Myths in the Making

[nabiscothejerd]

So, not being understood is no problem, but having to repeat yourself, presumably because you are not understood, is.

Perhaps you need to try something radical, like actually reading what others have written and answering their questions, as they answer yours. Rather than repeating the same failed attempts, that is, since repeating yourself pains you.

And no, of course we do not mock you. We mock your ideas, your "logic", your willful ignorance, your hubris, your lies, your refusal to admit your lies... We cannot mock you, we can only mock the things you try to present to us here.

i do not think that he can do that and i will offer him more praise than he gives to religion if he can

 

[Iacchus]

So, not being understood is no problem, but having to repeat yourself, presumably because you are not understood, is.

Perhaps you need to try something radical, like actually reading what others have written and answering their questions, as they answer yours. Rather than repeating the same failed attempts, that is, since repeating yourself pains you.

And no, of course we do not mock you. We mock your ideas, your "logic", your willful ignorance, your hubris, your lies, your refusal to admit your lies... We cannot mock you, we can only mock the things you try to present to us here.

I have not spoken a single lie since I've been here.

 

[Iacchus]

i do not think that he can do that and i will offer him more praise than he gives to religion if he can

Am not sure what you're saying here but, here's something I just posted at the new forum I just signed up with, regarding the nature of blasphemy ...

Well, with respect to blasphemy, I doubt very much that it insults God, in-as-much as it presents a false representation of who God is, and this is the real killer (why it's called blasphemy), because when presented to others and, in the wrong way, it can become very hurtful or, at the very least ineffective. This is why most of the blasphemy I'm aware of is committed within Christian Church ... so-called. Yet I personally have no problems with the Bible. It's a very revelatory book -- indeed. The problem I have is with what people do with the Bible. And yes, this can be construed as blasphemy, at least in my mind. Also, since the whole thing becomes a misrepresentation, as an appeal to people's ignorance, this is the only way it can be maintained.

Hmm ... maybe some of "you" folks can better relate to this? The forum is called the Faithless Community by the way, and pertains primarily to Deism. This particular post was posted in the Introduction forum.

 

[Mercutio]

I have not spoken a single lie since I've been here.

No, you type them.

Let's look just at this thread, to start. Would you say that this:

A universe which "magically" appears out of nowhere? This is all your beloved Science has been able to tell us so far.

is the truth? It is not. So...is it a lie? Or mere ignorance? Or some other option you will explain to us?

 

[Iacchus]

Let's look just at this thread, to start. Would you say that this: is the truth? It is not. So...is it a lie? Or mere ignorance? Or some other option you will explain to us?

Would you suggest that the Universe has always been here then? If not, then what was here before the Universe and how did "it" get here? It sounds like something "magical" happened to me? Unless of course you have a better explanation? Do you "honestly" believe something can come out of nothing?

 

[Mercutio]

Would you suggest that the Universe has always been here then? If not, then what was here before the Universe and how did "it" get here? It sounds like something "magical" happened to me? Unless of course you have a better explanation? Do you "honestly" believe something can come out of nothing?

And this is what I mean by not admitting your lies.

Does Science make the claim that the Universe "magically" appeared out of nowhere? Yes or no? If yes, provide a citation for a proper scientific source.*

Assuming you clear that hurdle (which you will not), is that, as you claim, all that Science tells us? Yes or no? If yes, provide a citation for a proper scientific source.

You have presumed to speak for Science, and tell us all that Science has been able to tell us. Can you back up your claim? It is very straightforward now, Iacchus. I have put it in the form of two yes/no questions and two source citations. I could ask for considerably more, but this would be the absolute least you could provide in order to demonstrate that you are not lying.

Two yes or no answers, with sources. Anything less and you are a liar.


*when I say "proper scientific source", I mean a peer-reviewed journal article or book. I do not mean one of your dreams.

 

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I have not spoken a single lie since I've been here.

WOW I want some action on this bet, I could make a million just from the times you said that I had said something, when asked to post my words to support your statment, did you ever do so?...

 

[Max560]

I have not spoken a single lie since I've been here.

Red Herring Alert!

Just out of curiosity, since you have made this claim, what will you do when evidence to the contrary is presented?

1. Admit that this claim is false.

2. Fail to acknowledge all evidence presented which contradicts your claim. Then, when faced with insurmountable evidence which contradicts your claim, make some some other preposterous claim to start the whole cycle over.

Just wondering.

 

[Iacchus]

Red Herring Alert!

Just out of curiosity, since you have made this claim, what will you do when evidence to the contrary is presented?

1. Admit that this claim is false.

2. Fail to acknowledge all evidence presented which contradicts your claim. Then, when faced with insurmountable evidence which contradicts your claim, make some some other preposterous claim to start the whole cycle over.

Just wondering.

Okay I admit it, I am subject to being mistaken. I am not infallible. That, however, is not the same thing as lying.

 

[Mercutio]

Okay I admit it, I am subject to being mistaken. I am not infallible. That, however, is not the same thing as lying.

This is, to my memory, the first time you have admitted this. In your opinion, have you been mistaken before on this forum without having admitted it afterward? Does this happen often? Rarely? What thing(s) do you now admit you were mistaken about (so that we might quit hounding you about it/them)?

As a side question...how often do you need to be corrected on something, in your opinion, before you are no longer merely "mistaken"?

 

[Correa Neto]

Being sentient has everything to do with understanding this, in which case it's all in our minds ... in that respect.

Nope. Your thread is implying that there is a link between counsiousness and existence. Specifically, you draw a paralell between imaginary creatures and real creatures. The paralell would be that, these imaginary creatures have no physical traces of their existences and once we die, no traces of our counsiousness is left other than the memories that other people have.

The similarity fades away when one notes that we leave physical evidences (bones, texts, artifacts) of our existence behind us. No bones or artifacts of the Easter Bunny have ever been found, as far as I know.

Being sentient has nothing to do with it. A mineral may be composed by atoms that once composed a human. And this mineral will to be sentient to be composed by these atoms?

And the human will know about this?

So, counsiousness has nothing to do with it as you think. One needs to exist to have a self, but most things exist independent of having a self or not.

If you're speaking of the dead corpse which is left behind, you are sadly mistaken.

Sorry, but you are the one who is sadly mistaken.

I wrote:

"And according to the "tenets of materialism" there will be nothing after death only in respect to the deceased´s POV."

According to materialism (regardless if you adopt it or not), death means the end of counsiousness of the individual that died. Plain and simple. So that counsious body, when life ends, no longer has a self. The other individuals as well as the universe, are still there. From the decased´s POV however, there´s nothing else, actually not even a POV. His/her remains continue to exist, its atoms will be recycled, becoming parts of other living beings or minerals, for example.

The Universe doesn't give a crap? You're right, maybe it doesn't ... But, maybe God does?

A god would have to exist, know about our existence and be able to care or not about us. Any evidence of this?

 

[Iacchus]

This is, to my memory, the first time you have admitted this. In your opinion, have you been mistaken before on this forum without having admitted it afterward? Does this happen often? Rarely? What thing(s) do you now admit you were mistaken about (so that we might quit hounding you about it/them)?

As a side question...how often do you need to be corrected on something, in your opinion, before you are no longer merely "mistaken"?

No, I never claimed to be omniscient. Of that I am most certain!

 

[Iacchus]

So, counsiousness has nothing to do with it as you think. One needs to exist to have a self, but most things exist independent of having a self or not.

Actually, I don't disagree with you as much as you think. However, I would ask that you prove any of these assertions that you make, which you can't. Because the only means we have of proving anything is immaterial ... via consciousness.

 

[Mercutio]

No, I never claimed to be omniscient. Of that I am most certain!

Don't evade. You did claim to be right. Which things do you now admit you were mistaken about? You took a big step by admitting you had been mistaken; do not fall back two steps by prevaricating now.

 

[Iacchus]

Don't evade. You did claim to be right. Which things do you now admit you were mistaken about? You took a big step by admitting you had been mistaken; do not fall back two steps by prevaricating now.

Yes, but unless you can claim omniscience yourself, you have no grounds to speak either. Which is my whole point. Also, as I said in the other thread, I rarely attempt to put square pegs into round holes. I find the answers to be much more provocative, almost a synchronistic sense about things, when I don't.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, but unless you can claim omniscience yourself, you have no grounds to speak either. Which is my whole point. Also, as I said in the other thread, I rarely attempt to put square pegs into round holes. I find the answers to be much more provocative, almost a synchronistic sense about things, when I don't.

I do not have to be omniscient, when there are falsifiable claims which do have evidence refuting them. Once again, you attempt to shift the burden. You know I do not click on your links, but if it is the thread I suspect, I was very much disappointed; your belated admission that you have made misstatements was a promising start at open-mindedness, but it seems you have tightened up your blinders and resumed business as usual. Which is merely annoying for the rest of us, but really a tragic loss for you; you close your eyes to a marvelous world.

 

[Iacchus]

Which is merely annoying for the rest of us, but really a tragic loss for you; you close your eyes to a marvelous world.

If it's a loss which is merely temporal, I can both live and die with it.

 

[Mercutio]

If it's a loss which is merely temporal, I can both live and die with it.

I truly and honestly pity you. And given how annoying you are here, that is saying something. For your own sake, I hope you decide to tear down the wall you have built between yourself and learning. You have wasted too much of your life in ignorance.

 

[Correa Neto]

Actually, I don't disagree with you as much as you think. However, I would ask that you prove any of these assertions that you make, which you can't. Because the only means we have of proving anything is immaterial ... via consciousness.

Wich ones I can´t prove?

The explanation on the materialistic view of death?

Or that for god care about us there has to be a god, it must be able to acknoweledge our existence, and also able to care?

I agree with you that proving (better write try to prove) that something is immaterial -actually the very act of proving anything- require counsiousness. However, this does not implies anything else! The act of thinking requires that the creature who is thinking must be able to think. So what?

Note that the above cited actions also require that the thinker is a material being.

 

[Iacchus]

If our ability to prove anything rests with the immaterial (consciousness), what does that tell us about the nature of proof? ... That it's all in our minds.