Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal tomhudson's Journal: Final score: Faith/pudge:0, Jerry Springer: +5 128

Journal by tomhudson
update:

since pudge supports the idea of arbitrarily rejecting axioms and a priori knowledge without proof, we're entirely within our rights to apply the same (il)logic, and arbitrarily deem all his claims, and himself, to be without standing unless he can prove them. We're also within our rights to claim that any such "proof" is invalid because it contains an a priori assumption that pudge has the right to present such proofs.

Sorry, pudge, but an argument that makes the argument of rejecting logic as one of its foundational arguments is no argument. You lose. No argument.

Final score: Faith:0 Jerry Springer +5

original post:

proof that pudge hasn't got a clue as to what he is spouting about

Me: if something DOES interact with physical objects, then it IS theoretically possible to measure it

pudge: That's false, of course. If there is such a thing as a spiritual being who can interact with a physical one -- which you have no way of denying the existence of except by making up definitions no one else agrees with -- how would you even theoretically measure that spiritual being?

ne: if something DOES interact with physical objects, that it is no longer "outside" the realm of physics, or "meta"-physical.

pudge: That too, is, of course, false. It's odd you don't see how stupid this is: you're attempting to deny the existence of a soul by saying some definition says it can't exist. Even if you were right about the definition -- and you're obviously not, as thousands of years of usage by billions of people have viewed souls and spirits as being nonphysical, yet still able to interact with the physical -- it wouldn't matter, because definitions do not control reality. Appealing to definitions to prove your point in this regard is retarded.

me: I never said that "because we cannot measure something, that therefore it does not interact with physical objects".

pudge: Yes, you did. You said if something interacts with physical objects, we could measure it; that necessarily implies that if we cannot measure it, it does not so interact. It was not until this post you added the word "theoretically." Not that it changes much, because you're still wrong.

I don't suffer fools - time to add a foe. If we can measure it, or if we could devise, in theory, some way to measure it, by definition it IS interacting with the physical universe. The only reason I added the word "theoretically" is because we may not have the necessary tech to measure certain physical phenomena.

And people wonder why atheists don't have much respect for fundies.

Thanks to Morosoph for this link.

and a bit of fun http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178776&cid=14863199

Like I said elsewhere, we'll go to the source (or is your God so scared he won't show his face for something as simple as a TV interview? Or maybe he's like a vampire - doesn't show up on cameras or mirrors. Or maybe the Beatles had it right - he's dead):

"Next up on Jerry Springer - God, David, Solomon - we ask God to give his take on Solomon's hundreds of wives and concubines".

Followed by "Jesus Christ, why didn't you condemn slavery, dude?"

And don't miss our closing interview where we ask the Holy Spirit "Why do you keep calling liars, cheaters, thieves, pedophles and adulterers to serve God? Can't you find someone better? Like maybe a few honest women? Or do you still mostly approve of that sexist thing going on in God's name...?"

And next week - we talk to Satan, and ask him why he's losing in the "sheer evil" category to God's people, and what, if anything, he plans to do about it.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178776&cid=14863262

Lets put it to the test. Since your god is such an awesome god, lets get him to do Springer ... or is he too much of a chickensh*t?

Next, on Jerry Springer: You've go Questions, Gods got Answers ... sort of.

Find out what God meant when he said to put all the people "to the sword" - did he really mean it, or did his followers over-react?

Is God gay? we look at the secret sex life of God, and his special intimate relationship with his son.

Jesus Saves. We've all heard it. We look at the link between that famous slogan and the savings and loan industry.

The Holy Spirit - is the fire out, because we certanly don't see any smoke.

And finally - God lets us in on the truth about what really goes on in heaven, and why its not considered such a hot spot any more compared to the competition.

All this and more, on your next Jerry Springer.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178776&cid=14863541

Next on Springer:

"Did Jesus die to save the Whales?" We put the question to "da man hisself"!

"Sex and Censorship" - we interview 4 theologans and find out what's behind the opposition to an "Illustrated Song of Solomon"

"Paul for Pot" - why the supreme court may rule in favour of legalizing drugs based on 1 Cor 6:12 "All things are lawful unto me", and dispelling people's fears that it will be the slippery slope leading to legalized cannibalism: 1 Cor 6:13 "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats"

"What God REALLY thinks of George Bush" - and why George may need to pack asbestos underwear.

... all this and more on your next Springer

Come on. You want to watch it. You know you do. So why not be a good Christian Soldier and get on your knees and PRAY like you've never prayed before, and ask God to make time for an interview? Or is he still pissed off that the last guy he sent really got nailed?

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178776&cid=14863711

Next week on Springer:

The Alien God - NASA proves Jesus, like life, began on Mars

Why its not "really" an abortion if you're a Christian and the father is your father - a guide for South Dakotans.

Hurricane Katrina - Gods punishment for gay bashing?

The New Testament 2.0 - "Love Thy Neighbour" means Adultery is Okay in the New New Testament.

God in the New Era - God 2.0 announces joint venture with Paypal for tithing, ebay for indulgences.

... all this and more on your next Jerry Springer!

Come on, set it up with "the Big guy" and I'll cut you in for a percentage. Tell him its his chance to tell his side of the story. Big audience. It'll make those 5,000 at the sermon on the mount look like chickenfeed.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Final score: Faith/pudge:0, Jerry Springer: +5 More

Final score: Faith/pudge:0, Jerry Springer: +5

Comments Filter:
  • They assume it's possible to solve ontological problems at an intellectual level.
    The question is, 'Why are we here?', and the answers range from a case of beer to shelf-loads of unintelligible prose to ideologies, none of which escape a subjective character.
    It would be swell if any one answer could be proven unambiguously and undeniably. The grave itself comes closest to such an answer.
    • I always assumed the reason for us being here was 4 fold .
      1: To grow and experience
      2: To have a bit of fun and material pleasure
      3: to reproduce and allow a new generation of souls to join the fun
      4: well perhaps keep the big man informed on our progress ;) this is why I find no objection to any scientific endeavour so long as it isn't cruel
      • 1: To grow and experience
        -To what end?

        2: To have a bit of fun and material pleasure
        -Unless endorsing a pure hedonism, how do you manage individual/societal/inter-societal conflicts?

        3: to reproduce and allow a new generation of souls to join the fun
        -Again, is there an origin to things, and are they headed in a direction? If not, why, and how can you justify a purely chaotic reality?

        4: well perhaps keep the big man informed on our progress ;) this is why I find no objection to any scientific endeavo
        • The end we can not yet know , perhaps G-d wants some omnipotent company ?
          We need some Hedonism , not all , but it would be really boring and depressing without any, we need to keep ourselves sane , nothing quite like physical pleasures.
          Pure Chaos is unscientific , but there is a certain amount of random variation.
          number 4 sucked , I forgot the original number 4 .. I am drunk ;)
      • My beef isn't the "why are we here" arguments, but the demonstrated inability to understand simple science. If something interacts with the universe, it we can measure it by its interactions (think "Brownian Motion" for one example). Tod say that something can interact with an object in this universe without actually having any measurable/demonstrable impact is actually to argue that it has no effect. If it has no effect, it hasn't interacted. More like a neutrino that just whizzed by without being detected
    • They assume it's possible to solve ontological problems at an intellectual level.

      It is. However, they cannot be *proven.* That is where tomhudson went so wrong. He was trying to prove -- incredibly, by using English definitions (incorrect ones, but I digress), which of course do not themselves control reality -- that human souls, the Id of man, cannot exist unless they are physical. This cannot be proven at all, let alone with definitions.

      This was my point. This is what I stated. This is obviously tru
      • So show us something that exists that isn't physical.

        Anything.

        Oh, you can't - because it's physically impossible.

        Awww.

        • May you be well.
        • May you be happy.
        • May you be free from suffering.
        • May you realize that mental masturbation makes you blind to the truth.
        • So show us something that exists that isn't physical.

          I can't physically "show" it to you, but I can prove it exists: my consciousness. There's certainly nothing physical about it, at least, not that you can prove, except by relying on a preconceived linguistic definition that has no actual bearing on reality (which, of course, does not constitute "proof" to an intelligent person).

          • Quite the contrary, we can map out the areas of consciousness - we can even follow individual thoughs as they are created, and translated into physical action.


            May you be well.
            May you be happy.
            May you be free from suffering.
            May you one day realize that women have the right to make their own decisions without men interfering.

            • Quite the contrary

              Nope. You mean, "in addition."

              we can map out the areas of consciousness - we can even follow individual thoughs as they are created, and translated into physical action.

              Well, almost. We can do all those things, to some degree, except we do not know when or where those thoughts are created. We only know that they appear in a certain area of the brain, but we do not know how they got there. Science cannot tell us that, at this point, and it is unlikely it ever will be able to, and there

        • So show us something that exists that isn't physical.

          Justice.

          Beauty.

          Faith.

          Roundness.

          In gengeral, CONCEPTS. IDEAS. They exist apart from the "physical". Show me a "physical" roundness. You can only show me objects which share that quality. Show me a "physical" justice? You cant. You can only define it then provide examples.

          I think you're a little too locked in the Newtonian universe. News flash -- we don't live there.

          • Justice - define it, an I'll be quite happy to show you both examples of justice and injustice. Those examples will ALWAYS involve an event + physical object.

            Beauty - they've already done a LOT of work on measuring it - faces, for example. And it's tied into sume physical characteristic.

            Faith - psychologists can tell you a LOT about that - but lets face it, "faith" is just a chemical state of the human mind. There is no such thing as "faith" outside that mind - again, attached to a physical object.

            Rou

            • Thats funny. You think you've addressed this -- and you have not. Your entire arguement is BASED on lexiconal definitions. That you dont see the inheirent problem with this is astounding.

              You are playing "word games" with no real attempt to understand what you are discussing. Attempt to define justice. Try. You'll leave holes. There will not be universal agreement. It can't be DEFINED, yet EVERYONE understands the CONCEPT.

              You are like Thrasymachus... you just don't see it. A rock is physical -- a c
              • No, and the fact that you can't see that ... well, that's your problem, not mine. This is not "Alice in Wonderland", where the Queen gets to say "words mean what I choose them to mean, nothing more, nothing less." Words and their definitions are tools - don't blame the tools if you can't get them to do what you want them to do - blame the carpenter. One of the axioms underlying any debate is that the words actually have a meaning.

                Thanks for playing, hava a nice day, and no, it was pudge who was playing th

                • One of the axioms underlying any debate is that the words actually have a meaning.

                  Well, actually, no. Words do not have meaning. Ever. This is an axiom underlying communication theory. Words have no meaning. People have meaning FOR the words.

                  What does a swastika "mean"? Nothing. It just sits there. It's just some lines. A word has no meaning.

                  I say to you, "dog." You think "great dane." I think "labrador." Jhon thinks "hot dog."

                  Now, what if I say to you, the sun rises and sets in the sky because

                • This is not "Alice in Wonderland", where the Queen gets to say "words mean what I choose them to mean, nothing more, nothing less."

                  This is funny, because this is just what you are doing. You are making up definitions then basing your arguments on the definitions you made up.

                  Words and their definitions are tools - don't blame the tools if you can't get them to do what you want them to do - blame the carpenter.

                  Again, this is funny. The way you are using them, words AREN'T the tools, but the RESULT of t

                  • So, since you seem to think that words have no underlying meaning, but always have to be "proven" or "agreed to" beforehand in any debate, you won't be offended if anyone tells you to go p*ss up a rope. After all, there's no agreement as to what it means ...

                    Same as everything else you posted. More mental masturbation - which means I should adjust Jerry Springers score upwards. And you're in no position to argue, because, according to YOUR logic, words can have any meaning I choose. Hence:

                    John: Definiti

  • They don't even study their own religious texts :S ...
    One of the Reasons I decided to go back to my Sephardic routes(although I can speak Yiddish , well some and no Ladino , Ladino never picked up in comedy) is the deep study in Judaism . You need to study the texts and work it out for yourself , not just follow the party line .
  • I don't suffer fools - time to add a foe.

    I don't suffer them, either. I just ignore them. :-)

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    • That's generally what I do too. Life is too short (especially weekends :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

Close