Print

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

[Neruz]

I thought you were on the Religion side, your last series of posts though have been Artful Dodgery at it's finest.

[Pjoo]

I thought you were on the Religion side, your last series of posts though have been Artful Dodgery at it's finest.

Yeah well, I was on religion side in the sense that I do not agree certain theological and philosophical questions that do not have definite answers can have better or worse beliefs, because you cannot have concrete evidence of them, but they both can be supported by other beliefs and intuitive thinking, but the truth value of every belief and philosophical thought that support the belief is only related on how person sees the reality, and thus you cannot objectively rank beliefs as from likely to less likely, or good and bad.
But yeah, that is just how I see it...

Again, theories that are fallible, can be empirically tested and are based on rational thought are not beliefs, they are closest thing to real knowledge we can get about this universe.

[Ampersand]

Beliefs do not support anything, nor does intuitive thought. Only evidence can support an idea.

[Pjoo]

Beliefs do not support anything, nor does intuitive thought. Only evidence can support an idea.

They support beliefs. Just like intuitive thought and evidence does. Only evidence supports objective information and theories.

I believe supernatural doesn't exist, so I believe God doesn't exist(ok, both negatives, but they are still not something I know for sure). I don't believe supernatural exists, because I believe causality does, and I believe that if there is cause, it's really not supernatural. And so on. That way one of my belief supports another belief of mine, and basically it keeps going like that until it ends to something where alternatives do not make sense.

[Ampersand]

I think we're operating under two different definitions of the word 'Support'.

[Muz]

LOL, I actually read some of the arguments in the past few pages. It's a bit funny that some of you were (are?) fighting over something when both were trying to say the same thing

[Neruz]

No-one is actually sure what Pjon is trying to say, so it's not all that surprising.

[Sergius]

Pjoo was trying to say something like:
-He believes there is no god
-The universe without god is highly unlikely
-We can't know anything for sure, therefore believing in unsupported claims is rational

[Pjoo]

Pjoo was trying to say something like:
-He believes there is no god
-The universe without god is highly unlikely
-We can't know anything for sure, therefore believing in unsupported claims is rational

1) True
2) Not true, I specified without infinite universe or creator,( and after discussion, I have to specify that laws of the universe vary, etc.) life is highly unlikely, so creator makes sense assuming you believe universe isn't infinite. But it's just an example, if you wanna keep arguing about this, change it to first cause, atleast there my argument wont get owned by foam-monsters.
3) Not what I was saying, I said there are certain arguments that do not have definite answers, and believing the answer to be something is not necessarily irrational, but stating it as truth is.

[RAM]

My take on it is that Pjoo is saying that they oppose religion but that it is impossible to dismiss it.

I am currently trying to argue that it is possible to dismiss religion due to a combination of redundancy and inconsistencies...

But half the time I don't even bother checking who I am replying to...

[Vester]

Of course it's possible to dismiss us.

But you can't get rid of us.

[Ampersand]

I don't care if Pjoo agrees with me on anything if his reasons for agreeing with me are irrational.

[Areyar]

I'm just highly allergic to magical thinking (outside of RPGs), this includes unsupported healing systems that are based on circle reasoning or anthropomorphicly inherited properties (such as tigerpenisses for virillity or barley protein for shiney hair.).

What I do believe in (tantatively) is that animals are aware and emotionally active. Their level of reasoning varies.

[Muz]

Well, I thought that you guys did with Pjoo was funny, because he started rambling, then someone else started rambling after replying to the ramble, and it ended up into a funny argument about statistics, universes, and mold in socks XD

Y can only be true if X1 and X2 and X3 and ...  is true. But then X1 can be true, and X4 is interesting, and facts point out that X2 is true. But not all of them can be true, so Y is not true, unless X3 is also true and ....

I disagree with Y. X1 is illogical. [Explains why]

But X1 is true. Theorem Z1 proves it!

*sigh* Z1 doesn't makes sense when applied to X1. You've got it wrong. Here's an example, using E1. Let's say E1 is like this, it shows that X1 doesn't make any sense.

But it is true! E1 doesn't make any sense! E1 doesn't even have anything to do with Y. Ok, but it also doesn't apply to X2 and X3.

X2 and X3 are too complicated for both of us to understand. What do they have to do with Y anyway?

And in trying too hard to discredit each other, both sides don't even realize that they're both trying to point out that Y can't be true

[Leafsnail]

I'm not really sure which way Pjoo is pushing either.  It's something along the lines of "I believe there's no God but if you say there's no God I will jump on you".