BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 09:24 PM

I promised no further comment on your reasoning - please continue.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 09:23 PM

? If I am conscious while I am alive, how does that show that death won't end my consciousness?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 09:05 PM

//Please provide link to substantiate your claim that Homo erectus still existed 27000 years ago. I thought he'd been extinct for about 700,000 years.//

I can give you so many, I don't know where to start. Here's what you do: go to Google and type "H. erectus skulls on Java from 27,000 BP" and take your pick. Other readers may also wish to do so to verify that I am not running you around in circles.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 08:58 PM

If you were wise, you wouldn't do it all. The experiment rides on the idea of having permanent amnesia. This is simply not possible. If you get amnesia permanently in the future at time T, then you would observe the time to be at or later than T. Since you do not observe time to be at or later than T then you did not get permanent amnesia at T.

Now if death extinguishes consciousness, that is permanent amnesia and so your entire life has now been skipped over because you were not conscious at that time. You could not remember anything until after your death. Since you are conscious now, death cannot extinguish your consciousness.

Now, for all the readers--are you following my reasoning? Would you like more examples before I go on. Do you have any objections to what I've presented?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 08:47 PM

Please provide link to substantiate your claim that Homo erectus still existed 27000 years ago. I thought he'd been extinct for about 700,000 years.

For why you don't tend to find intermediates in fossil records, buy yourself a copy of Origin of Species and see how Darwin confronts this. Most elegant.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 08:28 PM

Not without haggling.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 08:16 PM

//J:

Proving there is no such thing as total unconsciousness during a lifetime does not prove anything about the state preceding or following that lifetime, logically. As it happens, I agree with what underlies your assertions, but your logic is flawed.

Proving there is no commerce of any sort on Sunday does not prove the non-existance of commerce, either.


A//

Perfectly true but that wasn't where I was going with it. IF you admit that there is no such state as absolute unconsciousness, then you are forced to consider that death does not extinguish consciousness. That doesn't mean that this is the case but you are forced to consider that it might be. If, on the other hand, you do concede that there is such a state, then it would be characterized as missing time.

Missing time is a hallmark of total unconsciousness since one could not have been aware of anything whatsoever. One was completely shut down, as it were. If this be the case, then it stands to reason that one could not be conscious during that period. Likewise, if death extinguishes consciousness, one's entire life becomes missing time meaning one was never conscious during that period. Since one was conscious during that period--contradiction. Conclusion: Death does not extinguish consciousness.

If your memories don't start accumulating until after T0 at birth and yet death wipes them clean at T1, then when do your memories accumulate? Yet to be conscious you must have the ability to remember events an infinite number of times if you choose and nothing can interfere with that without causing a radical alteration of your consciousness.

Here's a thought experiment that might better illustrate the point: Suppose a sadistic scientist invented a machine that could instananeously repair all physical trauma and totally erase all mental trauma and this machine truly does work. Now, he makes you an offer: For one million dollars in cash tax free, no strings attached, he offers to strap you down and torture you for 15 minutes. There will be a large clock there so you can watch the minutes roll by. The torture will be horrific and painful beyond anything any human has ever endured. It was be bloody, you will suffer the most excruciating dismemberment and flaying. Most importantly, you will be fully conscious the whole time and will feel everything and be spared nothing. At the end of 15 minutes, the machine kicks on and instaneously indemnifies you. Your body is perfectly healed and you have no memory whatever of being tortured. He unstraps you and hands you one million in cash.

The torture will be missing time. It will seem that he strapped you down and then the clock instantaneously jumped forward 15 minutes and then he unstraps you--none the worse for wear--and gives you your money.

Would you do it?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 07:56 PM

Dig it! (ha ha)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 07:26 PM

//"Homo sapiens sapiens did not descend ladder-like from H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. habilus, Australopithecus--in truth there is no evidence these left any evolutionary descendants whatsoever. "

This is a misreading of the concept of Evolution. These examples are part of a tree
that when you go back far enough forms a basis for the branch called Homo sapiens.
There is quite a bit of evidence that these earlier forms had physiology that was similar
to present day Homo sapiens and enough so that it can be determined that there was a causal connection.//

The remains of H. habilis and H. erectus unearthed at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania by Louis Leakey were found at the same level (Bed II) indicating they were contemporaries. H. erectus skulls found on Java in 1996 date only from 27,000 BP and were found alongside H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens. Harvard palentologist Stephen Jay Gould was moved by such discoveries to remark, "What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 06:05 PM

"hmmm ... I'd have called it an anomaly ..."

Well. not everyone can be me..

And with that, I intend to go and eat sausages.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 06:03 PM

The other roblem with looking at yourself objectively of course is that you'd have no way of recognizing yourself, having never seen yourself before ...

That was the point of the Burns.. sort of..

And don't telescopes have both?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM

"hmmm ... I'd have called it an anomaly ..."


   but not when I'm drunk as its harder to say then ...


.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:59 PM

"just a necessary paradox

As is consciousness.. "


hmmm ... I'd have called it an anomaly ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:56 PM

The other roblem with looking at yourself objectively of course is that you'd have no way of recognizing yourself, having never seen yourself before ...


... and by the way, most modern telescopes are made using mirrors rather than lenses ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:52 PM

just a necessary paradox

As is consciousness..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:47 PM

I can't look objectively, I can only make imaginary subjective guesses at it, and you can hardly expect me to trust your opinion, being a figment of your own imagination.

according to my model you can never be self obsessed

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

Mirrors are better than telescopes anyway, though less telescopic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:40 PM

PS - you may comment that I have argued in previous posts that objectivity is a myth, so how can I look at your sentence objectively ...


well I'm sorry about that but its just a necessary paradox.


I took your sentence to be the object and gave a subjective view about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 05:35 PM

Nearly smokey ...

only that according to my model you can never be self obsessed, as to obsess about yourself you have to look from the other end of the telescope as it were, and suddenly it isn't you you are obsessing about but an alter ego.


As to your first sentence, you said:

"I see the problem here. My "I" is an illusion perceiving itself as an illusion ... etc ..."

If you look objectively at that sentence, your "I" was doing nothing of the sort.

Your "I" was busy seeing what the problem was here.

The only illusion was .. well ... your allusion to an illusion ...

now if you'll excuse me I have to do my nails ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 04:53 PM

Lox - I see the problem here. My "I" is an illusion perceiving itself as an illusion perceiving itself as an illusion perceiving itself as an illusion perceiving itself as an illusion ad infinitum, whereas you are just self-obsessed ;-)

My original comment was really only a thought about how humanity might have originally developed consciousness (or self awareness, perhaps?) - what we may have done with it since is another kettle of fish altogether, possibly even a horse of a different colour. I hadn't got that far.. I expect quantum mechanics has the answer, but I don't have the right spanners.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 03:50 PM

Aquinas is a very tight system, with careful logic. It is interesting that the possible objection to Aquinas are contained in his own careful analysis, in that he explains very carefully that belief & 'proof' requires certain assumptions in order to proceed. The only way to seriously dispute Aquinas is just shrug and declare that you don't agree to accept the same premises. He, of course, thought that his premises were 'obvious' and inescapable....but that is itself a different debate.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 03:35 PM

"What I meant was that "I" is the illusion"


This is only possible if we think of "I" in the abstract.

But in so doing we cease to think about "I" and instead think about a manufactured construct.

"I" observe an abstract construct which "I" have created and which "I" observe to be an illusion.

There is always an "I" behind each observation made.

No matter how I describe or define "I", it is always "I" who is making the observation, which means that the observation is in fact wrong as it is not in fact "I" that is beig observed, but something tha "I" have created.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: 3refs
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 03:29 PM

Through the eyes of a child:

The Children's Bible in a Nutshell
In the beginning, which occurred near the start, there was nothing but God, darkness, and some gas. The Bible says, 'The Lord thy God is one, but I think He must be a lot older than that.
Anyway, God said, 'Give me a light!' and someone did.
Then God made the world.
He split the Adam and made Eve. Adam and Eve were naked, but they weren't embarrassed because mirrors hadn't been invented yet.
Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating one bad apple, so they were driven from the Garden of Eden.....Not sure what they were driven in though, because they didn't have cars.
Adam and Eve had a son, Cain, who hated his brother as long as he was Abel.
Pretty soon all of the early people died off, except for Methuselah, who lived to be like a million or something.
One of the next important people was Noah, who was a good guy, but one of his kids was kind of a Ham. Noah built a large boat and put his family and some animals on it.   He asked some other people to join him, but they said they would have to take a rain check.
After Noah came Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob was more famous than his brother, Esau, because Esau sold Jacob his birthmark in exchange for some pot roast. Jacob had a son named Joseph who wore a really loud sports coat.
Another important Bible guy is Moses, whose real name was Charlton Heston. Moses led the Israel Lights out of Egypt and away from the evil Pharaoh after God sent ten plagues on Pharaoh's people. These plagues included frogs, mice, lice, bowels, and no cable.

God fed the Israel Lights every day with manicotti. Then he gave them His Top Ten Commandments. These include: don't lie, cheat, smoke, dance, or covet your neighbor's stuff.
Oh, yeah, I just thought of one more: Humor thy father and thy mother.
One of Moses' best helpers was Joshua who was the first Bible guy to use spies. Joshua fought the battle of Geritol and the fence fell over on the town.
After Joshua came David. He got to be king by killing a giant with a slingshot. He had a son named Solomon who had about 300 wives and 500 porcupines. My teacher says he was wise, but that doesn't sound very wise to me.
After Solomon there were a bunch of major league prophets. One of these was Jonah, who was swallowed by a big whale and then barfed up on the shore.
There were also some minor league prophets, but I guess we don't have to worry about them.
After the Old Testament came the New Testament. Jesus is the star of The New. He was born   in Bethlehem in a barn. (I wish I had been born in a barn too, because my mom is always saying to me, 'Close the door! Were you born in a barn?' It would be nice to say, 'As a matter of fact, I was.')
During His life, Jesus had many arguments with sinners like the Pharisees, the Democrats, and the Republicans.


Jesus also had twelve opossums.
The worst one was Judas Asparagus. Judas was so evil that they named a terrible vegetable after him.
Jesus was a great man. He healed many leopards and even preached to some Germans on the Mount.


But the Democrats, the Republicans and all those guys put Jesus on trial before Pontius the Pilot. Pilot didn't stick up for Jesus. He just washed his hands instead.
Anyways, Jesus died for our sins, then came back to life again. He went up to Heaven but will be back at the end of the Aluminum. His return is foretold in the book of Revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM

.The word delusion was obviously meant to be derisive and insulting to some.

I offer a sweeping apology to those who are directly hurt.

One should bear in mind that there is just so much pain and loss that a human being can endure and for those who are in need of a hope and belief in an afterlife and the like, should freely have the threapeutic benefits that such a God would offer.

Each of you have opinions of the world and your self that is basicly nothing more than the story you tell yourself is true. Change the story and you have changed yourself and/or the world. That is the psychological reality we share.

Still I believe that not all children or adults may need the kind of therapy that a God belief may offer. But for those who have encountered unfathomable loss, It can indeed provide great comfort.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:23 AM

suggested reading
Aquinas

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:15 AM

"...believing that mud can produce intention and understanding ..."

Kind of a loaded metaphor, ain't it, Amos? That's not exactly what is claimed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 11:06 AM

What could be more oxymoronic than the assertion "I think consciousness is an illusion" ?

The core issue, as hads been indicated by several people on this thread, is that it appears irreconcilable to try and model a viewpoint in terms of mechanics; the I doesn't act like an It. The longest chain of compounded signals in the world has nomeaning and no communication to it until it leaps the gap to an understanding viewpoint. At that point, mirabile dictu! Communication, undersatanding, awareness, etc. all manifest.

Conversely the hugest pile of mechanical elements will lie idle and say nothing unless and until a spark of intent is injected into it, at which point, lo! it will send some sort of message.

To confuse these things to the point of believing that mud can produce intention and understanding leads directly to the sorriest mess of pottage imaginable.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 10:48 AM

Not quite sure what you mean there, Lox.. Bit of a rush, but I'll catch up later when I come back from corrupting my sons' minds.

What I meant was that "I" is the illusion. Despite the apparently dodgy grammar. An illusion of convenience.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM

Here's a long article about the 'puzzle' of consciousness by a philosopher, discussing the interaction of 'brain' and its awareness of itself.

Becoming a being which evolved to be able to reflect on our own nature, rather than simply manifesting ourselves, has led to a lot of confusion. The philosophical study of Phenomenology attempts to sort out some of the issues, but just constructing a shared vocabulary to do this makes the attempt awkward for all but a few.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 04:44 AM

"The problem is, we all experience our own."

But it isn't the illusion that matters - its the "I" before "experience" - or if we are taking "experience" to be an event, "I Have" the experience.

It always reduces to "I" [verb]

So no matter what the verb, it can never be synonymous with consciousness, but is merely evidence for the "I" that precedes it.

So the illusion can't be the consciousness - "I" have an illusion

The experience can't be the consciousness - "I" have an experience

The memory isn't the consciousness - "I" remember/"I" can't remember/ who am "I"? ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 07:23 PM

"creep, and sprawl, and sprattle", that should be. Dunno what happened there..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 06:52 PM

I could have sworn that said 'rounded with a sheep' - forgive me, I'm from t'north.

The problem is, if its an illusion, who is experienceing that illusion?

The problem is, we all experience our own.

"Ha! Whare ye gaun, ye crowlin ferlie?
Your impudence protects you sairly,
I canna say but ye strut rarely
Owre gauze and lace,
Tho' faith! I fear ye dine but sparely
On sic a place.

Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
Detested, shunn'd by saunt an' sinner,
How daur ye set your fit upon her --
Sae fine a lady!
Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
On some poor body.

Swith! in some beggar's hauffet squattle:
There you may creep, and sprawl, and spr
Wi' ither kindred, jumping cattle,
In shoals and nations;
Whare horn nor bane ne'er daur unsettle
Your thick plantations.

Now haud you there! ye're out o' sight,
Below the fatt'rils, snug an' tight;
Na, faith ye yet! ye'll no be right,
Till ye've got on it ---
The vera tapmost, tow'ring height
O' miss's bonnet.

My sooth! right bauld ye set your nose ou
As plump an' grey as onie grozet:
O for some rank, mercurial rozet,
Or fell, red smeddum,
I'd gie ye sic a hearty dose o't,
Wad dress your droddum!

I wad na been surpris'd to spy
You on an auld wife's flainen toy:
Or aiblins some bit duddie boy,
On's wyliecoat;
But Miss's fine Lunardi! fye!
How daur ye do't.

O Jenny, dinna toss your head,
An' set your beauties a' abread!
You little ken what cursed speed
The blastie's makin!
Thae winks an' finger-ends, I dread,
Are notice takin'!

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!"

(Burns)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 06:07 PM

"I tend to think that consciousness is no more than an illusion made necessary by our survival instinct reacting to the sea of cognitive dissonance that we continually try to rationalise."

Nice.

Its almost a pity to take issue with it.

However, I must!

The problem is, if its an illusion, who is experienceing that illusion?

I [verb]


Paul says:

"And if consciousness isn't a thing, we have to find out how not- things can interact with things."

And so saying, I think he has hit the ... erm ... enigma ... right on the ... erm ... you know ...

what I'm trying to say is ... good point sir!


The question is, am I a ghost in a machine or am I part of the machine ... and if I am part of the machine, why can't I be measured and quantified in the same way as the rest of the machine ...

This is the root - does "I" depend on the body for its existence, or is it merely inhabiting it.


"... These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
...Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind..."

from which shakespeare concludes ...

"... We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep ..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 05:39 PM

I tend to think that consciousness is no more than an illusion made necessary by our survival instinct reacting to the sea of cognitive dissonance that we continually try to rationalise. It's probably cobblers though..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 05:15 PM

You mean a consciousness, I think Joe, but a good question. I suppose it's an extension of the presumption of conservation that lies at the heart of all scientific investigation. For something (making consciousness in some way a thing) to pop into existence makes the universe in principle inexplicable. So whatever IS, comes from what was before. Hence the conservation of mass and of energy, with Einstein's brilliant unifying modification of both through the equivalence of the two. The Big Bang (and its terminal counterpart if the Universe is closed, the Gnab Gib), are in three dimensions a singularity at which three dimensional physics fails- hence in part the many (~12) dimensions of theories which attempt to take science back before the singularity to the different things that existed then, and popped into three dimensions in what was Creation to us, but might be a perfectly mundane event in that physics.

And if consciousness isn't a thing, we have to find out how not- things can interact with things.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 04:54 PM

Mrr says: If your death doesn't end your consciousness then then your life didn't begin it, so where was it during the eternity *before* your life began?

The part highlighted in bold is a logical necessity. Could be so, but why can't a life begin at some point and not end?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 04:47 PM

If your death does not end your consciousness, then it is more probable that it was not begun with your birth, I suppose. In that case, where it has been is a matter of memory, although possibly heavily suppressed or shut-down memory.

An alternate notion is that the I-ness of a this-lifetime identity is merely an instantiation of a Great Pool of Infinite Consciousness, into which it dissolves at death. I do not trust this model much.

But the notion of an essence transcending body life-cycles raises a lot of interesting questions, including what the potentiality of such an essence are, and how far they extend, and in what dimensions, if that is the right word.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 04:29 PM

If your death doesn't end your consciousness then then your life didn't begin it, so where was it during the eternity *before* your life began?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 04:11 PM

Perhaps "verges on the dogmatic" would be better, J. It may be just a matter of style, but it is an abrasive tone.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 12:45 PM

"//First of all, josep, you have an air of professorial certitude about your assertions and how they prove things that verges on the authoritarian,//



1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority *had authoritarian parents*
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people *an authoritarian regime*
–authoritarian noun
–au£thor£i£tar£i£an£ism \-*-*-*ni-z*m\ noun

Now if you can show how that word applies, I'd be much obliged."

I think authoritarian also applies to a certitude that what one believes is correct regardless
of any extenuating arguments to the contrary. In a sense, this is a blind submission to
the authority of opinion. The definition includes an unwillingness to concede to any point that runs contrary to one's own and falls under the classification of dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 12:32 PM

"One toher thing--someone on this thread expressed the opinion that consciousness arises from the material brain. This is not only wrong, it is a rehashing of dualism which is discredited."


This is false information without any credible evidence to back it up. "Dualism" is a philosophical and not a scientific construct. Henry James, I believe.



" Quantum physics has proven experimentally that consciousness collapses the wave function of a wavicle into a particle, into matter. So to hold that consciousness arises epiphenomenally from matter (i.e. it is a by-product of matter) is like saying the child gives birth to the mother."

Consciousness is the ability of the brain to conceive of Quantum Physics. It doesn't exist outside of the human brain. Therefore, this sentence makes no sense.



" It's one of those weird things that science does--it tells the public something that scientists themselves do not actually believe."

This is an unsupportable conclusion and enters the realm of opinion, not fact.


"Matter is not the building block of the universe."

Who says?



DNA does not determine who you are and how you act and react.

It influences how you are biologically and it is not wholly a determinant as
to how you will behave. But it does play a great role in the human capacity
as to "fight and flight" which is a survival mechanism.


"Homo sapiens sapiens did not descend ladder-like from H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. habilus, Australopithecus--in truth there is no evidence these left any evolutionary descendants whatsoever. "

This is a misreading of the concept of Evolution. These examples are part of a tree
that when you go back far enough forms a basis for the branch called Homo sapiens.
There is quite a bit of evidence that these earlier forms had physiology that was similar
to present day Homo sapiens and enough so that it can be determined that there was a causal connection.




"These are things scientists in those fields know perfectly well and yet we are taught in school the opposite."

Again, this is an unsupportable hypothesis. Not all scientists know everything perfectly well. This sentence makes little sense.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 12:16 PM

Oh, I do hope you are right, Lox! :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 08:13 AM

Hey chill folks.

I think this is a storm in a teacup.

I think if you guys are honest about Joseps style, obvious intelligence and ability to reason coherently, notwithstanding what some clearly perceive as unattractive overconfidence, it is pretty clear that he has very little in common with GfS.

This is a genuine attempt to engage on an issue that he has spent a lot of time thinking about and feels strongly about, and his ideas are interesting and worthy of the proper scrutiny that he seems to be willingly inviting.

If GfS were on here, he/she would have told some outlandish lie by this stage and would be engaged in a very bitter and sarcastic war of words and not in the way that Josep and Smokey have been arguing here, but in a Hysterical manner.

Give 'im a chance - and if I'm wrong I have to become GfS's best mudcat buddy for a month.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 04:47 AM

J:

Proving there is no such thing as total unconsciousness during a lifetime does not prove anything about the state preceding or following that lifetime, logically. As it happens, I agree with what underlies your assertions, but your logic is flawed.

Proving there is no commerce of any sort on Sunday does not prove the non-existance of commerce, either.

Please also get clear on the meaning of "verges on". You are being insensitive to your own tone of asserting absolute factitude to your own conclusions. You'll learn, I guess. Mebbe.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 01:31 AM

What might be interesting - for about five minutes - is to hear Josep and Guest from Sanity in a discussion. Seeing whose hand ends up on top of the bat.

Josep, I'm with Smokey in that I really don't care either; your spirit is not one from which I'm likely to learn anything. So, I'll be on my way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 12:04 AM

Carry on..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 12:01 AM

//Oh, I started out caring - then I found I had a problem with your attitude, which I find arrogant and disrespectful, funnily enough. I'm quite happy to leave someone else the job of picking holes in your argument, there are people on here better equipped than me for that. It might be best to leave my parents out of this too; there's really no call for that.//

Excuse me, sir, but you stated that you don't care what I think so would you please refrain from this harassment? Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 11:56 PM

Carry on teacher - I've already said I'll keep quiet. If disagreement is to be interpreted as hostility it should be good reading.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 11:49 PM

I'm getting way too much hostility for no reason here. I haven't flamed or insulted anyone. I've been accused of being "authoritarian" when I have asked several times for questions and counterarguments. I am by no means saying anybody has to believe anything I am saying. I am presenting a reasoned argument which means I have things to prove logically and to demonstrate. It doesn't mean it is unassailable. If you don't want to participate then don't. If you do you are welcome to. If we go around about a point or two and I continue on, it doesn't mean I am dismissing you, it means I want to present the rest of the argument once I answer those issues and that's regardless of whether you buy my answers--you are not obliged to.

I'd like to present the rest of it up to reincarnation but if people are going to get bent out of shape over nothing, I would rather not. I thought we could have a bit of fun and a bit of deep thought that enriches everybody discussing this argument. But if I'm going to get hostility then there is no point to it.

So I respectfully ask, would you like to read the full argument or should we just call it off and cut our losses?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 11:48 PM

Oh, I started out caring - then I found I had a problem with your attitude, which I find arrogant and disrespectful, funnily enough. I'm quite happy to leave someone else the job of picking holes in your argument, there are people on here better equipped than me for that. It might be best to leave my parents out of this too; there's really no call for that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 11:37 PM

//You are quite right; I don't care what you think.//

And that's fine. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that you see fit to interject yourself into my argument when you admit you don't give a damn what I think and that, sir, IS arrogant and it is disrespectful and I would hope your parents raised you better than that. So would you PLEASE strongly consider butting out since by your own admission you have no reason for butting in.

Very respectfully,

Josep

(Ha, it didn't take my name again)