There is no China.

[ÇâlegaDominú]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

You need to like, make a point, or ask a question if you want to have a dialog with me. Quoting a wall of text and calling me stupid doesn't get us anywhere.

You're being way too serious for something that is obviously a joke. It's making you look stupid.

[Hades]

Originally Posted by ÇâlegaDominú

.......What?

What Dun said haha... saying "what" indicates you either a) did not HEAR or somehow, READ what i said; b) did not understand a single word of what was said, or understood some words but could not make out what they tied into.

In other words...


WHAT WHAT!!??!?


If you meant the ad thing... ads! Adverts! To the left of the site thingy! In the box you type your post in. There's flashing ads... often sexy... did i not get the word right? I am kind of tired o.o

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by ÇâlegaDominú

You're being way too serious for something that is obviously a joke. It's making you look stupid.

It's not a joke. It's not dead serious of course, but this thread was a response to my teaching him that everyone starts from a point of skepticism and ignorance until we learn and evaluate something.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Who let the nerds out? Derp. Derp derp derp.

[ÇâlegaDominú]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

It's not a joke. It's not dead serious of course, but this thread was a response to my teaching him that everyone starts from a point of skepticism and ignorance until we learn and evaluate something.

I know, but trying to prove china exists when everyone, including EtS, knows it does and seriously thinking he doesn't believe China exists just doesn't look too bright on his end.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Please. Do not lump me together with these easily duped morons.

Only a simple minded fool believes in things he hasn't seen with his own eyes.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by ÇâlegaDominú

I know, but trying to prove china exists when everyone, including EtS, knows it does and seriously thinking he doesn't believe China exists just doesn't look too bright on his end.

That's true, but after the thread of God, it's just best to actually explain it step by step regardless of the attitude of the other.

[ÇâlegaDominú]

Oh you're too much EtS

[MollyMac]

Yes. because many of us have faith and denounce logic, we are obviously simpletons for not following Jillian's teachings anc bolstering his ego with agreement and buffereing his faith in logic with the safety of numbers. Please, break it down step by step for us. That'll help.

Christ, it smacks of the first week out of Jesus camp.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Well, no. In all honesty, this is really the skepticism point zero of logic, and it's precisely how one ought to treat China at first. After all, we are not born with the knowledge of China and when we hear about it the first time we think of something along the lines of "what is that?" or "I've never heard of it"
So the two claims are really in the same ballpark. The difference is that he is using reductio ad absurdum by denying all the direct and circumstantial evidence he would otherwise use in any other daily life conjecture to try to make a point.

Yes, but the first time you hear about China you've already noticed that there is such a thing as places in the world, and that people give them names. So you're not actually at the zero point in that scenario. Technically speaking, there's still a long way to go from there to the conclusion that China exists, but in real life we can't pursue every question with total zeal. We have to use heuristics to help us determine what sorts of claims are rather more or rather less likely to be true. One obvious choice that everyone makes is the heuristic that claims for things in perfect accordance with present understanding require get hit with less doubt than, for example, stories about fundamental violations of the natural order. Right?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by MollyMac

Yes. because many of us have faith and denounce logic

Keep telling yourself that. Keep ignoring the fact that you tried to use logic and then didn't hesitate it into throwing it out of the window as soon as I told you it was faulty.
It's not a double standard. It's perfectly fine to retrace your steps and keep moral high ground, and someday I'll mature and be hypocritical too.

Originally Posted by MollyMac

Prove to me that the teapot isn't there.

filler.....

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by ÇâlegaDominú

You're being way too serious for something that is obviously a joke. It's making you look stupid.

He doesn't think China doesn't exist, but that doesn't make it a joke, either. It looks like he's trying to draw a paralell between the types of things he is saying about China and the types of things we are saying about religious belief. So the real topic is back to how we think about the world and what conclusions we draw based on those thinking patterns. It's a perfectly serious topic.

Of course, if he wants to come out and say that it was just a joke, and he does not think there is any such paralell, I'll cheerfully drop the whole thing. I don't think he will, though, because I don't think it's a joke. I think it's exactly what it looks like - a strawman by false analogy.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

He doesn't think China doesn't exist, but that doesn't make it a joke, either. It looks like he's trying to draw a paralell between the types of things he is saying about China and the types of things we are saying about religious belief. So the real topic is back to how we think about the world and what conclusions we draw based on those thinking patterns. It's a perfectly serious topic.

Of course, if he wants to come out and say that it was just a joke, and he does not think there is any such paralell, I'll cheerfully drop the whole thing. I don't think he will, though, because I don't think it's a joke. I think it's exactly what it looks like - a strawman by false analogy.

You think China exists when it clearly doesn't, but that's just because you're an obvious simpleton. It looks to me like you're just the same as any idiot who believes in God without factual evidence. The real topic here is how many morons in the world are easily suckered in by whatever they see on television. It's a perfectly serious topic.

Of course, if you want to come right out and admit that you can't prove the existence of China to me, I'll cheerfully drop the whole thing. I don't think you will, though, because I think you're a nerd. I think you're exactly what you look like - A bold faced nerd that puts book smarts before reason.

[MollyMac]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Keep telling yourself that. Keep ignoring the fact that you tried to use logic and then didn't hesitate it into throwing it out of the window as soon as I told you it was faulty.
It's not a double standard. It's perfectly fine to retrace your steps and keep moral high ground, and someday I'll mature and be hypocritical too.

filler.....

And one day, you'll lose that youthful gullability and love of rhetoric and hyperbole and learn about sarcasm. Until you learn the difference between sarcasm and statement, stay out of other people's arguments.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I got the sarcasm alright; what does that have to do with the fact that I am demanding you explain me why you threw logic out of the window only after you failed to explain god with it?
- God cannot be disproved therefore it's logical to believe he exists.
- No it isn't. That's not logical at all.
- You can't talk about logic when referring to God.

[MollyMac]

My whole fucking point was that you cannot explain god with logic. There was a whole narrative aspect you missed.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Your whole fucking point was that you cannot explain god with logic only after you realized you were going nowhere with saying "prove to me the teapot does not exist"
Or was that just a very coincidental non sequitur?

[MollyMac]

Looks like you just caught up.

[Godslayer Jillian]

That makes sense! It is perfectly plausible that you decided to talk about a teapot for no fucking reason.
Looks like you're not out of rationalizations.

[HumanePain]

Logically:

a) Eyewitness accounts document that Jesus worked miracles.

b) Jesus was quoted as saying He is the Son of God.

c) Eyewitness accounts document that Jesus came back from the dead.

d) Eyewitness accounts document that Moses and Jesus ascended into Heaven.

Therefore, God exists.

Logic leads to unexpected results sometimes eh?

But the above was in the context you were looking for Jillian, instead of the approach, "it cannot be disproved" I used "it can be proved" and ended up with an answer counter to the OP!

[MollyMac]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That makes sense! It is perfectly plausible that you decided to talk about a teapot for no fucking reason.
Looks like you're not out of rationalizations.

They are only rationalizations if they are rational. Seems you have plenty in your Bucket O'Rhetoric... Save that I was not the first to bring up the teapot, so I had a fucking reason for the mention.

You just don't catch on before you get pissy and defensive.

My point was simple from the beginning, and you don't have the ability to complicate it or to change anyone's mind. My individual belief is solitray as an oyster and I have no need to convince anyone of it's logic, truth, or term du-jour. No need to impede my belief upon another.

If you had paid attention, you would have noted that I did not state my belief at all. But I know that details are not your strong suit.

If you follow the teachings of Josiah Warren, you would have understood this from the beginning.

Some anarchist.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by MollyMac

If you had paid attention, you would have noted that I did not state my belief at all.

It took as much attention to realize you haven't exposed your belief as it take attention to note I have not been arguing against beliefs, I have been arguing against an idiotic argument.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

You think China exists when it clearly doesn't, but that's just because you're an obvious simpleton. It looks to me like you're just the same as any idiot who believes in God without factual evidence.

I rest my case.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Logically:

a) Eyewitness accounts document that Jesus worked miracles... [c] that Jesus came back from the dead... [d] that Moses and Jesus ascended into Heaven.

Huh? We don't eyewitness accounts. None of the scriptures was written by an eyewitness. Anyway, eyewitness accounts don't cut the mustard for something like a miracle, unless you're also a follower of Simon Magus, Sathya Sai Baba, and Swami Premanada, not to leave the S's. The eyewitness testimony for Magus's miracles is on the same level as that for Jesus's, and the evidence for the latter three is way better - you could go out right now and talk to thousands of still living witnesses. So we're right back to playing favorites and double standards.

Therefore, God exists.

Logic leads to unexpected results sometimes eh?

Yes, it does, and that's the right type of approach to prove something. It's just that the case isn't strong on its merits.

Or was that post intended as an illustration of some point which, as usual, I'm missing?

[jack_the_knife]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Logically:

a) Eyewitness accounts document that Jesus worked miracles.

b) Jesus was quoted as saying He is the Son of God.

c) Eyewitness accounts document that Jesus came back from the dead.

d) Eyewitness accounts document that Moses and Jesus ascended into Heaven.

Therefore, God exists.

Logic leads to unexpected results sometimes eh?

But the above was in the context you were looking for Jillian, instead of the approach, "it cannot be disproved" I used "it can be proved" and ended up with an answer counter to the OP!

Even if this did happen, you can't call them eyewitness accounts. The "accounts" have been bent, twisted, regurgitated, rehashed, re-embellished and finally documented. These stories are 2000 years old. I wouldn't be surprised that Jesus ( if he really did exist ) was called Bob.