For former Mormons who became atheists

[_subgenius]

Sure it is. You are just an invention of my mind, and only for entertainment so we could have some great illogical statements like the one above.

wow....
Let us take a lesson from Themis's proposition here:

1. You are an invention of Themis's mind
2. Themis's mind therefore "invents" (creates from imagination, or from that which is not present in the "senses")
3. Therefore Themis's mind is senseless.
4. Themis's mind must be capable of being distinct and autonomous from any sensory function of the body, especially the brain organ.
5a. Themis's mind as a product of the brain organ must exist without influence from the brain organ (without sense).
5b. Themis's mind as NOT a product of the brain organ must exist without influence from the brain organ (without sense).
6. Themis's mind operates without Themis's brain organ

Got It!

[_just me]

If beer is proof that god loves us, then fire ants are proof that he is a prick and likes to torment us.

If there was no God, would there be a reason for fire ants to exist? Fire ants exist because satan asked God to allow him to bring about a mutation or two or three...

I can't tell if this is a joke or if you are serious.

[_Themis]

wow....
Let us take a lesson from Themis's proposition here:

1. You are an invention of Themis's mind
2. Themis's mind therefore "invents" (creates from imagination, or from that which is not present in the "senses")
3. Therefore Themis's mind is senseless.
4. Themis's mind must be capable of being distinct and autonomous from any sensory function of the body, especially the brain organ.
5a. Themis's mind as a product of the brain organ must exist without influence from the brain organ (without sense).
5b. Themis's mind as NOT a product of the brain organ must exist without influence from the brain organ (without sense).
6. Themis's mind operates without Themis's brain organ

Got It!

One of the reason's I know others like yourself are not an invention of my imagination is that I would never come up with something so stupid.

[_Alfredo]

I feel like setting everyone straight in this thread... anyone think I can do it?

Guess not... :/

[Guest]

Sure it is. You are just an invention of my mind, and only for entertainment so we could have some great illogical statements like the one above.

wow....
Let us take a lesson from Themis's proposition here:

1. You are an invention of Themis's mind
2. Themis's mind therefore "invents" (creates from imagination, or from that which is not present in the "senses")
3. Therefore Themis's mind is senseless.
4. Themis's mind must be capable of being distinct and autonomous from any sensory function of the body, especially the brain organ.
5a. Themis's mind as a product of the brain organ must exist without influence from the brain organ (without sense).
5b. Themis's mind as NOT a product of the brain organ must exist without influence from the brain organ (without sense).
6. Themis's mind operates without Themis's brain organ

Got It!

Are you instructing us to get it? or are you saying, you've got it? what is... it?

I see You moved your "You believe you are nothing more than a robot, because you believe you have no spirit, therefore you have no ability to lie or decieve like me." babbel over to this thread.

It doesn't take a genius to workout that imagination and creativity is not from God nor spirit, it is nothing more than patching together of several sources of prerecorded information.

Like seeing a horse and adding a single twisted horn = a unicorn, or a butterfly but with a human body = a fairy.

Birds drop nuts from a height to break the shell, monkeys use a rock to break the shell, is this not a mild form of inginuity?

And no thought is completely original, even Mormon doctrines teach that God and Satan don't have original ideas they are just doing what they have always done or what they were taught or saw their father do.

[_subgenius]

self-contradiction is not a determination for true or false.

Yes it is. I challenge you to explain how can it possibly be otherwise.

...for example, if Dr. Shades is standing in the doorway it is reasonable and correct to say either "Dr Shades is in the room"
OR
"Dr Shades is NOT in the room"
Here we see that a proposition and its negation, ergo the self-contradiction, can be affirmed.

another example is Dialectical Materialism
which is essentially illustrating that self-contradiction is actually what defines objects, etc..that everything is self-contradictory.
also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Contrad ... Mao_Zedong)
coherentism
which is basically stating that linear logic is not the only justification for a "belief".
Jain philosophy



Are you familiar with the pile of sand paradox (Greek Sorites paradox)?
Approach a large pile of sand
begin removing the sand one grain at a time
so, when is the "pile" no longer a "pile"?

Coherence may not always require consistency.

That, too, is false. Coherence always requires consistency. Otherwise it's not coherent. If you disagree, then provide an example of a coherent statement that's inconsistent.

examples listed above...reference Anekantavada and Dialetheism
and by poetic support, reference Orwell, 1984 - doublethink
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink" (emphasis mine)

In a town with only one barber, who is clean shaven...
The barber is a man in town who shaves those and only those men in town who do not shave themselves. <----this statement is the example

Though, i recognize that some systems of thought would agree with your position, . . .

"Some systems of thought" don't agree with "my position." Fact, truth, logic, and cold hard reason simply exist, independent of any system of thought and independent of anyone's position.

i challenge you to, please, provide example of a :
FACT existing independent of any system of thought
TRUTH existing independent of any system of thought
COLD HARD REASON existing independent of any system of thought

. . . putting it forth as "must be false" is perhaps misleading.

It's not misleading at all. The truth is never misleading.

perhaps

for 10 years it has been a "theory"...we have not "known".

No, it has not been a "theory." We have "known" because we can objectively observe it. Is it a theory that the earth orbits the sun, or do we know it?

you are claiming that we have "objectively observed" the universe expanding?
not via theory?
i challenge you to provide the "objectively observed" evidence.
( i would assume you will be able to provide evidence of the material of the universe's origin, or that evidence that the origin is observable from the earth)
oh, and there is this
Observed Cosmological Redshifts Support Contracting Accelerating Universe
A New Contracting Universe Theory Based on Astronomical Observations

That, too, is a false statement. Science does not have contradictory views about expansion and contraction any longer. Ever since about 1999, no theories are proposing that both are occurring.

awkward

Dark energy expands and contracts universe - December 2008

. . . and surely you would admit that this "contradiction" does not render the premise "false"...does it?

There is no contradiction.

[_SteelHead]

Shades you ate playing sub's game wrong. Ask him to prove things.

The supernatural is harder to prove and hence disprove than even proving another "mind". Sub likes to play the you can't prove that game. Just play it back at him.

[_subgenius]

Shades you ate playing sub's game wrong. Ask him to prove things.

The supernatural is harder to prove and hence disprove than even proving another "mind". Sub likes to play the you can't prove that game. Just play it back at him.

The Law/Principle of Bivalence allows for proof by contradiction.
This principle/law seems to be what most critics subscribe to around here, and they seem mired down in linear/classic logic...which is fine, a little dated and farm-league but fine for those preferring milk over meat.
Anyway, until the argument is free and uplifted from the The Law/Principle of Bivalence there is no fair criticism for my methodology.

(I am pretty sure Dr Shades can discern for himself, but thanks for your concession advice).

[_SteelHead]

Sub, I don't think you grok the word concession correctly.

[_subgenius]

Sub, I don't think you grok the word concession correctly.