Soon MAN will be a GOD! HA!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LongShot, Mar 31, 2004.

  1. stu


    And so, as ever, the ART of patronizing insult takes over from debate, tut tut.

    Read again. I did not say brute rules , I said brute facts.

    But you have no choice. You can protest all you like but it does not change the brute facts.
    Be my guest, I am still waiting. Use whatever you like, but up to now you have been unable to do anything but resort to insult or absurdity in this thread and others on this same subject. Next comes a typical example of your ridiculousness..
    Here are YOUR rules of faith as you have explained them so far:

    • Faith = Faith
      Faith = Truth
      Faith in Faith = True
      Faith in No Faith = True
    You would first have to be a theist to become a failed one or any other type. The default is 'a-theist' (as in 'a-political')
    You just practiced relativistic logic in the making of that sentence. So aren’t you now spewing your own sour grapes mentality? The circularity is all yours it seems :D
    How do you know that without using your 'relativistic logic ' ??

    Faith = Faith, is all you are have ever stated
    Faith = True
    Faith = There are Absolutes
    Faith = there are No Absolutes

    That is circular dude!
    Eh? ... Faith = Faith IS the wheel !!

    Come on ART this is getting tedious. You’re getting nowhere with this, posting the same rubbish time after time doesn’t make it not-rubbish :D. You’re even recycling the same old graphics.

    Look.. You say relativistic logic is crap - ok, then declare an Absolute.

    But Remember should you do so, you will use your relativistic logic in trying to think of one :p
    #121     Apr 4, 2004
  2. Come on ART this is getting tedious. You’re getting nowhere with this, posting the same rubbish time after time doesn’t make it not-rubbish :D. You’re even recycling the same old graphics.

    Your inflexibility is getting tedious. Like dealing with a computer and a poorly written program. The computer is "convinced" that it is working properly, and that the program is writtern it keeps generating the same results each and every time. This consistence of results is the basis of the "conviction."

    However, the computer does not know that it is working properly, or that the program is written properly, as it lacks the ability to question itself or its own nature. The computer did not create itself, yet exists without knowledge of its creator. It simply processes data according to the rules of the programmer and the hardware designer. It is a machine lacking consciousness or true awareness of its own existence.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    Look.. You say relativistic logic is crap - ok, then declare an Absolute.

    God is Absolute.

    But Remember should you do so, you will use your relativistic logic in trying to think of one

    Nope. It doesn't not require relativistic logic to suspend relativistic logic. One can easily suspend relativistic logic with the practice of faith.

    Nor does it require relativistic logic to have a concept of Absolute logic.

    Relativistic logic proceeds from conditional and relativistic suppositions, Absolute logic proceeds from Absolute faith.

    Faith = Faith
    Faith = Truth
    Faith in Faith = True
    Faith in No Faith = True

    Faith exists in degrees. Someone can be 10% faithful and have 90% non-faith (doubt).

    Faith in something false does not make that something true.

    Faith in something true does not make that something false.

    The truth or falsity is independent of the faith, in the same way that we believe the world around us exists independent of our physical perceptions.

    Faith in faith makes little sense as you are using the terms. Intellectual faith is different than emotional faith. Someone can believe in the existence of God, but not trust in their belief to be true, they could doubt their faith. Such a person would not have faith (trust) in faith (the practice of renouncing the doubts of the intellect).

    #122     Apr 4, 2004
  3. rgelite


    Hi stu,

    Thanks for your warm comments.

    I don't see it as a struggle. I intend to make use of the ignore feature to help manage my optimism. I've done so several times already. I've been recently thinking of ignoring YOU, because I have ART on the list and you've been quoting him so much; the second-hand ART-isms were beginning to seep through. :D

    But seriously, I enjoy your posts when I have time to follow along. And I'm glad you know there's a point at which further efforts are fruitless when debating with whim worshippers. I learned that long ago. Got to guard one's time, it's just too precious.

    Another thing I learned was demonstrated just recently with a reply I sent to jem. He hadn't gotten what I intended. I know that because I know my intentions. But I didn't read into his motives. Nor did I take offense to his question. Nor did I consider it necessary to focus on emotive terms such as "sounds specious" as many are want to react to on ET. I did my best to reduce his post to its essentials.

    Then I reconsidered what I had written in the context of what he said I had meant.

    My first premise was to assume, until proven otherwise, that he has good intentions, that he's not here just to waste time. Now armed with that perspective, I then sought within my own post what possibly I might have said that could be interpreted in a way that I had not intended. jem gave me enough clues to see that there are several ways to interpret "rules of evidence."

    I then looked at the broader context. I had framed my example in courtroom terms, thus effectively biasing the more general tone of my intent. I had used a phrase, probably more loosely than I should have, that has a specific meaning in a parochial frame of reference, namely Law. I took another step back and realized that, indeed, there are cultures that have presumed guilt rather than innocence, i.e. one must prove one didn't do the deed which is quite different from my habitual way of thinking in the United States. I realized quickly, thanks to jem, that my choice of term could be interpreted by other readers as off the mark (from a more restrictive legal standpoint) to completely off the wall (from a cultural one).

    And so, I strived to clarify terms (something you are keen on, stu, and that I admire in how you approach discourse). I have found that many seemingly irresolvable disagreements among honest people can often be reduced to clearly defining terms. And that rather than hurl insults about how stupid the other person is, I always try to understand what I failed to communicate clearly, if there was a better way for me to have said it.

    In other words, I use people's feedback to improve, not to attack.

    Of course, some things are unarguable. And those who clearly are intelligent, but who deliberately misuse their ability (again, for whatever reason--I'm not here to be a therapist) and claim that contradictions can exist in reality (not in our understanding of reality, but in reality itself), as one example, simply do not warrant any more of my time.

    In that respect, though, I try not to get into name calling and such. (If I wanted to be moronic, I'd have referred to ART-isms as AUT-isms, for example, at the beginning of this post. But that's just silliness and doesn't serve to engender respect or understanding.) I also try not to read too much into what I perceive are other's motivations; sometimes that can take years of analysis so it's hardly fitting (unless an abuse is blatant) to be reading too much between the lines. This is a chat room, not AA.

    As an example, the overuse of double-quotes you mentioned can clearly be the mark of a prevaricator if there is a history of those terms suddenly changing in meaning. I don't know that to be the case, I haven't been following any one participant that closely. And there are many other reasons for using them badly. It could just be a habit, as we all have them, peculiar to a writing style. It could be just another way for someone to highlight a term that they deem important. Or that they thought you thought was important.

    That said, things are what they are, and if I find a pattern of real abuse (not in style but in content) in what is habitually leading to a lessening of value to me, it's off to the ignore list. Quick and painless and forever.

    #123     Apr 4, 2004
  4. Hi stu,

    Your point about my excessive use of ""s is well taken.

    It was my intent to put some stress on these words rather than assign to these some kind of particular meaning as you correctly could suspect from my quotes.

    I should better have made use of italics but this requires more work in typing on this board, so I used quotes. I'll watch out for this the next time. Thank you for pointing this out.

    Be good,

    #124     Apr 4, 2004
  5. jem



    first of all I appreciate your contribution and your desire. I recently cut back on my activity here because of the problems pointed out in your """"""courtroom drama"""""" (joke) By the way I proffer the threads about what the definition of an athiest is as the perfect example of your time and effort wasting courtroom drama.

    I put my question to you for many reasons. Including to see more of your reasoning.

    I also had not read this thread in its entirety so I do not know the complete context of your quote.

    But I saw a logical and well written person (apparently) declaring that via the rules of evidence the burden of proof is on the person who believes in God, and I said hey where did he get that from?

    And while I suspected you were not referring to a court room I wanted to make sure.

    And without being purposely negative I still consider your statement to be sort of the perfect example of something specious. The burden of proof is on who? Who is positive and who is negative in a debate? Doesn't that depend on what is "Resolved" in the debate --- or in a courtroom who the plaintiff is?
    Or pehaps the burden is or should be on the person attempting to change the status quo. Or the person on the perons asserting that there is no God as much as the person asserting that there is a God?

    I am sure if I read the thread I might have understood what you were saying. But out of context I do not know why the burden is on a person stating there is a God any more than it would be on a person stating there is no God. To me both people would have the burden of proof.

    If we wanted to get into courtroom stuff we could get into when burdens switch and whether one is asserting a justification or an affirmative defense but I digress.
    #125     Apr 5, 2004
  6. stu



    I summarize your argument (as if it can be called argument:D) as such:

    Your premise is (correct me if I'm wrong lol!),
    You are like a faulty computer, so am I, so is everyone.

    You suggest the means by which all information is able to be evaluated, assimmilated, weighed and balanced as true or false, is suspended, and in its place everyone is to load up a piece of software ... Windows Faith release v1™

    Faith is the means to overcome machine fault.

    But you already stated the machine is faulty, so that conclusion is based upon fault.

    To overcome this, the computers neeed Windows Absolute Faith realease v2™

    But the machine is faulty, so that conclusion is also based upon fault.

    God is Absolute

    The machine is faulty, so that conclusion is based uopn fault too.

    The computers can easily suspend relativistic logic with the practice of faith.

    The machine is faulty, so that conclusion is based upon fault.

    Faith is the means to overcome machine fault.

    The machine is faulty, so that conclusion is based upon fault..

    Your computer analogy is contradictory (as usual) and a little weird (no surprises there), not to mention seriously circular, in that the computer works out for itself to ignore its ability to evaluate, but prefers faith software, then designs and writes it itself, then loads it itself , doesn't check for malfunction, illogicality or bugs, although it is able to, but for no substantive reason goes onto decide it is seeking another bit of software called Absolute Faith , and although it never ascertains what such a thing is, concludes there must be such a thing!

    These computers don't seek to enquire, question or obtain knowledge to see if it was little Goblins, electricity, faith, humans or something humans call God which made it, but prefers to have faith in writing its own faith software, which is unchecked for faults , to avoid the trouble, effort and the honesty in finding out what's really going on.

    oops..On inspection by other computers, the faith software is shown to be riddled with fault. Re-boot anyone??

    Computers which shit up software that way are usually malfuntioning Apple Mac II's :D

    ps: God is not absolute. It can't be. My Invisible Friend Gilbert created it :p
    #126     Apr 5, 2004
  7. stu


    rgelite ,

    Time is precious indeed, too precious to waste, but I am glad you take the time to explain your thoughts.

    I for one don't think it was time wasted.

    #127     Apr 5, 2004
  8. stu



    Thanks for the clarification.

    My reaction was to assume you wished to alter meaning. For example, using quotation marks around the word "proof" , becomes an inference suggesting a statement something of the kind... " ..well 'proof', whatever THAT means, and what is 'proof' anyway !" But you see what I was getting at.

    My feeling is definition for the word proof can be made, if necessary, before or during debate. The very fact that it is defined in language and that its definition can be and is regularly and reasonably understood, is I think reason enough to use such words without suggesting conditionality by quotation marks or italics.

    I am grateful however for the kind respect you have shown in explaining your reasons. The kind of good grace that some others on these boards (I mention no names ART) might benefit from acknowledging.

    #128     Apr 5, 2004
  9. Your summary is not correct, not does it address the point I make.

    You implement relativistic logic and senses only, as you have determined faith is not going to work to find God.

    This conclusion is based on ignorance of God, and perhaps a failure to find God through faith in the past.

    Yes, ignorance of God, as if you have no knowledge of God, you have ignorance of God.

    If you were at one time a theist, your decision to suspend faith in favor of doubt was based not on faith in God, but rather on faith in the senses and relativistic logic.

    My point is this: How do you know you made the right decision, and are making the right decision?

    The response of course is to defend senses and relativistic logic on the basis of senses and relativistic logic (Which I claim is circular).

    When I attack the nature of senses and relativistic logic to demonstrate their inherit weakness in a search for Truth independent of senses and relativistic logic, you claim that the moment I attempt to do so, I am in fact using senses and relativistic logic to disprove their status as one of certainty of reality independent of them....and therefore my conclusions are circular.


    We have a choice of what to trust, what tool to use, in what arena to use them.

    Where God is the topic, and the concept of existence beyond senses and relativistic logic is mentioned, it is natural and logical to reject this concept on the basis of anything that would be outside the senses and relativistic logic could not be known, IF we are fixed on using only senses and relativistic logic. Red glasses see only red. If that is the filter one chooses absolutely, then the results are predetermined to be red.

    If________________, then ___________________.

    If red tinted glasses are worn, then red is seen.

    As much as you might believe however, this is no independent proof that senses and relativistic logic are revealing reality that is independent of the filter of relativistic logic and senses.

    If it is logically possible that senses and relativistic logic are in fact producing a delusion of the reality of this world and God independent of sense and relativistic logic.

    And if this were the case, it would be impossible to verify the truth or falsity of the reality produced by senses and relativistic logic independent of the use of the senses and relativistic logic.

    This creates a perfect circle, as you can't falsify relativistic logic and senses on the basis of using logic and senses, and thus produces a sense of security and certainty that human beings crave.

    It would be as if a computer had a program to self diagnose, but the computer would not know if the program was written properly or not.

    You have doubt in faith in its ability to produce truth of God, I have doubt in senses and intellect to reveal reality independent of them.

    If you are happy with a relativistic circular existence with conclusions of the Truth of life based on ignorance and limits, fine by me.

    Everyone practices faith, and unlike you and other atheists who are certain in their first assumption of full faith in senses and relativistic logic, I am in no position to denounce anyone else's faith.

    That you continue judge and pass value judgments on theistic faith from the platform of senses and relativistic logic is as sensible as judging sound from the platform of sight.

    #129     Apr 5, 2004
  10. jem


    Well again I have not read this whole thread but does Gilbert know metaphysical truths? Can he communicate and prove them to Stu?

    That would make Gilbert a pretty cool friend.
    #130     Apr 5, 2004