still want to argue, you'll have to wait few months or years until I change my mind and unignore you. Otherwise it'll be same as talking to wall.

DO YOU KNOW what's strange ?

is that I was seeking the interesting dialogue , why do you think i spent time
in the general forum , talking about religion ? why heh?

because I was looking for an interesting debate or to at least have some
nice argument regardless with whom.
(religious discussion can eventually come up with something useful , although rarely but hey ..)

but instead I encountered you , a person who is totally locked up .

and this is not meant as an insult or something since yourself admitted that arguing with you is like talking to a wall!

I'm glad that you're so brutally honest and even little bit blunt to show to everybody in here Your True Intolerant Nature .

Thank you very much

For wasting my time in this vein discussion.


Bye Bye

LOL. Mark with the "ignore" button.

Originally Posted by entz i can write books to fill libraries. you don't have any idea who you're talking to ,do you? and as for the 'illogic' , it's your '3 state i dunnu' what that is. just spare me the flaming , you and erv go troll somewhere else. P.S i have no respect for ppl like you , who refuse to respect other ppl and there thoughts.

I don't know how you think that you can write books to fill libraries when you can't spell and use English grammar.


floppy

Originally Posted by floppywhopper I don't know how you think that you can write books to fill libraries when you can't spell and use English grammar. floppy

You don't know because you're a dump troll.
I've made no spelling or grammar errors , and even if yes then so what ?

this is a cheap flame thread (or at least it has turned into one with ppl like you and erv) posted in one of million internet forums.

besides , books can be written in any language not necessary english.

Geez , I don't even know why i'm wasting my time with you in the first place.

Isn't putting someone on your ignore list the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing: "Lalalalala, I can't hear you!"?

Originally Posted by brianL Isn't putting someone on your ignore list the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing: "Lalalalala, I can't hear you!"?

No, because its isn't necessary to go "lalala".

Seriously, though...

The poster's arguments are indefensible and unsupportable. It isn't merely a disagreement about philosophy or belief or anything like that; the arguments presented are simply idiotic, and the supporting examples are contrived and false.

Both Erv and I have become impatient with that, and have both called the arguments what we think they are, with examples that demonstrate the idiocy. The response has been ad-hominem. Which is the clearest of all possible indications that the person making the arguments cannot any longer support the position.

Now, I did speculate that the poster was not a technical person, making the assertion that a person who is primarily driven by logic wouldn't insist on such a manifestly stupid position, and I suppose that this statement of mine could be called ad-hominem, though I really didn't intend it that way. I also speculated that the poster is young; an older person will have been kicked around enough to know when to back off of supporting this kind of half-baked (well, really "un-baked") position.

The response was what it was. I consider it a waste of bandwidth and time to pay any attention to such a person, and a total waste of effort to respond, so I turned him off.

Now THAT, I submit, is practicality!

I enjoy being a spectator (and sometimes a participator) in flame wars, so it's a bit of a disappointment when one side backs out.

Originally Posted by brianL I enjoy being a spectator (and sometimes a participator) in flame wars, so it's a bit of a disappointment when one side backs out.

pshh , back out ?! did you mean me ?
no buddy i didn't back off nor i am gonna do in the future .
you can cheer up , the fight aint over...yet

the arguments i presented are rock solid , that's why the 'enemy'
choose to resort to cheap troll tactics , things like calling me a kid or making personal insults or at least trying to escape the argument by distractions and the like , are all signs of their ideological bankruptcy.

As a matter of fact this discussion started as a legit religious/philosophical debate .
which then quickly degenerated into a flame war , btw i can handle flamers very well , if somebody for instance is to talk bullshit , I'd be all happy to crap all over them!

but the point is , that this flame war became a Lame war after all.
i mean honestly , those bunch of ... are unable to respond to any of my propositions that are very critical of there faulty leaking think tank ,
in a sound manner - in no way have they been !

you can see this , when i openly challenged their pathetic so called "3 state logic" .

instead of receiving any serious answers to my challenge , i got to see
rather weird responses , coupled with a tone that was getting more and more annoying with each single post , quite like the noise of a spoiled brat when you deny it the candys LOL

SO i'm afraid to disappoint you , that i'm no longer gonna waste my time
with such people.

NOT because i'm backing off or something but because 'conversing' with such ppl , is an insult and disrespect to myself.

Regards

humpht...this seems to have degenerated into flaming so much so that the topic has become lost to the point that it is no longer clear as to who is supporting what.

I do resent the idea that Atheism is akin to Agnosticism. A true Atheist when presented provable facts will change their thinking on any subject according to what the facts present. On the other hand, I'm not so sure an Agnostic would. So would Agnostics fit the 'religion'/ 'believer' pattern better than Atheists? But then one could argue that belief in facts is a religion. Would it be possible to say that such an arguement does not lead anywhere?

I believe I'll have another beer and observe the flame wars from the couch.

What could one say that would make this thread and the rest of the world a better place?