On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:14 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> any other.
>
> > 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
>
>

I agree with Jason.

I don't know how the bodily fluids relate to TOE's or the UDA apart from
primary school usage of urination phonetic pun on the UDA's use of 1p, 3p
observations and views, though.

But for humor to work, the audience must find it funny.

This gets no laughs from me, nor from Jason i would guess, and I gig comedy
occasionally (badly, but I do...)

Russell can probably explain this to me: how this sort of "joke" is closer
to TOE then posing a question concerning possible future technological
horizons. Because from what I can tell, this particular phenomenon is in
the domain "perception of physical body", but that's not totally right;
it's more like "psychological connotations of metabolic fluid deposits in
discourse"; which is of course, much more specific and much further afield
from Ensemble Theories of Everything or Russell has A LOT of deleting to do.

Everybody can label stuff with their own word fields and make funky
assignments, re-frame stuff over and over. Doesn't disguise empty arguments
from authority and it doesn't shed one photon on the problems of domain
specificity in the face of interdisciplinary phenomena. You just gloss over
your own BS by going: "Well, my labels are better than yours!".

I've lived in the US and Europe: even though the groups change, e.g. bible
belt attitude annoys me in the US, but then German performances of rational
scientific rigor with their vapor of complacency and cronyism do the
same: *along
with any other entitlement to authority type argument or re-framing of
things, be it bosses, scientists, or musicians* => they are all raving
priests, that in particular moments, sometimes for a lifetime, take their
own bodily deposits, even their Ensemble TOEs... a bit too seriously,
perhaps?

And yes, it takes a priest to recognize one, before anybody mistakes this
for an authoritative stab, which it isn't. Call it "a hunch".

PGC

----





>   --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to