• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

Complexity said:
The stuff I highlighted actually makes some sense (ignoring your MG SG silliness) - this sounds a lot like a holographic universe. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle.

The rest of it is nonsense. It appears as though you are trying to repeat the process by which we get a holographic universe using lower dimensions. You do not simply get to make this stuff up.
Click to expand...

Well well a contribution at last!

Its nice to see that science is finally catching up with the insight of the ancient Hindu's.

One day scientism may actually realise that there might just be more to existence than matter.
 
Beth said:
While it's true we don't 'conceptualize', we do require a functioning neural system in order to be aware that we have been hit by a rock. A dead person won't notice being struck by rocks.
Click to expand...

That is quite true. But on the other hand, normally, we can also be reasonably sure that dead people can be hit by rocks, and we know that dead people have been buried under rocks. We can also be reasonably sure that dead people don’t conceptualize. And we have also established, I think, with reasonably confidence, that we must conceptualize in order to have concepts (and think in order to have thoughts).

Thus I think it should be emphasized that it could be somewhat misleading to treat them as equal when it comes to assuming their independent existence. Believing in concepts existing independently from conceptualization requires much more tolerance of uncertainty when it comes to empirically founded inference (i.e., what we know from experience); even if we ultimately must imagine both their continued existence – (without us being there to observe that they’re actually there) – if we were to vanish.

… So, in the end, we can’t really know for sure.
 
punshhh said:
Ichneumonwasp was debating the fallacious position put forward by Piggy that God/s do not exist. He put forward the case for this in a precise and expert way which was appreciated and enjoyed by many of the readers of this thread including myself.

Rather than counter his arguments in any way you ride rough shod through the thread casting aspertions in the direction of posters defending the agnostic position again without any reasoned argument. Or even an understanding of what rational argument means.

Followed by a false accusation of trolling in a course, scathing, mocking and disrespectfull manner.

If there is anyone posting in this thread who comes close to fulfilling the the label of Troll it is you sir.


Is the esteemed Jref forum to be brought down to the lowest common denominator by the course seemingly ignorant language of a few persistent contentless posters?

While a progression of intelligent well spoken thinkers who actually have an interest in these subjects. become hounded and bored into submission and abandon the site?

Is the fate of the jref forum to be Troll city?
Click to expand...


I know full well what he claimed to be doing. He was not doing what he claimed to be doing.

I generally agree with Piggy's position - I am an atheist in all but certainty, and I am not certain of anything.

As to your various assertions regarding posters, this thread, and JREF, I reject them without argument - none seems necessary.
 
punshhh said:
Well well a contribution at last!

Its nice to see that science is finally catching up with the insight of the ancient Hindu's.

One day scientism may actually realise that there might just be more to existence than matter.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.
 
punshhh said:
Well well a contribution at last!

Its nice to see that science is finally catching up with the insight of the ancient Hindu's.

One day scientism may actually realise that there might just be more to existence than matter.
Click to expand...

Shame those ancient Hindus didn't do anything with those insights, imagine how advanced they would be now.

Better yet why don't you share your insights and really advance the science of fairies?
 
dafydd said:
Scientism. Another one for the punshhh lexicon of gibberish.
Click to expand...


What amuses me is that he was at his most coherent when he was angry enough to call me 'Sir'. He wasn't right, but he words with their conventional meanings and in (mostly) a reasonable order.

I think he equates 'length' with 'content' and gets very upset when I respond to a page of his stuff with a single word.

That word is usually more than sufficient to indicate what I think of his post.

Does he really think I have an obligation to respond at length to everything he appears to be saying after spending a great deal of time trying to discern what that is?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Fine. You win. I'm leaving JREF for good.
Click to expand...
I hope the frustration of this thread passes and you will continue to post at JREF. It's tough having to live in the closet here (having to mask simple philosophical concepts to make them more palatable). Most people here would be fine with what you are saying if they could just get past some of their knee-jerk ick factor.
 
Complexity said:
I know full well what he claimed to be doing. He was not doing what he claimed to be doing.
Click to expand...
Here is your admission of contentless superiority. Do you ignore the praise offered Ichneumomwasp from various posters regarding his insight?

I generally agree with Piggy's position - I am an atheist in all but certainty, and I am not certain of anything.

As to your various assertions regarding posters, this thread, and JREF, I reject them without argument - none seems necessary.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we will now see some content from you:p
 
Last edited:
I, too, hope you were not serious about leaving JREF. Your posts are interesting and make me think. It's also a relief to see someone argue courteously and to know that, even on the JREF Forum, such a thing is possible. (I include Beth and a few others in the "argue courteously" category).
 
punshhh said:
Here is your admission of contentless superiority. Do you ignore the praise offered Ichneumomwasp from various posters regarding his insight?
Click to expand...


Some of the posters who offered him praise are well worth ignoring. At least one of them I keep on Ignore for cause.

I do not agree with the praise that he was offered.
 
Last edited:
Complexity said:
What amuses me is that he was at his most coherent when he was angry enough to call me 'Sir'. He wasn't right, but he words with their conventional meanings and in (mostly) a reasonable order.

I think he equates 'length' with 'content' and gets very upset when I respond to a page of his stuff with a single word.

That word is usually more than sufficient to indicate what I think of his post.

Does he really think I have an obligation to respond at length to everything he appears to be saying after spending a great deal of time trying to discern what that is?
Click to expand...

A page of his stuff can usually be reduced to a single word. Gibberish. 'Beyond the event horizon of the formless', remember that one?
 
punshhh said:
Here is your admission of contentless superiority. Do you ignore the praise offered Ichneumomwasp from various posters regarding his insight?



Perhaps we will now see some content from you:p
Click to expand...

We are all looking forward to seeing some content from you someday instead of the mystical word salads and the mundane stories about people looking at you in the street that you post.
 
dafydd said:
He never did deign to tell us what he thought that meant. It's not surprising, it is a meaningless phrase.
Click to expand...

On some forums phrases like that will get you lots of pats on the back and a reputation for wisdom and profundity, here it just looks like you're in a hole and digging with all your might.
 
the PC apeman said:
I hope the frustration of this thread passes and you will continue to post at JREF. It's tough having to live in the closet here (having to mask simple philosophical concepts to make them more palatable). Most people here would be fine with what you are saying if they could just get past some of their knee-jerk ick factor.
Click to expand...

Do you want to pick up the torch and lead us out of the darkness of ignorance in search of the 'ultimate substance'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom