Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
Kllrnohj wrote:
Schrödingers cat doesn't decide if it lives or dies regardless of whether or not free will exists or not. I'm not sure you understand that thought experiment. See, the cat gets *KILLED* by a *RANDOM* event. Free will plays no role whatsoever.

See, the decision in your brain gets *MADE* by a *RANDOM* event. Free will plays no role whatsoever.

Quote:
So your point is that since Object A is built out of Object B, Object A can no longer exist? Wow, just... wow....

My point is that if Object A is built out of Objects B, then it is nothing more than a collection of Objects B, and has no more meaning or relevance than any of its individual components

Quote:

Methodological naturalism, of course. You should at least learn the terminology before you decide to classify what is and isn't "basic", as again, you clearly lack a grasp of naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is a cop-out for intellectually lazy deists and agnostics and/or a mechanism for soft-peddling ontological naturalism to theists, and as far as I can tell, irrelevant to a serious discussion of worldview. If you can give me 3 valid reasons why someone would hold to methodological naturalism without also holding to ontological naturalism I might take that claim a little more seriously.

Quote:
It doesn't actually dispute what I said in any way.

Except for your earlier claim that you haven't held contradicting viewpoints. Wink
elfprince13 wrote:
See, the decision in your brain gets *MADE* by a *RANDOM* event. Free will plays no role whatsoever.


*whoosh*, my point went right over your head.

Quote:
My point is that if Object A is built out of Objects B, then it is nothing more than a collection of Objects B, and has no more meaning or relevance than any of its individual components


And your point is simply wrong. We build things out of other things because the resulting structure is better than the original items. Lets see you debate this point on this forum using only the raw materials your computer is made of. Obviously you can't, because the resulting structure of those materials is more important than the pieces it is comprised of.

Quote:
Methodological naturalism is a cop-out for intellectually lazy deists and agnostics and/or a mechanism for soft-peddling ontological naturalism to theists, and as far as I can tell, irrelevant to a serious discussion of worldview. If you can give me 3 valid reasons why someone would hold to methodological naturalism without also holding to ontological naturalism I might take that claim a little more seriously.


No it isn't. Methodological naturalism is the logical choice for someone who believes in god but isn't an idiot.

Quote:
Except for your earlier claim that you haven't held contradicting viewpoints. Wink


And thus far I haven't. That says nothing of my personal beliefs, however. I could be a creationist for all you know. I'm not, of course, because creationists are freaking retarded, but still.
Kllrnohj wrote:
*whoosh*, my point went right over your head.


Actually, you illustrated my point brilliantly. Thank you. I'm not sure how you thought that making a point about the randomness of quantum phenomena was in some way arguing against me.

Quote:
Obviously you can't, because the resulting structure of those materials is more important than the pieces it is comprised of.

Importance. There you go claiming random particle interactions have importance or meaning or something like that, again. In what context is importance meaningful when discuss purely natural processes?

Quote:
No it isn't. Methodological naturalism is the logical choice for someone who believes in god but isn't an idiot.

Your definition of idiot seems to be anyone who believes that God is actually active in the universe. That leaves us with deists, agnostics, and atheists. Deism is intellectual laziness for people who don't care enough to resolve the conflicts between their moral traditions and a naturalist worldview. If belief in God does not in any way impact your understanding of how the universe works, then why does it matter in the first place? Any form of non-temporary agnosticism (as in agnosticism that's part of a slide from one of the belief spectrum to the other) is generally either more intellectual laziness, or atheism with a fear of making commitments.

Quote:
That says nothing of my personal beliefs, however. I could be a creationist for all you know

I'm tempted to go dig up UD's arguing on the Internet is like the Special Olympics picture, because I'm just done arguing this point. If you want to keep claiming that your viewpoints are un-contradicting go right on ahead; however, I think that most intelligent beings reading this thread will read something like this:
Me: you've held multiple contradicting viewpoints.
You: no I haven't.
Me: yes, look at them.
You: nope, how do you know I wasn't lying about some of them?
.....
"Free will" is an abstraction of all the stuff going on in our brain.

Let's say you could investigate the brain of a parrot, and picture every single chemical reaction and electrical impulse in it's brain when it 'wants' a peanut, you're tempted to say the parrot has no will, that it's just a bunch of reactions, not real will.

But it's really the same for us. Consider an extraterrestrial biologist who is investigating human will, he'll come to the same conclusion, and at the same time we're pretty sure that we do have a will.

Really, will is just convenient terminology.
elfprince13 wrote:
Actually, you illustrated my point brilliantly. Thank you. I'm not sure how you thought that making a point about the randomness of quantum phenomena was in some way arguing against me.


No I didn't. I pointed out that your claim was ridiculous (that the cat someone had a hand in deciding when it was murdered), which you failed to grasp twice now. Your point that the cat didn't decide is true regardless of whether or not there is free will, making your point completely irrelevant.

I'm not sure why I am bothering correcting you (again), as I highly doubt that the 3rd time is going to make any difference, but whatever.

Quote:
Importance. There you go claiming random particle interactions have importance or meaning or something like that, again. In what context is importance meaningful when discuss purely natural processes?


In the context of what the hell are you blabbering about?

Importance is bestowed by humans, not god. Importance is an abstract human construct, it has no physical presence.

So yes, random particle interactions *CAN* have importance and meaning because *PEOPLE* deem them as such. It really is that simple and straightforward, and I do believe you can't see the forest for the trees

Quote:
Your definition of idiot seems to be anyone who believes that God is actually active in the universe. That leaves us with deists, agnostics, and atheists. Deism is intellectual laziness for people who don't care enough to resolve the conflicts between their moral traditions and a naturalist worldview. If belief in God does not in any way impact your understanding of how the universe works, then why does it matter in the first place? Any form of non-temporary agnosticism (as in agnosticism that's part of a slide from one of the belief spectrum to the other) is generally either more intellectual laziness, or atheism with a fear of making commitments.


My definition of an idiot is a creationist. Believing in a god is perfectly acceptable. Believing that modern science is wrong and an old book written by sand people is correct makes you an idiot.

Quote:
If you want to keep claiming that your viewpoints are un-contradicting go right on ahead; however, I think that most intelligent beings reading this thread will read something like this:
Me: you've held multiple contradicting viewpoints.
You: no I haven't.
Me: yes, look at them.
You: nope, how do you know I wasn't lying about some of them?
.....


I have *NOT* held contradicting viewpoints during any of our discussions, both in this thread and in others. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, I'm going to go off of the assumption that you "believe" I have, and that you think because you "believe" it that it must be true or significant (you know, like creationists believe that their beliefs actually matter, when they don't)
Quote:
I have *NOT* held contradicting viewpoints during any of our discussions, both in this thread and in others. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, I'm going to go off of the assumption that you "believe" I have, and that you think because you "believe" it that it must be true or significant (you know, like creationists believe that their beliefs actually matter, when they don't)

You're both wrong; this is what really happened:



</thread>
Ultimate Dev'r wrote:
You're both wrong; this is what really happened:

</thread>


Gah, wha? What kind of an ending to a game is that?

@elrunethe2nd: Seriously, your response is a lolcat? Do you really what to get into it with me again? Last time you did you got an official warning....
Kllrnohj wrote:
Ultimate Dev'r wrote:
You're both wrong; this is what really happened:

</thread>


Gah, wha? What kind of an ending to a game is that?


You should've seen the ending to the first game Neutral
Kllrnohj wrote:
Ultimate Dev'r wrote:
You're both wrong; this is what really happened:

</thread>


Gah, wha? What kind of an ending to a game is that?

@elrunethe2nd: Seriously, your response is a 0x5? Do you really what to get into it with me again? Last time you did you got an official warning....

You have dragged this to the bloody, bitter, soul-crushing end, as I expected you to.

That wasn't a chuckle of a picture, that was me reminding you that it's time to go outside and help all these purported homeless and orphans you worry about so much. Writing these miniature essays takes you away from valuable helping time.

And better I get an official warning for actually having a go at you rather than we respect your egotistic raging and quietly edge around it. I will choose to defend myself and be banned for it, rather than take crap from people who cannot keep a straight tone while arguing on the internet.

Honestly, people like Kalphiter and Jimmg off the Retail forums make for better conversation than you as they have the ability to argue without attempting to deride the opponent. This isn't a presidential debate, its a close online forum!
elrunethe2nd wrote:
You have dragged this to the bloody, bitter, soul-crushing end, as I expected you to.


Glad I didn't disappoint.

Quote:
That wasn't a chuckle of a picture, that was me reminding you that it's time to go outside and help all these purported homeless and orphans you worry about so much. Writing these miniature essays takes you away from valuable helping time.


5 pages in and you still haven't comprehended the OP? I'm not worrying about anything. I don't care about homeless and orphans. I've never said I did. Seriously dude, go take a reading comprehension class (not meaning that as a personal attack, I seriously think you need to take a reading comprehension class).

Quote:
And better I get an official warning for actually having a go at you rather than we respect your egotistic raging and quietly edge around it. I will choose to defend myself and be banned for it, rather than take crap from people who cannot keep a straight tone while arguing on the internet.


You didn't defend anything, you personally attacked me with derivative comments that insulted an entire people (and got caught).

Also, I'd say that Elf and I are on rather equal ground.

Quote:
Honestly, people like Kalphiter and Jimmg off the Retail forums make for better conversation than you as they have the ability to argue without attempting to deride the opponent. This isn't a presidential debate, its a close online forum!


If you don't like the thread, then GTFO. Seriously, not hard.
Quote:
If you don't like the thread, then GTFO. Seriously, not hard.

And, with this, you have neatly proved that it is you with the issues of reading comprehension. I did not say I didn't like the thread, I did not like your method of argument as it is crude and intended to have slight barbs to readers. A good debater would be able to (like Elfprince) remain impartial and neutral to the argument, not dress their points to offend readers.

Please, go ahead, find in my argument, anywhere, me claiming that "I do not like/approve of/enjoy/care about this topic". I wouldn't still be here if I didn't.

And you do worry. One does not break out their favorite pirated copy of Photoshop, find an image to copy off Google images and think of something vaguely witty and meaningful to scrawl all over it complaining about Christianity without having a motive.
Activists don't send mail to newspapers when they content, and I sure as hell don't argue when I am satisfied. Its not rational to be arguing and disagreeable and then flip around and claim that you don't care and you are not worried. This isn't a 8th grade debate, my friend, you haven't been handed a topic and forced to speak on it, you have actively done research, invested (significant) amounts of time and effort to produce arguments to attempt to win over the opposition and this does not indicate that you are uncaring or unbothered by what you are debating about.

If it didn't bother you that much, I would assume you'd be able to keep a level tone with your audience. Calling me pathetic doesn't suggest you are relaxed, it suggests to me that I am (if you like) "pissing you off", now be it with 'poor argument' as you may like to claim, or simply general stress of such a topic, I do not know, but I am wholly unconvinced you are the:
a) Innocent,
b) Happy, and
c) Unworried
party here.

Tl;dr?
You don't invest such effort for stuff you don't care about.
seriously, you guys sound like little children. grow up.
First, don't double post.

elrunethe2nd wrote:
And, with this, you have neatly proved that it is you with the issues of reading comprehension. I did not say I didn't like the thread, I did not like your method of argument as it is crude and intended to have slight barbs to readers.


Nope, I did no such thing. You have only demonstrated, yet again, your lack of reading comprehension. I did not say you didn't like the thread. I said *IF* you don't like it, GTFO.

Quote:
A good debater would be able to (like Elfprince) remain impartial and neutral to the argument, not dress their points to offend readers.


Bwahaha, elf isn't impartial or neutral, he is every bit as biased as I am, probably more so.

Quote:
Please, go ahead, find in my argument, anywhere, me claiming that "I do not like/approve of/enjoy/care about this topic". I wouldn't still be here if I didn't.


FYI, complaining about something is a rather strong indication you don't like it.

Quote:
And you do worry. One does not break out their favorite pirated copy of Photoshop, find an image to copy off Google images and think of something vaguely witty and meaningful to scrawl all over it complaining about Christianity without having a motive.


wtf? What are you talking about? Do you even know what thread you are in anymore? Between the two of us, you are the only one that even posted a picture.

Quote:
Activists don't send mail to newspapers when they content, and I sure as hell don't argue when I am satisfied. Its not rational to be arguing and disagreeable and then flip around and claim that you don't care and you are not worried. This isn't a 8th grade debate, my friend, you haven't been handed a topic and forced to speak on it, you have actively done research, invested (significant) amounts of time and effort to produce arguments to attempt to win over the opposition and this does not indicate that you are uncaring or unbothered by what you are debating about.


Find where I argued that I should be helping the homeless, please.

Quote:
If it didn't bother you that much, I would assume you'd be able to keep a level tone with your audience. Calling me pathetic doesn't suggest you are relaxed, it suggests to me that I am (if you like) "pissing you off", now be it with 'poor argument' as you may like to claim, or simply general stress of such a topic, I do not know, but I am wholly unconvinced you are the:
a) Innocent,
b) Happy, and
c) Unworried
party here.

Tl;dr?
You don't invest such effort for stuff you don't care about.


Again, reading comprehension.
Kllrnohj wrote:
Quote:
Activists don't send mail to newspapers when they content, and I sure as hell don't argue when I am satisfied. Its not rational to be arguing and disagreeable and then flip around and claim that you don't care and you are not worried. This isn't a 8th grade debate, my friend, you haven't been handed a topic and forced to speak on it, you have actively done research, invested (significant) amounts of time and effort to produce arguments to attempt to win over the opposition and this does not indicate that you are uncaring or unbothered by what you are debating about.


Find where I argued that I should be helping the homeless, please.


I'm completely missing the connection to the homeless here. Though if I understand this correctly you are, in fact, debating about helping the homeless rather than the hungry.

Sure, post a ven-diagram of the homeless circle inside the hungry oval with an overlapping triangle for the corner of World families with homes that are also hungry. And while Silverman may very well have meant to feed the homeless as well as the hungry families in third world counties as she implies at the start, I still fail to see the connection to the homeless, on elrunethe2nd's part, in the quote above.

Alright, yes, he acknowledged the word on Nov. 22nd, but I can't even find any hint to the homeless within his post on Nov. 23rd of which you quoted, Kllrnohj. So please, Kllrnohj, what did you read from elrune on Nov. 23rd that I failed to decrypt?
reading comprehension failure abound
you do know when you repeat the same comeback over and over it starts to lose its effectiveness
GloryMXE7 wrote:
you do know when you repeat the same comeback over and over it starts to lose its effectiveness


If it is repeated loudly and often enough it will become an absolute truth, so.....

READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND
READING COMPREHENSION FAILURE ABOUND

edited for fontsize ~elf
comicIDIOT wrote:
Alright, yes, he acknowledged the word on Nov. 22nd, but I can't even find any hint to the homeless within his post on Nov. 23rd of which you quoted, Kllrnohj. So please, Kllrnohj, what did you read from elrune on Nov. 23rd that I failed to decrypt?


His post on the 23rd that I quoted was in response to my post quoting him on the 22nd, it is a continuation of the same context. Thus what you failed to decrypt was the all important context of the post chain.

That said, you can swap out homeless with hungry in my post if you so desire, it makes no difference as I haven't argued that I should be helping the hungry either.

GloryMXE7 wrote:
you do know when you repeat the same comeback over and over it starts to lose its effectiveness


It only loses its effect when it is no longer true. Thus, no effectiveness has yet been lost as it is still as equally true now as when it was first stated in this thread.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 5 of 6
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement