Regarding Franko...

[scribble]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Regarding Franko...

Some habits die hard. It's why I never took up smoking. I even threw in another bait this morning. *sigh* The first step is admiting you have a problem...

Hi, my name is Upchurch and I'm a troll baiter.

Keep practicing and some day you may be the best troll baiter on the forum.

Then we shall give you a title:

MASTER BAITER

 

[Soubrette]

"TP in Hawaii"



"Soubrette in her house"

 

[Doubt]

Franko,

You assume that we don’t have free will. I don’t know if we do have free will, but I work under the assumption that I do. That way little things. Like “what do I want for lunch?” make a difference. As soon as someone proves free will false, I will stop making decisions about life.

Since you don’t believe in free will, why bother to discuss anything? Fate is fate and we don’t really make decisions. In your world, we may as well sit around and do nothing all day but wait to die, since we have no influence on the world around us.

Now how do you influence me? You used to make me laugh quite a bit. That was about all. Now you make me wonder if you should be on medication.

“Doubt in Detroit, not Hawaii.”

 

[Franko]

Doubt,

You assume that we don’t have free will. I don’t know if we do have free will, but I work under the assumption that I do. That way little things. Like “what do I want for lunch?” make a difference. As soon as someone proves free will false, I will stop making decisions about life.

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHSYICS.

When you have EVIDENCE that refutes this obvious TRUTH, then you will have evidence for “free will”. Until that Time you are a Religious Nitwit, who prefers Wishful Thinking to Logic and Reason.

BTW - You are a Nitwit for pretending that you are NOT religious, when you clearly are.

Since you don’t believe in free will, why bother to discuss anything? Fate is fate and we don’t really make decisions. In your world, we may as well sit around and do nothing all day but wait to die, since we have no influence on the world around us.

Perhaps that is Your Destiny, but I assure you … it is NOT mine.

Now how do you influence me? You used to make me laugh quite a bit. That was about all. Now you make me wonder if you should be on medication.

Yeah … you need more bad Karma (especially from Me), like you need a bullet in your temple.

 

[Jedi Knight]

..isn't it time the R&P forum just wrote off Franko as severely delusional and just get on with life?

"TP in Hawaii"

Ah, the Amazing Titanpoint uses the JREF "brain-disorder" debate tactic. I explained that tactic pretty extensively in another thread. Should I cut and paste it here to go over it again?

JK

 

[Franko]

Ohh ... Jedi -- please do!!!

 

[Doubt]

Doubt,



Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHSYICS.

When you have EVIDENCE that refutes this obvious TRUTH, then you will have evidence for “free will”. Until that Time you are a Religious Nitwit, who prefers Wishful Thinking to Logic and Reason.

BTW - You are a Nitwit for pretending that you are NOT religious, when you clearly are.

The laws of physics cannot be used to predict my actions. The laws of physics incorporate the laws of probability, which limit predictability. Also, the uncertainty principle also limits predictability. The combination of probability and the uncertainty principle imply that no set of initial conditions can be determined that will yield the same result every time. There may or may not be free will, but there is no certain course of events that you would consider fate.

Others have told you why your syllogism is wrong, and you still keep repeating it as dogma. The laws of physics limit what can be done but do not predict specific events. For example, take one atom of U235 and tell me exactly when it will decay. If the laws of physics are ever refined enough to yield perfect predictability, then your argument about free will may gain some traction. Until then the door is open for free will. Even if free will does not exist, random events will still occur and prevent predictability.

Here again is a correct syllogism:

Atoms do not violate the laws of physics
I am made of atoms
I do not violate the laws of physics

While we are at it, I have been watching your evasion of questions in various threads. Here is another syllogism:

People who evade questions usually don’t know the answers
Franko evades direct questions
Franko does not know the answers.

Of course, that is a probablistic syllogism and cannot be used as a proof, but I see no reason to believe otherwise. You could deal with Jkorisi’s (spelling?) questions head on, but you wont.

Also, your wish to believe that I am an atheist will never make it true. Which is pretty much in line with your never presenting a logical reason to believe your Goddess is female and other aspects of your dogma.

In the mean time, see a shrink.

 

[subgenius]

..isn't it time the R&P forum just wrote off Franko as severely delusional and just get on with life?

"TP in Hawaii"

Way overdue.

 

[Franko]

Doubt,

The laws of physics cannot be used to predict my actions. The laws of physics incorporate the laws of probability, which limit predictability. Also, the uncertainty principle also limits predictability. The combination of probability and the uncertainty principle imply that no set of initial conditions can be determined that will yield the same result every time. There may or may not be free will, but there is no certain course of events that you would consider fate.

laws of probability? So you want to rehash the randomly and uncontrollably running of red lights again? How many times do the laws of probability cause you to unpredictably kick your father in the nutsack when you meant to shake his hand?

Does the fact that The combination of probability and the uncertainty principle imply that no set of initial conditions can be determined that will yield the same result every time mean that your computer will not yield this post as the same result every time?

There may or may not be free will, but there is no certain course of events that you would consider fate … So you are telling me that the orbit of the Moon and other planets is NOT predictable (Fated).

Others have told you why your syllogism is wrong …

How many people have told you that A-Theism is wrong? Tell me … what does the counter have to get up to (number of people) before a TRUE belief is transformed into a FALSE one?

… and you still keep repeating it as dogma.

I keep repeating it, because it is TRUE, and it drives you Fanatically Religious A-Theist insane.

The laws of physics limit what can be done but do not predict specific events. For example, take one atom of U235 and tell me exactly when it will decay. If the laws of physics are ever refined enough to yield perfect predictability, then your argument about free will may gain some traction. Until then the door is open for free will. Even if free will does not exist, random events will still occur and prevent predictability.

Ahhhh … So what you are asserting is that NO EVIDENCE for “free will”, is actually EVIDENCE for “free will”? Do I have it right?

If a Theist made the same claim, that NO EVIDENCE for “God”, is actually EVIDENCE for “God”, would you accept that as logically valid? What makes you think anyone will be stupid enough to accept it from you?

Here again is a correct syllogism:

Atoms do not violate the laws of physics
I am made of atoms
I do not violate the laws of physics

What does it mean NOT to violate the laws of physics?

Is it possible TO violate the laws of physics? If you can’t NOT VIOLATE, then isn’t it more accurate (and parsimonious) to just say Atoms obey the laws of Physics?

How is DO NOT VIOLATE more parsimonious (accurate, clear, expressive, concise, comprehensible, Logical) then just saying OBEY? Isn’t Obey = DO NOT VIOLATE …?

While we are at it, I have been watching your evasion of questions in various threads. Here is another syllogism:

People who evade questions usually don’t know the answers
Franko evades direct questions
Franko does not know the answers.

Hmmmm … that’s clever, doubt. Did mommy help you with that one?

Let me tell you something, if your last post is your idea of “a successful answer” to my points … then Franko does not know the answers. In that case, I suggest you run along and chat with you’re A-Theists pals about how great ceasing to exist will be …

Of course, that is a probablistic syllogism and cannot be used as a proof, but I see no reason to believe otherwise. You could deal with Jkorisi’s (spelling?) questions head on, but you wont.

1) Wish real hard, and maybe you’ll deceive yourself into believing you have “free will”, but you certainly don’t have any evidence for it. Wishful Thinking with all your might won’t make that syllogism FALSE either.

2) jk(whats-is-name) doesn’t really want to discuss squat. He thinks he can get me to talk to myself instead. Besides, what makes you think I give a warm spit about what you or jkawasaki thinks?

Also, your wish to believe that I am an atheist will never make it true. Which is pretty much in line with your never presenting a logical reason to believe your Goddess is female and other aspects of your dogma.

Why are A-Theists who know that God does not exist, so concerned regarding my views of God’s gender??? I don’t believe that household appliances have a gender, but what gender is your blender Doubt? How about the toaster? … and the microwave?

In the mean time, see a shrink.

I’ll row my own boat – thank you; but perhaps you should consider your own advice?

 

[Checkmite]

2) jk(whats-is-name) doesn’t really want to discuss squat. He thinks he can get me to talk to myself instead.

No, I just want you to answer direct questions, a feat which you have thus far proven yourself unable to accomplish. It seems to be YOU that wants ME to talk to myself, since you keep countering my questions with more questions whose bearing upon the subject is questionable to say the least.

 

[Guest]

atoms are not visible to the human eye
you are made of atoms
you are not visible to the human eye


atoms obey TLOP
you are made of atoms
you obey TLOP


notice the similarities...





Franko...idiot...Franko...idiot...


notice the similarities?

 

[Titanpoint]

Re: Re: Regarding Franko...

Ah, the Amazing Titanpoint uses the JREF "brain-disorder" debate tactic. I explained that tactic pretty extensively in another thread. Should I cut and paste it here to go over it again?

JK

Is it bright and sunny over there on Planet Fruitloop?

"TP in Hawaii"

 

[Doubt]

Doubt,



laws of probability? So you want to rehash the randomly and uncontrollably running of red lights again? How many times do the laws of probability cause you to unpredictably kick your father in the nutsack when you meant to shake his hand?

Does the fact that The combination of probability and the uncertainty principle imply that no set of initial conditions can be determined that will yield the same result every time mean that your computer will not yield this post as the same result every time?

There may or may not be free will, but there is no certain course of events that you would consider fate … So you are telling me that the orbit of the Moon and other planets is NOT predictable (Fated).

Sorry, but the fate of the moon cannot be determined. We can observe its motion and predict that it will continue that action for the time being. We don't know how long that will last thanks to the inevitable influence of outside forces. You do know the moons current behavior, but not its "fate".

People are less predictable than the moon. Observing what I had for lunch yesterday will not tell you what I will have today. My lunch decision has not been made yet and no application of TLOP will tell you what it will be. Is my lunch decision free will? I don't know, but I have no evidence that it is predetermined either. I can make a decision and that is the limit of what is knowable at this time.

How many people have told you that A-Theism is wrong? Tell me … what does the counter have to get up to (number of people) before a TRUE belief is transformed into a FALSE one?

People have demonstrated the fallacy of composition for you. There is even a whole thread devoted to it now. Disagreeing with you does not make me an atheist. Tell me … what does the counter have to get up to (number of repetitions by you) before a your false assertion is transformed into a true one?

I keep repeating it, because it is TRUE, and it drives you Fanatically Religious A-Theist insane.

You keep repeating it because you need it to be true. It is a baseless assertion. You don't even know what I believe outside of my assertion that I am an agnostic. I would explain it, but you would just use that as yet another red herring to avoid dealing with the details of what you believe.

Ahhhh … So what you are asserting is that NO EVIDENCE for “free will”, is actually EVIDENCE for “free will”? Do I have it right?

If a Theist made the same claim, that NO EVIDENCE for “God”, is actually EVIDENCE for “God”, would you accept that as logically valid? What makes you think anyone will be stupid enough to accept it from you?

Nothing I said here is evidence against free will. I have not even claimed that free will is provable. I have provided you with an example of why TLOP does not predict the individual action of individual atoms. You keep asserting that materialists see TLOP as if it is the source of the universe. It is a way of describing it and nothing more. Other than you, who has asserted anything else? When are you going to stop rebuilding the same old strawman?

What does it mean NOT to violate the laws of physics?

Is it possible TO violate the laws of physics? If you can’t NOT VIOLATE, then isn’t it more accurate (and parsimonious) to just say Atoms obey the laws of Physics?

How is DO NOT VIOLATE more parsimonious (accurate, clear, expressive, concise, comprehensible, Logical) then just saying OBEY? Isn’t Obey = DO NOT VIOLATE …?

It would only be more parsimonious only if I accepted your strawman that TLOP is god or TLOP defines the universe. TLOP is a less than perfect mathematical description of the universe and nothing more. Unless TLOP becomes perfect, my syllogism needs no reductions.

Hmmmm … that’s clever, doubt. Did mommy help you with that one?

This is one of the weakest evasions I have seen from you yet. If you start providing answers to direct questions, I will stop making fun of you.

jk(whats-is-name) doesn’t really want to discuss squat. He thinks he can get me to talk to myself instead. Besides, what makes you think I give a warm spit about what you or jkawasaki thinks?

LOL! That answer only makes sense if you believe in solipsism.

Why are A-Theists who know that God does not exist, so concerned regarding my views of God’s gender??? I don’t believe that household appliances have a gender, but what gender is your blender Doubt? How about the toaster? … and the microwave?

The gender of your god is just one of many things you have not been able to prove. It is used as a simple example of your foolishness. I have seen where you asserted that gender is based on the spin of a graviton. Think about that one for a second. If different gravitons have different spins, then the term graviton describes a family of particles instead of a particle. I fully expect you to incorporate this into your belief system. From what I have observed, you will start asserting this in less than a month. I will be waiting……..

 

[Plutarck]

We need an excorcism! There are waaaaaay too many ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ threads that are possessed by the Evil Demon of Pointless Syllogisms!

We must EX-COR-CIIIII-IIII-III-III-IZE THE DEEEE-MONS! Can I get a WIIIIITNEEEESSSSSSSS!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Ipecac]

Doubt raised a good point a couple of posts back.

Even assuming that there is no free will, how the heck does that affect me? I still have to decide what to do tonight, where I'm going to eat, what I'm going to eat, what I will do tomorrow, ad infinitum. Since I am reasonably free to choose among several different options (which sure seems like free will), even if there is no free will, how does that change my life one bit? The idea of free will versus no free will is meaningless.

 

[Doubt]

We need an excorcism! There are waaaaaay too many ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ threads that are possessed by the Evil Demon of Pointless Syllogisms!

We must EX-COR-CIIIII-IIII-III-III-IZE THE DEEEE-MONS! Can I get a WIIIIITNEEEESSSSSSSS!?!?!?!?!?!

Surly you don't mean this one:

People who evade questions usually don't know the answers
Franko evades direct questions
Franko does not know the answers.


Stand still and I will use my healing touch on you......

*wham*......

Plutarck!?!......Plutarck????!!!!

Darn, knock him out and the deeee-mons are still here.

 

[subgenius]

We need an excorcism! There are waaaaaay too many ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ threads that are possessed by the Evil Demon of Pointless Syllogisms!

We must EX-COR-CIIIII-IIII-III-III-IZE THE DEEEE-MONS! Can I get a WIIIIITNEEEESSSSSSSS!?!?!?!?!?!

"I'm just new here but I'm stricken by the fact that certain people....you know who they are, and so do they.....have, in effect, hijacked this forum. They don't share any of the values expressed by the sponsoring organization. Its one thing to debate, but its another to babble, start with a conclusion and try to make all the facts fit to support it.
Read Randi's notice at the top of each topic, wherein he cautions against debating with unreasonable people as being a waste of time.
Much of what is posted by these people reminds me of a great item by Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame:
"You are Wrong Because:
For, your convenience, I have checked the brain malfunction(s) that most closely resemble(s) the one(s) that you recently exhibited on the topic of: (fill in the blank)....."
He then goes on to list a number of them: "Amazingly Bad Analogy", "Faulty Cause and Effect", "Total Logical Disconnect", and give examples of each.
I am awaiting Scott's permission to share the whole of it with you...it is from his book "The Joy of Work."
Trying to follow the logic of the insane will drive you insane, and, dissipate your energy in the meantime, as Randi notes.
Once you identify someone with one of these brain disorders, it is best to ignore them and have a real discussion of the facts (note Randi's refusal to continue with "S&S" in another section.)
"Thinking is the hardest work of all, that's why so few of us engage in it."---Thoreau
"A conclusion is the place where we got tired of thinking."---unkown to me
"We see and hear what we expect to see and hear."----Thoreau
Oh, another Scott Adam's point from "You are wrong" that is particularly relevent here:
"Circluar reasoning---example: I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct."

---me, in another thread.

Of course this post didn't mention any names, but I got, not unexpectedly, a vitrupetive response comparing me to Stalin, Hitler, etc. How did he know to whom I was referring?

They hate to be ignored. There is a way to exorcize the demons.....its the ignore button. I see that more and more of the reasoning people here have been driven to it.

"Living well is the best revenge."---Oscar Wilde

"Clowntime is over."----Elvis Costello

 

[Franko]

Ipecac,

Even assuming that there is no free will, how the heck does that affect me?

Even assuming that “red” is not really “red”, but oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light, how the heck does that affect me?

I still have to decide what to do tonight, where I'm going to eat, what I'm going to eat, what I will do tomorrow, ad infinitum. Since I am reasonably free to choose among several different options (which sure seems like free will), even if there is no free will, how does that change my life one bit? The idea of free will versus no free will is meaningless.

Sure – if you say so! I guess you think photons are meaningless also?

 

[Franko]

So Doubt …

Just in summary of your views …

NO evidence for “free will” is ACTUALLY evidence for “free will” …

And, Evidence for “God”, is ACTUALLY NO evidence for “God”.

And your Faith in the Dogma of A-Theism is NOT Religious in nature?

 

[Franko]

… well normally I wouldn’t bother, but this one seems to be a special kind of moron …

"I'm just new here but I'm stricken by the fact that certain people....you know who they are, and so do they.....have, in effect, hijacked this forum. They don't share any of the values expressed by the sponsoring organization.

This is a Skeptics forum Religious Fanatic, not another recruiting grounds for the Cult of A-Theism.

Its one thing to debate, but its another to babble, start with a conclusion and try to make all the facts fit to support it.

What are your FACTS for the existence of “free will”?

Read Randi's notice at the top of each topic, wherein he cautions against debating with unreasonable people as being a waste of time.

You sound like you are talking about the Pope. So why are You wasting your time?

Much of what is posted by these people reminds me of a great item by Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame:
"You are Wrong Because:
For, your convenience, I have checked the brain malfunction(s) that most closely resemble(s) the one(s) that you recently exhibited on the topic of: (fill in the blank)....."
He then goes on to list a number of them: "Amazingly Bad Analogy", "Faulty Cause and Effect", "Total Logical Disconnect", and give examples of each.
I am awaiting Scott's permission to share the whole of it with you...it is from his book "The Joy of Work."

TP is the resident Dilbert Nitwit.

Trying to follow the logic of the insane will drive you insane, and, dissipate your energy in the meantime, as Randi notes.

Again with the appeal to the great Randi?

Once you identify someone with one of these brain disorders, it is best to ignore them and have a real discussion of the facts (note Randi's refusal to continue with "S&S" in another section.)

Speaking of facts, what is your evidence for “free will” again? Why do you believe that less conscious things control more conscious things?

"Thinking is the hardest work of all, that's why so few of us engage in it."---Thoreau
"A conclusion is the place where we got tired of thinking."---unkown to me
"We see and hear what we expect to see and hear."----Thoreau
Oh, another Scott Adam's point from "You are wrong" that is particularly relevent here:
"Circluar reasoning---example: I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct."

So the A-Theists are smarter then everyone else because they claim to be smarter then everyone else?