Posts by loriklorik

Original Post by jenniferthepennifer:

Original Post by fitnessgirll:

Ha.

I think youre really a bible belting conservative Christian. Just bc you stated you are not means nothing. Right?

Note: It's as valid as your point above about Obama. 

If I wanted to run for President of the United States because I felt I could do some real good in the world but I knew that being an Agnostic wouldn't get me in office because of the close minded bible thumping right - I would lie and say I was a Christian if it was for the greater good.  Again, not saying this is what Obama has done - I said it was a thought.  Please quit freaking out like I'm saying this is the God's honest truth.. it's a thought and opinion. I'm probably wrong. Forgive me oh brilliant one for sharing a THOUGHT. 

Valid as my point about Obama?  I didn't make a point - I shared a feeling. 

 Currently, that is the ONLY way to become president. You MUST be a christian in the eyes of the public.

Are people seriously saying that they don't believe any president is smart enough to play the religion card just to get more votes?....uuhhh... have people even heard of politics? Everything from the TIE THEY WEAR to the words they use is specially picked and designed to manipulate the public. Religion is a MAJOR issue, which is why they need photo ops at churches and things like that...so the public can "see" they are religious.

Obama seems like a smart fellow. I just don't see him being very religious (if at all). He is smart though, so he would never admit that (it would ruin his career).

Original Post by minda_spk:

 they would all just live out miserable lives having to be dependent on others and never excelling at anything.

 But tricking them into believing they are excelling at something is better? Why not find something they CAN do?

I am not speaking of the more extreme cases of autism or anything along those lines (if they don't know what is going on and don't understand the sittuation, again, no harm in letting them think they won). But for those with more functioning brains...why not find something they can do and really let them achieve something?

Original Post by simwaves1:

Original Post by jenniferthepennifer:

 

4. Do you believe the stories in the Bible are true? i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah, Daniel and the den of lions, Jonah in the whale, etc, etc.

yes

 

 

 ..... ...... ...... so.... umm..... .... man eaten by whale? ... and umm...world flooding...and umm...2 of each animal on a boat.... ......

.....

....

Ok then..... o.O

Original Post by fitnessgirll:

Are you implying that the President of the United States is STUPID? Are you implying that 80 percent of this world's population are STUPID?

 

 Oh, I doubt the president is actually very religious (it is a political tool, he would not be president if he was not christian).

I didn't mean to imply anything though! Let me clear it up...

Yes, I think 80 percent of the world's population is stupid (actually, I would guess higher than that, but...lets go with 80 percent for now). It's a comparative thing though (stupid to me might not be stupid to someone else). Given how people act and the "mistakes" they make, yes, people are very very stupid.

Let me be clear about something. This all started because you claimed that no religious person had any reasoning to back up their beliefs. What I have done is shown you the reasoning for why I believe in a God.

That's what it gets down to. But it still isn't reasoning for their specific belief. The creation of the universe isn't evidence for god...and not even close to evidence for a god with interest and presence in life.

It is like saying "tree's are reasoning for the belief in god! how else could anything so great and complex be made?". Nothing about a tree says "yes, god had to do it".

If we are speaking about a more generic form of "god"... ok, that is more understandable (a definition lacking intelligence and pretty much anything other than stating it is some force which resulted in the current universe to exist...that could be a universe before us, or the magic tree, or pretty much any phenomenon. In the same way a trees seed is "god" to another tree.). But such a WIDE definition of god does nothing to support specific religions and their claims at "holy morality" or anything else we "should" do or think.

There is a LARGE gap between "something created the universe" and "god does not want you to have sex from behind".

Again, it is illogical, irrational, and just simply just fantasy.

Original Post by fitnessgirll:

Original Post by loriklorik:

Simwaves theory could be right. Sure. I freely admit that.

 YUP.

 I'm not trying to say simwaves is absolutely wrong in his belief that god needs to have all the characteristics he stated (unlikely, yea, that I would argue).

I am simply making a case that he is wrong in his belief that his is the only possible explanation.

You see, that is the key point... if there are many possible explanations to something, why is it logical or rational to simply randomly select one theory and put your "faith" in it?

Simwaves is trying to support his belief as simply the only logical conclusion... that, is wrong. Again, there are many things possible. It is foolish to claim you know any absolutes about such a GREATLY fuzzy issue like the origin of the universe.

Again, I am not saying simwaves is absolutely wrong... sure, there might be a god (sure, it might even be the christian god... or a god with a pink cowboy hat who speaks with an irish accent and calls himself jimmy).... the issue is believing it to be the only explanation (and dismissing all others or basing your life and morality on your random selection).

Original Post by fitnessgirll:

IN YOUR OPINION, you could be wrong!

Original Post by fitnessgirll:

I never said you are wrong

 I was just saying I don't see how I COULD be wrong...

Original Post by fitnessgirll:

 But, honestly, all you are doing is claiming your 'theory'....on your beliefs. Bottom line, Lorik. that is all you can give. You can quote, just as Sims has, to back your beliefs...but bottom line...it comes down to what you WANT to believe. Anyone reading this entire thread, IMO, can see that Simwaves has the advantage...the knowlege..the intelligence to back up what he says..not just Star Trek wannabe theories..which respectfully, is all I can conjure up when reading your posts.

 

 Yup, science fiction is exactly what we are talking about (Those are just as valid "possible explanations" to the universe as anything).

I don't believe what I "want to believe" (it would be a lot more fun to believe in star wars universe...i wub wookies)....I believe the only possible thing to believe (and that is simply understanding the answer "could" be anything, but no reason to believe in any one thing randomly).

I am not saying anything is right, simply in their current form...everything is just fantasy (some more possible than others, but still fantasy). Believing in the christian god, or the hindu god, or the vampire god ...or whatever else...simply is foolish. There is no reason to put your "faith" in any of these fantasies given the lack of proof (and common sense /reason) they all share.

The problem with simwaves arguments is he isn't backing anything up. He just makes a wild claim like "the creator of the universe needs to be intelligent" and "well, the creator doesn't get to be created because he is outside of time" ....these can not be supported in any way, they are simply a random invention of imagination. Then, instead of supporting those wild claims with ANYTHING, he just starts quoting buzz words or saying "you aren't following the rules of thinking!" while pointing to random references (without actually saying which rules are being broken, if any).

It is a fancy smoke and mirror show. His arguments are still sitting there naked... countered with equally "possible" explanations invented on the fly...

The only thing he seems to try to argue is that he knows more about the events of the "big bang" and the events surrounding it and possibly anything before it than ANY scientist or philosopher on the face of the planet (or throughout time). I'm curious where he gets this impossible knowledge from... how he is so able to dictate what rules the universe forming has to follow... (along with the "rules" on time and dimensions).

Original Post by fitnessgirll:

Original Post by loriklorik:

 Stop using words you don't know just to try and sound smart. It is so annoying...

 

TAlking about yourself again, Lorik...

 I don't do that? When I say something, I say it clearly and only use phrases that everyone understands or is familiar with. I let WHAT I say speak for itself...

Oh, or I could just try and trick everyone into thinking what I am saying has more credit by mis-using famous names and buzz words / phrases. Or try to fool everyone into believing that philosphy is some type of set ruleset (haha). Aristotle? Kant? *sigh* Those are covered in into level class for philosophy (yup, i learnt about them too, everyone who takes 101 philosophy does)....

How about Hume? Tzu? Locke? Foucault? Haraway? Or the other COUNTLESS people who have DREAMED UP theories on a wide range of subjects. None of them had a direct line to knowledge or philosophy and if you read a bunch of their work....actually they were dead wrong in SOOOOOO many ways (and normally pretty easy to counter a lot of their stuff, you have to remember that people like kant were in a long removed time when they simply didn't know as much about the world as we do. They did the best they could, but still were working under limited knowledge....AS ARE WE.)

For simwaves to come in and claim he knows for sure that there is no other possible explanation to the creation of the universe than an intelligent god is just.... so ... wrong. There is simply no way to know (the only thing he can POSSIBLY claim is that it is ONE of many theories...because that is just what it is. Just like my repeating universe or evolving universe or magic tree theories. Just dream up fun things off the top of your head.)

He still hasn't supported why god needs to be intelligent (other than random reference to a priori knowledge and kant...heh). There were a couple factors that might be more likely (That i addressed in above post), but it in no way the only possible explanation and in no way only caused by a thinking god.

That is the point I am making. That his claims of "knowing" god exists on "obvious" conclusions that he listed simply is not true....no philosopher would claim to absolutely know something based on a wild fantasy and imagined criteria (haha, well, some might...but they would be wrong and dilusional).

Original Post by madamq:

  Her reply was that a robot could NOT do my job because a robot was not human.  A robot can't ascertain what a human mind wants. 

 Robots could probably tell what people are feeling a LOT better than humans. Reading changes in temp or subtle movements in skin or even brain patterns and levels of chemicals in teh blood....

Robots can already tell if someone is lieing a lot better than humans can. Emotions are just a step ahead.

From what I have seen...you are doomed unless you try to get over it. Painfully shy people just don't date often unless someone approaches them (which doesn't even work out depending how shy you are).

It really depends how shy you are. If you avoid going out a lot and avoid speaking to people, well, yup you will be alone. But if you are just a little shy and still do a lot of things and chat with people who flirt with you...well, chances are things will work out.

Original Post by cptbunny:

I have a serious question. Or questions.

Does the US have nuclear weapons?

If yes, then why are we allowed weapons and other nations not?

If no, then ignore my question. :>

 Hehe the US has tons and tons and tons of nukes... like, huge amounts.

We get them because we are responsible! Other nations are more controlled by corruption and crazed groups...so...probably not a good idea for them to have them.

Though, there is a plan in effect to get rid of all the nukes in the world ...they are doing that now (the goal is for no one to have them, though, the US will probably keep a few in secret )

Original Post by simwaves1:

You can think of an infinite number of "possible" explanations.

 

 Bing bong! That is all I was doing...making up from the top of my head "possible explanations". It is EXACTLY what you do when you say "god did it".

Yes, saying "god did it" is a lot lot lot easier, but there simply isn't anything to support it (other than you thinking it is so amazing that god is the only possible explanation...). Instead of thinking that some unknown singularity or process ended with our current rendition of the universe, you invent a magic man in the sky and just explain everything by "its magic".

When asked HOW he made the universe... "its magic"

When asked HOW he came to exist without being created himself ... "its magic" (or, he just always existed because he lives out of time, but funny how nothing else can always exist, like repeating universes).

When asked anything about him...the answer ends up being "magic".

I don't understand how you can do this? How can you be so critical of random theories...but "its magic" is good enough for you when it comes to god?

You really haven't supported why intelligence is needed (I know you think you said it before, but I can't find it? Something about randomly deciding he needed to be intelligent....)... why it needs to be a god instead of some phenomenon (singularity, repeating universes, magic tree, whatever).

Why can't you simply admit you don't know? Why is that so hard?

First of all it begs the question. If a prior universe collapsed and then expanded into ours, where did the prior universe come from?

It stretches back infinitely, it has always existed. ....just...like...your god (if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me).

"If the Universe recollapses, then there is another singularity at the time of the Big Crunch. A singularity means that the laws of physics break down, so we have no way to predict whether the Big Crunch will connect to another cycle of expansion. Even if the density were high enough to cause a recollapse, there would be no guarantee that the Universe would oscillate. But the current evidence is strongly against any recollapse, which would rule out the oscillating Universe."

You see, the key words here are "current evidence" and "strongly against"....that does not mean it is impossible and ANY scientist will gladly admit there is plenty we do not know. Basically, any scientist claiming to "know" the cause for the universe is ...simply wrong. They can make a bunch of guesses, but any scientist would admit they don't know (and would never make such a claim....like you seem to do).

How come you have such a great knowledge about where the universe came from and yet people who have studied it closely for their entire lives (And are the ones actually doing the research) gladly admit they just don't know? Tell me, have you been speaking to god?

@ Lorik: Aristotle described the universal concept of logic. He didn't make the rules, he just explained how to follow them.

His understanding of "universal concept of logic".... it is in no way the absolute definition.

If you don't accept a more straight forward philosophy like Occam's razor, then you definitely won't accept anything by Kant

Well, then accept the sun rises because gods hand lifts it up. Because according to occam's razor...that is the case. Just because it is in a book or you talked about it in class, doesn't mean it is some kind of "law".

Seriously, occam's razor is nothing but a cute idea that SOMETIMES works out...but a lot of times simply DOESN'T.

Or, are you telling me occam's razor always applies to philosophy and the world? Because if you are, you simply haven't done your homework.

I really don't see a point in going into detail with Kant's philosophies. If you don't accept a more straight forward philosophy like Occam's razor, then you definitely won't accept anything by Kant. Lets just jump to the chase and say that "Lorik's Law" proves that Kant never existed. If you are still interested in details, then you can look up Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

*Sigh* Kant wasn't always right... no philosopher ever is.... I know you hold these people on really high pedestals because you read about them in a book or talked about them in class. But they are in no way the final authority on thinking (just another voice who had some interesting ideas...along with a ton of bad ones).

Furries don't need to make parties to get hugs...they just walk around with their outfits on and random people hug them automatically <3

Isn't that why people get pets? o.O

Original Post by shapeshifter:

Original Post by cptbunny:

Original Post by pavlovcat:

Original Post by loriklorik:

 

Haha, so, again, tell me what "rules" I have broken...and then tell me how that in ANY WAY affects the cases I have made.

Rules.... for thinkings.... hahah, that is so funny.

 

 I haven't read any of this thread.  But lorik, I just popped in to say: You're so totally going to hell.  You know how I know?  Because it is obviously from whence you came.  A demonic little imp sent to torture us.

Good job.  Satan must be proud. 

What is with the personal attacks? =/

Ditto...(((CPT)))

 I'm pretty sure she was joking :P