On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my theory
> according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians in disguise.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
> > same definition of the creator
EXACTLY! I have a well defined meaning of the word " God" so when I say
"I don't believe in God" it actually means something, and the meaning of
the word is such that it doesn't reduced the sentence to triviality. People
may and usually do disagree when I say "I don't believe in God" but at
least they know what I'm talking about. In contrast you've tortured the
meanings of words so much that when you say "I do believe in God" nobody
knows what you mean and in fact, I'm not trying to be insulting I mean this
quite literally, when you say "I do believe in God" you don't know what
you're talking about. I know exactly what it is that I don't believe in,
but the thing that you do believe in is a bunch of amorphous mush with
virtually no relationship to the traditional meaning of the word "God" .
But you are far from alone in doing this, for reasons I don't understand
some atheist just want to make the noise "I do believe in God" with their
mouth, and they don't care what if anything it means.
> same perpetual use of authoritative arguments,
So you think my arguments are reliable and trusted as being accurate and
are the best of its kind and unlikely to be improved upon. Well I'm
blushing, there not THAT good, someday sombody might do even better.
> same impulse to forbid the scientific method on the deep questions.
Bullshit. I'm a atheist because a world that was intelligently designed
would look very different from one that was not, therefore deciding between
the 2 hypothesis is a scientific question that can be resolved just like
> I was just asking what do you mean by "grand concept", with the goal of
> making sense of what you were saying. You elude the point.
I have noticed that when people get into a tight corner they often try to
change the subject by asking me for a definition of some very common word
that I've used. The trouble is that any definition I give will be made of
words and I can be certain that my debate opponent will demand a definition
of at least one of those words, and away we go.
I would humbly suggest that for efficient communication you buy yourself a
dictionary, then you wouldn't need to ask people what obscure and little
used words like "grand" and "God" mean, you could just look them up.
> >> that depends on how you define "define". And after that I'd like to
>> know the definition of "define "define" "; and after that [...]
> > If you are interested in a theory of "definition", by some good
> introductory book in logic, as this is has been well studied.
If I already knew what the word "define" meant then I wouldn't need such
books, and if I didn't know the meaning then asking to define "define"
would be like asking to klogknee "klogknee".
> BTW, I am still waiting your comment on my last rebuttal of your
> predicting algorithm in self-duplication.
I wasn't aware that I had a "predicting algorithm in self-duplication", and
I have no way of knowing if I should praise your rebuttal or condemn it
because I don't know what on earth you're talking about.
> you seem to believe that physics does solve the mind-body problem,
The evidence very strongly indicates that mind is what the brain does if
that's what you mean.
> > which is exactly what UDA shows it does not.
UDA? Oh yes, all that pee and pee pee stuff.
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.