Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dreiche2]

Guys, really.

Really, I feel like I just discovered nuclear power, and the caveman next to me keeps repeating "But can you eat it? Huh? Huh? Can you?"

Given what you are arguing for and what I'm arguing for, this comment is so out of line that it had me giggling several times over the last hours.

But now, seeing that you won't take it back and just go on, I'm actually getting a wee bit annoyed.

You have been arguing against evidence, against reason, and now you're wallowing in quite frankly meaningless philosophical thought plays that you are unwilling to relate to reality... and then you're acting as if you're defending some extraordinarily ingenious insight against a caveman?

I mean, whatever. I leave you two guys to your shouting match.

[Neruz]

You only just noticed this dreiche?


I've come to the conclusion that Siquo is possibly one of the best intersphere trolls i've ever seen. I find it almost impossible to accept that someone could actually think like that.

[Siquo]

Yes, being able to follow someone else's train of thought instead of your own is hard. I still don't know why you're all here arguing with me though, and I'm beginning to suspect the worst.

[dreiche2]

Well, Neruz, just to say: It wouldn't hurt if you were a little more self-critical in your statements and less aggressive sometimes, either.

Sorry if that sounded condescending.

Siquo: Don't worry, no arguing with you anymore from my side.

Anyway. This here cavemen goes to bed!

Good night!

[Neruz]

If you want to engage in serious discussion i'll happily tone down the aggression and be more self-critical, but since we're on the Internet (one of the worst places to have a sensible discussion) and talking about Atheism no less, any attempts to engage in serious discussion are usually over by the first post.


Siquo, you do not have a train of thought. As far as i can tell you have a squiggly line of thought, every time i thought i had worked out what you were on about you abruptly changed direction.

Seriously, if you're not deliberately trolling the thread and this thread is actually indicative of how you think, then you have my deepest condolences; something very strange is going on in your head.

If you are trolling the thread, then it's by far the best troll i've ever seen.

[Andir]

How interesting... he's basically using a tactic of repetition and association to place himself in a role of "higher intelligence" (ie: he's the one with greater insight than some caveman and they will never understand...) and you guys are "playing along"... but you aren't playing along because you see it as a trollish tactic and you think leaving will resolve this.  I've actually seen, heard, and been around relatives of the church that are told to do the same thing.  It allows the subject to continue in their belief, feeling safe while feeling as though they've conquered the opponent.

The interesting part about it is that if you do "leave" the conversation you actually feed that attitude and reinforce that.  He walks away from the conversation thinking... nay believing... he's "won" this debate through determination when all he's done is bore you to leave through this repetitive ignorance while placing the rest of us in a delusion of lesser regard.  So now, you've taken the high road and allowed him to continue, but he knows that if he uses this tactic elsewhere (with enough patience) he will "win" again.  Now he takes this lesson and passes it along to share that feeling.  It's an interesting impasse in the current conversation.

I think it finally cements my understanding on why, no how, religion has intertwined itself into our society.  They've placed labels and imagery on anyone that doesn't believe as if they were sub-intelligent and/or failures at everything they do and trumpet it to those around them.  It's manufactured psychological elitism(if you will) and plays on the need for social interaction through this.

[3]

Blaming such behaviour specifically on religion probably isn't overly harsh, now that I think about it, considering that we're basically talking about most of the scope of civilised human history. But it's still unlikely that organised/social religion is the only basis of such tactics - it's likely... no, I'm too tired to think about this right now.

[Andir]

Blaming such behaviour specifically on religion probably isn't overly harsh, now that I think about it, considering that we're basically talking about most of the scope of civilised human history. But it's still unlikely that organised/social religion is the only basis of such tactics - it's likely... no, I'm too tired to think about this right now.

I'm not blaming the tactic on religion... just saying they've perfected it

[Neruz]

How interesting... he's basically using a tactic of repetition and association to place himself in a role of "higher intelligence" (ie: he's the one with greater insight than some caveman and they will never understand...) and you guys are "playing along"... but you aren't playing along because you see it as a trollish tactic and you think leaving will resolve this.  I've actually seen, heard, and been around relatives of the church that are told to do the same thing.  It allows the subject to continue in their belief, feeling safe while feeling as though they've conquered the opponent.

The interesting part about it is that if you do "leave" the conversation you actually feed that attitude and reinforce that.  He walks away from the conversation thinking... nay believing... he's "won" this debate through determination when all he's done is bore you to leave through this repetitive ignorance while placing the rest of us in a delusion of lesser regard.  So now, you've taken the high road and allowed him to continue, but he knows that if he uses this tactic elsewhere (with enough patience) he will "win" again.  Now he takes this lesson and passes it along to share that feeling.  It's an interesting impasse in the current conversation.

I think it finally cements my understanding on why, no how, religion has intertwined itself into our society.  They've placed labels and imagery on anyone that doesn't believe as if they were sub-intelligent and/or failures at everything they do and trumpet it to those around them.  It's manufactured psychological elitism(if you will) and plays on the need for social interaction through this.

If you're talking about me, then i'm not doing anything so elaborate, i'm just blatantly trolling at thsi point.

If you mean Siquo, then i'd say it's still up in the air as to what he's trying to accomplish here.

[Toady One]

Another moderator report...  and I guess it doesn't look good.  Sort of bizarre trolling meta discussion or something.  We could end this experiment in not locking a thread and let people start a more structured discussion elsewhere or something.

[RAM]

You, 3, you want an explanation? Tell me why you want one, then I'll think about it

I am certain that the only practical belief is that there is nothing resembling the christian god.
I believe that if any such entity exists that it is at odds with the interests of this world.
I hope that I am wrong, and that there is some sort of worthy spiritual component to existence, and I would like to hear any reasoned argument to support it, even if I know in advance that they cannot possibly be valid...



'Nothing' does not transcend existence and nonexistence, it IS nonexistence. Does not exist is fatal, there is much conjecture about things from beyond reality, horrors that wait to exist, numbers without the ability to manifest, or concepts too amorphous to comprehend, but such things are generally the work of fiction and convenience, and they always exist in any case, even if they only exist as potential or theory. Perhaps a better way to think of it would be to say that seeing as there is a physical manifestation of our world then there must also be an existence that is not physically manifest, something to 'fill the hole' as it were, and that this is god. But I see no hole to fill, certainly I do not currently insist that such a thing could not exist, but there is no need for it. If all things are components of a dual-nature, what is the opposing component to lime ice-cream?

[Siquo]

@dreiche First of all my apologies, I was tired and let my annoyance take the upper hand.

The caveman analogy-feeling was not meant as an insult to your intelligence, dreiche, far from it. The conversation was as follows:
Me: "I have invented nuclear fusion! It'll be the pinnacle of human achievements!"
Caveman: "Yeah, that's nice, but it'll be another 50.000 years before we build one, we can't eat it, we can't see it nor can you prove it, and I'm hungry now."

The Caveman does not see the practical application, and rightly so, because he will never live to see it, if it even comes to pass at all, and he is hungry now. He has his priorities straight, and is right in saying what he says.

@Andir, Neruz, thank you for sharing why you are here. Your reason is not mine, however, I'm not here to "win", not here to accomplish something, and neither here to troll or annoy people. If you do feel annoyed by someone who has no rigid fixed belief that you can logically disprove and triumph over, please feel free to ignore me. Oh, and you both won, as far as I'm concerned. I yield, surrender, and throw myself at your mercy. Happy?

@RAM I hope so too, and try to find it by sharing my ideas with others. They give me ideas, show me why my ideas are insufficient or unsatisfactory, and eventually I'll have something worth believing in.

The opposing thing to lime ice-cream could be not-lime icecream. Then there is a third thing that is both lime-ice-cream and not-lime-ice-cream for which we have no name other than superposition. Numbers that cannot manifest are used extensively in the real world, one of them is i, the imaginary number (square root of -1). Completely bonkers and abstract, not physically manifest, but useful nonetheless. It stands completely apart from, say, the collection of natural numbers. There is however a super-collection which includes both the natural numbers and i. And one above that, etc. God would be the collection of all unlimited supercollections, including himself in the process.

@Toady: Thanks for not locking this just yet. It's the longest thread where this stuff has been discussed without locking so far.

[Neruz]

Oh i see, Siquo is one of those people who, upon being presented with apparant absurdities like Root -1, responds by throwing his hands up in the air and going 'Everything is impossible!'

That explains his wierd trains of thought at least. Actually that explains most everything, i should have twigged on that sooner.

[Siquo]

Ehm... No, it was a reply to "numbers without the ability to manifest" by RAM. You already won, no need to rub it in now.

[Neruz]

I wasn't even aware this was a competition. But sure.

Also that wasn't intended to be an insult, merely a statement of my perceptions. Considering the nature of the Universe, throwing your hands up and shoting "Everything is impossible!" might be a completely reasonable reaction.