Report, edit, etc...Posted by unnownrelic on 2005-05-18 at 19:40:18
At that point you wouldn't know much either. So that kind of mutes the whole point.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-05-18 at 19:43:03
All this kicking in the balls doesn't prove what real is. I don't even think you can prove with our logic what "real" unless you can definitely say something IS real. If you say life isn't real then tell me something that is? Speaking of real, what is real supposed to define anyway? I don't think real should be really used on it's own. I was reading an article on wikipedia and it was talking about different forms off nonexistent and unreal. Such as fictional nonexistence, hypothetical nonexistence, imaginary nonexistence, and other types. So I think real should be used not just alone, but when describing things, such as "this" is real in terms of the story, or it is real in terms of existence, or in a dream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonexistence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonexistence
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Darcan on 2005-05-19 at 13:42:47
I have been thinking about our life. Is we real, is our world real and things like that. Are we charecters in some sort of game that other people plays 
Is nothing for real? If i'm talking to someone maybe it's not me that talks. Is it the person that controls me in a game that talks to someone.
Or is it like tje Matrix world that there is another real world, because we are liveing in a dreamworld.
maybe we are liveing in a book or a memory that somebody reads or remembers.
this just some of my thougts I have had. now I want to know if you guys has been thinking about this. If not do it so you can be in to this discussion.
WHO I'M I
Just a quick reference for our viewing audience that just tuned in: This is a Merged Discussion. This post and the first post were the original topics. Please read carefully before posting. Thank you!
A friendly reminder from all of us here at FireKame
Is nothing for real? If i'm talking to someone maybe it's not me that talks. Is it the person that controls me in a game that talks to someone. Or is it like tje Matrix world that there is another real world, because we are liveing in a dreamworld.
maybe we are liveing in a book or a memory that somebody reads or remembers.
this just some of my thougts I have had. now I want to know if you guys has been thinking about this. If not do it so you can be in to this discussion.
WHO I'M I
Just a quick reference for our viewing audience that just tuned in: This is a Merged Discussion. This post and the first post were the original topics. Please read carefully before posting. Thank you!
A friendly reminder from all of us here at FireKame
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-05-19 at 14:50:51
By the time you figure it out, you'll probably be dead. So why bother?
And if you want to test reality, I suggest you take a knife and stab it in your other hand. It'll give you a nice shot at what's real and what's not...
And if you want to test reality, I suggest you take a knife and stab it in your other hand. It'll give you a nice shot at what's real and what's not...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-05-19 at 16:31:06
Why is there another topic just like this?
http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=14702
Anyway, the thing is, does it really matter if you are real or not? Wow so what, will it get you anywhere? Knowing whether you are real or not doesn't matter, because it doesn't change the fact that you are living. You can think and determine things on your own and that should prove to yourself that you are REAL.
If you have doubt, go shoot yourself
Who needs ya 
JK
http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=14702
Anyway, the thing is, does it really matter if you are real or not? Wow so what, will it get you anywhere? Knowing whether you are real or not doesn't matter, because it doesn't change the fact that you are living. You can think and determine things on your own and that should prove to yourself that you are REAL.
If you have doubt, go shoot yourself
Who needs ya JKReport, edit, etc...Posted by SoftWarewolf on 2005-05-19 at 17:19:48
isn't it some poem: "i think, therefor i exist"
you can always define yourself as existent in some way or another, as for other persons, no you cannot.
i remember having this dream when i was little. i was with my mother, and i asked her. is this really you? and she replied yes its me what else would i be?, then i woke up and realized that was just a fragment of my imagination.
you can always define yourself as existent in some way or another, as for other persons, no you cannot.
i remember having this dream when i was little. i was with my mother, and i asked her. is this really you? and she replied yes its me what else would i be?, then i woke up and realized that was just a fragment of my imagination.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by .matrix//Merovingian on 2005-05-19 at 17:50:53
The actual quote is, "I think, therefore I am."
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2005-05-19 at 19:57:32
QUOTE
And if you want to test reality, I suggest you take a knife and stab it in your other hand. It'll give you a nice shot at what's real and what's not...
Please explain to me how that works...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BlackDarkness on 2005-05-19 at 20:07:37
Would it really matter if we think that life is real or not? I mean, we walk, we talk, we feel, we hear, we touch, we see, and we think. If we do all those then we are alive and know it. Where we come from shouldnt really matter just as long as we live.
The real question is what will happen after death. Personally I believe in Necromany that when we die our soul will be released and we will walk the earth as a spirit or ghost.
I know that most people think they are the same they arn't. A ghost is a dead slave doomed to change its past or finish its future as a spirit is free and can do what it likes till judgement day.
If you really want to know about life and death then you'll have to kill urself other then that you will just torture yourself trying to figure out life and death.
The real question is what will happen after death. Personally I believe in Necromany that when we die our soul will be released and we will walk the earth as a spirit or ghost.
I know that most people think they are the same they arn't. A ghost is a dead slave doomed to change its past or finish its future as a spirit is free and can do what it likes till judgement day.
If you really want to know about life and death then you'll have to kill urself other then that you will just torture yourself trying to figure out life and death.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-05-19 at 20:32:00
QUOTE
Would it really matter if we think that life is real or not? I mean, we walk, we talk, we feel, we hear, we touch, we see, and we think. If we do all those then we are alive and know it. Where we come from shouldnt really matter just as long as we live.
My favorite line from the matrix is "ignorance is bliss". Maybe Cypher was in a dream world but why should he care? He interacts with real people and as far as he's concerned it doesnt make a single bit of a difference which world hes in.
QUOTE
does we even exist?
Take a wild guess.
QUOTE
Why is there another topic just like this?
Because people need to stop making threads like "what is the purpose of life" and "belief contradicts belief".
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2005-05-19 at 21:14:35
You can report topics that you feel are redundent, you know.
>>Topics Merged
>>Topics Merged
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FallenDreamer on 2005-05-22 at 21:27:54
QUOTE(corbo @ May 6 2005, 05:37 PM)
ok my theory
real can be two thing one that exist and the other that it doesn't
how?
real that exists: real exists from the point that there is actually a word to describe
something or someone's reality ok so we got that real exist because the word was created but we do not know if the thing that that word is describing actually exists
real that doesn't exist: define real; real is something that has it's own characteristics like a pencil; well a pencil is yellow sometimes it's made of wood and it paints so the pencil since we defined it OMFG IT'S REAL
real is also something that never changes like "it always rains in winter"
ok so let's see the global warm up made the weather change in the last 300 years
we are in 2305 and it never rains in winter some people said it used to rain in winters but since those people don't live anymore i think it is just a tale to trick us so it must be fake
getting to the point if real is something that you can describe and it never changes then real does not exist
why?
because if you say the pencils are yellow and made of wood and you have a plastic pencil rec colored that means the yellow-wood pencil never existed for you so it isn't real
anyways that's what i think SEN is not real also xD
[right][snapback]202174[/snapback][/right]
real can be two thing one that exist and the other that it doesn't
how?
real that exists: real exists from the point that there is actually a word to describe
something or someone's reality ok so we got that real exist because the word was created but we do not know if the thing that that word is describing actually exists
real that doesn't exist: define real; real is something that has it's own characteristics like a pencil; well a pencil is yellow sometimes it's made of wood and it paints so the pencil since we defined it OMFG IT'S REAL
real is also something that never changes like "it always rains in winter"
ok so let's see the global warm up made the weather change in the last 300 years
we are in 2305 and it never rains in winter some people said it used to rain in winters but since those people don't live anymore i think it is just a tale to trick us so it must be fake
getting to the point if real is something that you can describe and it never changes then real does not exist
why?
because if you say the pencils are yellow and made of wood and you have a plastic pencil rec colored that means the yellow-wood pencil never existed for you so it isn't real
anyways that's what i think SEN is not real also xD
[right][snapback]202174[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(corbo @ May 6 2005, 06:47 PM)
chicken thing?
whoa i missed that part..
by the way do you really think it is air what we breath?
[right][snapback]202220[/snapback][/right]
whoa i missed that part..
by the way do you really think it is air what we breath?
[right][snapback]202220[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707 @ May 6 2005, 06:58 PM)
Does it even matter?
Suppose we invented a way to detect whether or not our reality is "real".
So, we know.
Now...
What are you gonna do about it?
[right][snapback]202226[/snapback][/right]
Suppose we invented a way to detect whether or not our reality is "real".
So, we know.
Now...
What are you gonna do about it?
[right][snapback]202226[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(farscope @ May 10 2005, 12:00 AM)
I don't understand what you are saying...
Most of what we see feel touch and interact with is REAL
It is all made up of matter, matter is real, no madder what anyone says, its what the basic form of everything is matter, it cant just disapper or not be real.
Think Reality hear, the definition of real is accuring in fact or actuality, having a verifiable existence.
which means everything here on earth is real no dout, so in that we have something to do or came from somthing that had been here before or has been revolveing that was real!!!
I believe life is just a big circle where u may think everything died, there will be new life. its a concept that we have yet to discover and is far to complicated to understand
We know were here on earth right now!! what the hell are we doing here, well having fun, or not working, or fighting, etc whatever your doing at the time given. We are just part of the cycle man.
havent you noticed things u study, in school like solar system the way the earth works the weather system, you may find that they have something in common its repeating, it has a reason. its like math, you put in all the variables gravity pullution sun etc whatever others, and what it equals is what it gets thats the reason
well im kind of getting of topic but get the point
I havent been on this site for months, and i get back on and see stuff like this still
hmm the human race is very curious about things, well everything living is somewhat curious
well thats all im saying for now
ADDITION:
all of what you guys say are fairly good apinoins but can you back it up with facts
I function as a logical person
[right][snapback]204784[/snapback][/right]
Most of what we see feel touch and interact with is REAL
It is all made up of matter, matter is real, no madder what anyone says, its what the basic form of everything is matter, it cant just disapper or not be real.
Think Reality hear, the definition of real is accuring in fact or actuality, having a verifiable existence.
which means everything here on earth is real no dout, so in that we have something to do or came from somthing that had been here before or has been revolveing that was real!!!
I believe life is just a big circle where u may think everything died, there will be new life. its a concept that we have yet to discover and is far to complicated to understand
We know were here on earth right now!! what the hell are we doing here, well having fun, or not working, or fighting, etc whatever your doing at the time given. We are just part of the cycle man.
havent you noticed things u study, in school like solar system the way the earth works the weather system, you may find that they have something in common its repeating, it has a reason. its like math, you put in all the variables gravity pullution sun etc whatever others, and what it equals is what it gets thats the reason
well im kind of getting of topic but get the point
I havent been on this site for months, and i get back on and see stuff like this still
hmm the human race is very curious about things, well everything living is somewhat curious
well thats all im saying for now
ADDITION:
all of what you guys say are fairly good apinoins but can you back it up with facts
I function as a logical person
[right][snapback]204784[/snapback][/right]
Wow. Lots of talk over something as trivial as this. Let me straghten out for you all then, because trust me, this is probably the most copmlicated subject of all, and the most pointless.
Reality is belief. Its not truth, its just belief. People think god is real because there are so many that believe in him. Is he real? I dunno, not my problem. But the point is, Reality is defined by its belief in more then one human being. When 2 people see something, it becomes more "real." It doesn't have to be true, so long as its real. So technically, we cant understand truth beyond that of ourselves. What do I mean by ourselves? I mean the programing in a person that creates their personality. You only know hte truth about your mental existance, everything else that you learn of physically, through any of your six senses is an interpretation. People interpret things differently. Which is why no one is right, no one is wrong. Some people, however, have more "believable" looks over something, which makes that thing more "real."
So Reality is based on belief.
Belief is based on Sense.
Sense is never completely accurate.
and Reality is NOT Truth.
I hope this clears up most of the stuff that some of you guys are wondering about. If theres anyone that disagrees with me, please tell me why. Im sure I can find one way or another to get you to believe this, since so many people can relate to the idea.
P.S.: The matrix might be fake too, so don't even dare refering to it.
Example(Cause I thought it would be handy):
A man see's a cup. But all he sees is just a round cup. So in his reality, there is a perfectly cylinder cup. Yet, another man sees this same cup, but it has a handle on the side. Then another man sees the cup, but he also sees the handle!. These two men argue with the other man, show him that the cup has a handle from a different point of view, and thus make him change his mind. Now the cup with the handle has become more "real," and the handless cup ceases to exist in reality, only in memory.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-05-23 at 21:09:16
QUOTE(devilesk @ May 19 2005, 03:31 PM)
Why is there another topic just like this?
http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=14702
Anyway, the thing is, does it really matter if you are real or not? Wow so what, will it get you anywhere? Knowing whether you are real or not doesn't matter, because it doesn't change the fact that you are living. You can think and determine things on your own and that should prove to yourself that you are REAL.
If you have doubt, go shoot yourself Who needs ya JK
[right][snapback]211462[/snapback][/right]
http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=14702
Anyway, the thing is, does it really matter if you are real or not? Wow so what, will it get you anywhere? Knowing whether you are real or not doesn't matter, because it doesn't change the fact that you are living. You can think and determine things on your own and that should prove to yourself that you are REAL.
If you have doubt, go shoot yourself
Who needs ya JK[right][snapback]211462[/snapback][/right]
Exactly
Argue about something more important people, like what shirt should I wear tomorrow? The white sexist one? or the maddox one? Hmmmmmmm
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FallenDreamer on 2005-05-24 at 00:04:09
QUOTE(Alpha(MC) @ May 23 2005, 07:09 PM)
Exactly
Argue about something more important people, like what shirt should I wear tomorrow? The white sexist one? or the maddox one? Hmmmmmmm
[right][snapback]214099[/snapback][/right]
Argue about something more important people, like what shirt should I wear tomorrow? The white sexist one? or the maddox one? Hmmmmmmm
[right][snapback]214099[/snapback][/right]
? Sorry, this reply doesnt make much sense. It would if you'd specify what its about though.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-05-24 at 16:05:08
He's basically saying, go argue about something else, something more important or useful.
Sums it up, the rest is supposed to be "funny" and a lame example
BTW, wear the maddox shirt on top of the sexist shirt!
QUOTE
Argue about something more important people,
Sums it up, the rest is supposed to be "funny" and a lame example
BTW, wear the maddox shirt on top of the sexist shirt!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-05-24 at 16:26:32
QUOTE(devilesk @ May 24 2005, 03:05 PM)
BTW, wear the maddox shirt on top of the sexist shirt!
[right][snapback]214540[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]214540[/snapback][/right]
That is seriously a good idea.
But seriously people, go argue about something else. Unless you're having a lot of fun argueing here, which is understandable. (And it does give me more stuff to read/learn from)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mr.Kirbycode774 on 2005-05-27 at 00:42:26
QUOTE
So Reality is based on belief.
Belief is based on Sense.
Sense is never completely accurate.
and Reality is NOT Truth.
Belief is based on Sense.
Sense is never completely accurate.
and Reality is NOT Truth.
Oh the irony! Poor guy, I really liked his speech too.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FallenDreamer on 2005-05-27 at 01:45:30
QUOTE(Mr.Kirbycode774 @ May 26 2005, 10:42 PM)
Oh the irony! Poor guy, I really liked his speech too.
[right][snapback]217578[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]217578[/snapback][/right]
Kirby liked my speech, the world can die now for all I care =P
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-05-27 at 10:35:29
I think he meant he liked it until he read that part?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FallenDreamer on 2005-06-01 at 22:38:36
QUOTE(devilesk @ May 27 2005, 08:35 AM)
I think he meant he liked it until he read that part?
[right][snapback]217720[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]217720[/snapback][/right]
Er, ya....it does backfire on meh, doesnt it? Well, I think I can still work with what I wrote. For instance, you don't have to accept what I said as truth, but if it works for you, or its something you find acceptable, then you can still accept it as reality. Not truth though.
...and for the most part, you all can ignore this post, I think this topic is more or less dead now. I just wanted to clear some stuff up.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-06-06 at 04:59:46
QUOTE(Mr.Kirby)
This is the old "burden of proof" idea. 
If you believe that everything around us could not be real, then how do you prove your point? If you say something is not real, then you are saying you KNOW what REAL is! But if you consider everything to be possibly not real, then you have no ground to stand on!
If you believe that everything around us could not be real, then how do you prove your point? If you say something is not real, then you are saying you KNOW what REAL is! But if you consider everything to be possibly not real, then you have no ground to stand on!
*Meh* Kirby's philosophics at work... *Glares*
Can we at least assume that the ground is real (or any the other commonly observed events) for that matter?
QUOTE(Mr.Kirby)
I'm a Christian, but it's true; to say something as phenomenal as that you need to prove it very slowly step-by-step. God is easier to prove, but it still takes forever!!! Augh!! 
Anyways..
Anyways..
How (can you prove God in easier ways)?
Just (fundamentally) curious about this one, though...QUOTE(Devilesk)
How is it verifiable? Is it because we can actually observe it? What people are saying here is that, what if our senses are wrong, what if the whole world isn't real and we are just imaging it all. Maybe we are perceiving things differently and our brains are interpreting everything in its own way. Btw what does existence mean? How does something exist and something not exist? I just want a concrete definition 
Don't we all... *Smiles*
QUOTE(Mr.Kirby)
Not wanting to turn this into a religious thread, but I can NEVER show DrunkenWrestler this quote because he's too arrogant!
In other words we have faith that what we observe is real. That's why science is philosophical. To prove that observation and experimentation is true, we have to ASSUME that observation and experimentation actually even works!
In short, the only way to prove this isn't reality is to go beyond this "unreality" and find the true "reality". And unless they can do that, disbelievers of this reality have the burden of proof.
In other words we have faith that what we observe is real. That's why science is philosophical. To prove that observation and experimentation is true, we have to ASSUME that observation and experimentation actually even works!
In short, the only way to prove this isn't reality is to go beyond this "unreality" and find the true "reality". And unless they can do that, disbelievers of this reality have the burden of proof.
Now you're assuming that he's arrogant. Wich proof of fact you have for this claim? *Winks n' smirks*
So, by common standards, Sience is philosophical. But imao it's less flawed to present evidences than faith is. Again me with the "Sientific Method" crap, if you want to put it that way.
As for the last paragraph I agree. Just don't look at me that funny way... *Winks n' sticks out tongue*
QUOTE(Mr.Kirby)
DrunkenWrestler has snidely stated many times to Christians as I will snidely state to you "philosophers":
BURDEN OF PROOF TO THOSE MAKING THE AFFIRMATIVE CLAIM!
If you say something is not real, then tell me, what is something that is real?
BURDEN OF PROOF TO THOSE MAKING THE AFFIRMATIVE CLAIM!
If you say something is not real, then tell me, what is something that is real?
Let me save that one for a later occasion.
QUOTE(UnnownRelic)
Or maybe it's just easier to accept things the way our little tiny brains think and leave it at that and that's why we have so few philosophers anymore because people get pissed when anyone questions reality.
Altough I agree with most of this, cannot accept the fact that you're saying that we have few philosophers nowadays. *Feels kinky* 'Till somethin' is proven (until we get a better explanation/definition for it) you can't state it with knowledge of fact.
QUOTE(Devilesk)
It depends what we assume real to actually be. Like the way we define it in our own view. Do we assume that the world around us is real and just accept it as real? Or do we define it as a concept that can't ever be proven through our senses and the way we see the world. Does it really matter whether what we are living in is real? Come to think of it, what can you define as "real" if you can't compare it to something that is "real" then how do you know what true reality is? We created this concept of reality yet we can't define it
For this one I'd go with 'normal pattern'. The more agree with somethin', the more regular look it gets (proven or not).
Well... All over the sudden just got that "shot your own foot" feeling.
QUOTE(Devilesk)
All this kicking in the balls doesn't prove what real is. I don't even think you can prove with our logic what "real" unless you can definitely say something IS real. If you say life isn't real then tell me something that is? Speaking of real, what is real supposed to define anyway? I don't think real should be really used on it's own. I was reading an article on wikipedia and it was talking about different forms off nonexistent and unreal. Such as fictional nonexistence, hypothetical nonexistence, imaginary nonexistence, and other types. So I think real should be used not just alone, but when describing things, such as "this" is real in terms of the story, or it is real in terms of existence, or in a dream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonexistence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonexistence
Nice find. *Points thumbs up* *Pats on it's back*
And it doesn't go against what I've stated in my above paragraph.
QUOTE(SoftWareWolf)
isn't it some poem: "i think, therefor i exist" ...
*Sighs* It's from a philosopher called Descartes. Adivise ya to go look up at Wikipedia.
QUOTE(FallenDreamer)
So Reality is based on belief.
Belief is based on Sense.
Sense is never completely accurate.
and Reality is NOT Truth.
Belief is based on Sense.
Sense is never completely accurate.
and Reality is NOT Truth.
In a nutshell, my opinion about many religious folks. Same applies to my 'normal pattern' thingy. (What we regularly call 'normal' is highly overrated, since it depends mostly from your PoV's and how many ppl share it. But hey, that's only my own opinion.)
I know, I know... not really the issue here but just to clear anyone's doubts 'bout my stance over it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mr.Kirbycode774 on 2005-06-13 at 16:26:06
QUOTE(Basan @ Jun 6 2005, 01:59 AM)
*Meh* Kirby's philosophics at work... *Glares*
Can we at least assume that the ground is real (or any the other commonly observed events) for that matter?
Can we at least assume that the ground is real (or any the other commonly observed events) for that matter?
I know you're trying to make a joke, but sadly, it doesn't work.
Don't you remember the greatest skeptic of all time? Actually, I don't remember his name, but I DO remember his line of reasoning. He was the one who stated "I think therefore I am". He had it that everything could be fake; maybe you typed that joke, or maybe I dreamt it up. Maybe it's all a dream, or maybe we're in the matrix so nothing is real.
Understand Basan? They made a claim that everything could not be real, so they cannot "assume" the ground is real as an argument. It's like as if for a line of argument against atheists let's assume that "God" is real. That's what's known as a pre-loaded argument!!!
QUOTE
Now you're assuming that he's arrogant. Wich proof of fact you have for this claim? *Winks n' smirks*
You're having to ask this question? Stop, you're hurting my stomach.. oww....Please tell me you're aren't being serious and that it's as obvious as it is that I am 8-inches tall (since I'm a Kirby
)QUOTE
So, by common standards, Sience is philosophical. But imao it's less flawed to present evidences than faith is. Again me with the "Sientific Method" crap, if you want to put it that way.
Excuse me for one moment.ARGHALSKHGAWEIPHGAPOISEHGA;LHIOWGYHSPIOAGYPO CCAROCSPARUCARECARUBRASRDORDAU
There. Now, where were we? Oh right, more mixing up word meanings.
This is the "faith" you are thinking of:
Christian: I'm a Christian and I have faith in God!
Atheist: Why do you have faith in him?
Christian: Because God exists!
Atheist: What proof do you have that he exists?
Christian: He exists because he does!
Atheists:
Atheists often call this "faith", but it is not faith. It is known as blind faith.
What I am talking about is this kind of faith:
Atheist1: You know, some stupid Christian who thinks he's a mystical creature told me that science isn't all logic.
Atheist2: Hah. What an idiot. I mean come on, it's OBVIOUS that it's all logic.
Atheist1: For some odd reason I'm unsure about it. Could you prove it to me?
Atheist2: Sure no problem. He's just another crazy illogical faithist(blind).
Atheist1: Let's start at the Scientific Method, since we know that's the basis of all science.
Atheist2: Good idea. Ok, so the very base of the Scientific method is all about observing and experimenting, right?
Atheist1: Right.
Atheist2: Now we just do a simple logical proof to show that observing and experimenting are logical, not faith-based(blind) like that Christian.
Atheist1: Alright alright.. umm.. I don't know how to do it.
Atheist2: Ok, let's use experimentation to prove this.
Atheist1: Wait, but we can't use experimentation because we're starting off if we don't know if it works.
Atheist2: Nonsense. We can just observe our experiment and see that it works! Problem solved!
Atheist1: But, we're also starting off with that we don't know if observing works either!
Atheist2: What??? But, it's worked in the past! Therefore it must be logical!
Atheist1: Yeah... but just because taking out the 6's in 16/64 makes it 1/4 doesn't mean it will always work.
Atheist2: Very true.
Atheist1: Wait.. that means we have to assume observeration and experimentation works??
Atheist2: But that would mean it's faith(blind) like those stupid Christians!
Atheist1: Well, we know that experimentation and observeration DO work.
Atheist2: Yeah, if observation didn't work, I would never know when my toast was done. But still, blind faith! The nerve of it all!
Atheist1: Maybe it's a different kind of "faith"?
Atheist2: What other kind is there?!?!?
Atheist1: Umm.. it takes very little "faith" to believe that observation and experimentation work, so it can't be the "faith" like we use with Christians.
Atheist2: So it's like a lighter version of the way we use the word faith?
Atheist1: Yeah I guess so.
Athiest2: What should we call it?
Atheist1: If we still call it "faith", the Christians will probably jeer at us and say we're "contradicting ourselves" since they think we're still using the same meaning of that word.
Atheist2: Hmm. I know! Let's call it a "postulate"! It sounds scientific and sounds nothing like faith!
Atheist1: Nice idea!
Anyone who read this passage thoroughly should have realized the imaginary prediciment these two atheists have. My definition of faith i'm using is like a "postulate". A postulate is a idea that is used but has no actual proof behind it, but still works and is commonly accepted in logic. Why would you accept things that are "purely" faith based?!?! You see, even though it does take faith, there is more than enough evidence through experimenting and observation (the "blindest faith" of all postulates) we can know beyond a reasonable doubt it is true.
Please tell me you understood that Basan.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-06-13 at 17:40:18
QUOTE(Mr.Kirbycode774 @ Jun 13 2005, 03:26 PM)
I know you're trying to make a joke, but sadly, it doesn't work. Don't you remember the greatest skeptic of all time? Actually, I don't remember his name, but I DO remember his line of reasoning. He was the one who stated "I think therefore I am".
He had it that everything could be fake; maybe you typed that joke, or maybe I dreamt it up. Maybe it's all a dream, or maybe we're in the matrix so nothing is real.
Understand Basan? They made a claim that everything could not be real, so they cannot "assume" the ground is real as an argument. It's like as if for a line of argument against atheists let's assume that "God" is real. That's what's known as a pre-loaded argument!!!
You're having to ask this question? Stop, you're hurting my stomach.. oww....
Please tell me you're aren't being serious and that it's as obvious as it is that I am 8-inches tall (since I'm a Kirby)
Excuse me for one moment.
ARGHALSKHGAWEIPHGAPOISEHGA;LHIOWGYHSPIOAGYPO CCAROCSPARUCARECARUBRASRDORDAU
There. Now, where were we? Oh right, more mixing up word meanings.
This is the "faith" you are thinking of:
Christian: I'm a Christian and I have faith in God!
Atheist: Why do you have faith in him?
Christian: Because God exists!
Atheist: What proof do you have that he exists?
Christian: He exists because he does!
Atheists:
Atheists often call this "faith", but it is not faith. It is known as blind faith.
What I am talking about is this kind of faith:
Atheist1: You know, some stupid Christian who thinks he's a mystical creature told me that science isn't all logic.
Atheist2: Hah. What an idiot. I mean come on, it's OBVIOUS that it's all logic.
Atheist1: For some odd reason I'm unsure about it. Could you prove it to me?
Atheist2: Sure no problem. He's just another crazy illogical faithist(blind).
Atheist1: Let's start at the Scientific Method, since we know that's the basis of all science.
Atheist2: Good idea. Ok, so the very base of the Scientific method is all about observing and experimenting, right?
Atheist1: Right.
Atheist2: Now we just do a simple logical proof to show that observing and experimenting are logical, not faith-based(blind) like that Christian.
Atheist1: Alright alright.. umm.. I don't know how to do it.
Atheist2: Ok, let's use experimentation to prove this.
Atheist1: Wait, but we can't use experimentation because we're starting off if we don't know if it works.
Atheist2: Nonsense. We can just observe our experiment and see that it works! Problem solved!
Atheist1: But, we're also starting off with that we don't know if observing works either!
Atheist2: What??? But, it's worked in the past! Therefore it must be logical!
Atheist1: Yeah... but just because taking out the 6's in 16/64 makes it 1/4 doesn't mean it will always work.
Atheist2: Very true.
Atheist1: Wait.. that means we have to assume observeration and experimentation works??
Atheist2: But that would mean it's faith(blind) like those stupid Christians!
Atheist1: Well, we know that experimentation and observeration DO work.
Atheist2: Yeah, if observation didn't work, I would never know when my toast was done. But still, blind faith! The nerve of it all!
Atheist1: Maybe it's a different kind of "faith"?
Atheist2: What other kind is there?!?!?
Atheist1: Umm.. it takes very little "faith" to believe that observation and experimentation work, so it can't be the "faith" like we use with Christians.
Atheist2: So it's like a lighter version of the way we use the word faith?
Atheist1: Yeah I guess so.
Athiest2: What should we call it?
Atheist1: If we still call it "faith", the Christians will probably jeer at us and say we're "contradicting ourselves" since they think we're still using the same meaning of that word.
Atheist2: Hmm. I know! Let's call it a "postulate"! It sounds scientific and sounds nothing like faith!
Atheist1: Nice idea!
Anyone who read this passage thoroughly should have realized the imaginary prediciment these two atheists have. My definition of faith i'm using is like a "postulate". A postulate is a idea that is used but has no actual proof behind it, but still works and is commonly accepted in logic. Why would you accept things that are "purely" faith based?!?! You see, even though it does take faith, there is more than enough evidence through experimenting and observation (the "blindest faith" of all postulates) we can know beyond a reasonable doubt it is true.
Please tell me you understood that Basan.
[right][snapback]234302[/snapback][/right]
Don't you remember the greatest skeptic of all time? Actually, I don't remember his name, but I DO remember his line of reasoning. He was the one who stated "I think therefore I am". He had it that everything could be fake; maybe you typed that joke, or maybe I dreamt it up. Maybe it's all a dream, or maybe we're in the matrix so nothing is real.
Understand Basan? They made a claim that everything could not be real, so they cannot "assume" the ground is real as an argument. It's like as if for a line of argument against atheists let's assume that "God" is real. That's what's known as a pre-loaded argument!!!
You're having to ask this question? Stop, you're hurting my stomach.. oww....
Please tell me you're aren't being serious and that it's as obvious as it is that I am 8-inches tall (since I'm a Kirby
)Excuse me for one moment.
ARGHALSKHGAWEIPHGAPOISEHGA;LHIOWGYHSPIOAGYPO CCAROCSPARUCARECARUBRASRDORDAU
There. Now, where were we? Oh right, more mixing up word meanings.
This is the "faith" you are thinking of:
Christian: I'm a Christian and I have faith in God!
Atheist: Why do you have faith in him?
Christian: Because God exists!
Atheist: What proof do you have that he exists?
Christian: He exists because he does!
Atheists:
Atheists often call this "faith", but it is not faith. It is known as blind faith.
What I am talking about is this kind of faith:
Atheist1: You know, some stupid Christian who thinks he's a mystical creature told me that science isn't all logic.
Atheist2: Hah. What an idiot. I mean come on, it's OBVIOUS that it's all logic.
Atheist1: For some odd reason I'm unsure about it. Could you prove it to me?
Atheist2: Sure no problem. He's just another crazy illogical faithist(blind).
Atheist1: Let's start at the Scientific Method, since we know that's the basis of all science.
Atheist2: Good idea. Ok, so the very base of the Scientific method is all about observing and experimenting, right?
Atheist1: Right.
Atheist2: Now we just do a simple logical proof to show that observing and experimenting are logical, not faith-based(blind) like that Christian.
Atheist1: Alright alright.. umm.. I don't know how to do it.
Atheist2: Ok, let's use experimentation to prove this.
Atheist1: Wait, but we can't use experimentation because we're starting off if we don't know if it works.
Atheist2: Nonsense. We can just observe our experiment and see that it works! Problem solved!
Atheist1: But, we're also starting off with that we don't know if observing works either!
Atheist2: What??? But, it's worked in the past! Therefore it must be logical!
Atheist1: Yeah... but just because taking out the 6's in 16/64 makes it 1/4 doesn't mean it will always work.
Atheist2: Very true.
Atheist1: Wait.. that means we have to assume observeration and experimentation works??
Atheist2: But that would mean it's faith(blind) like those stupid Christians!
Atheist1: Well, we know that experimentation and observeration DO work.
Atheist2: Yeah, if observation didn't work, I would never know when my toast was done. But still, blind faith! The nerve of it all!
Atheist1: Maybe it's a different kind of "faith"?
Atheist2: What other kind is there?!?!?
Atheist1: Umm.. it takes very little "faith" to believe that observation and experimentation work, so it can't be the "faith" like we use with Christians.
Atheist2: So it's like a lighter version of the way we use the word faith?
Atheist1: Yeah I guess so.
Athiest2: What should we call it?
Atheist1: If we still call it "faith", the Christians will probably jeer at us and say we're "contradicting ourselves" since they think we're still using the same meaning of that word.
Atheist2: Hmm. I know! Let's call it a "postulate"! It sounds scientific and sounds nothing like faith!
Atheist1: Nice idea!
Anyone who read this passage thoroughly should have realized the imaginary prediciment these two atheists have. My definition of faith i'm using is like a "postulate". A postulate is a idea that is used but has no actual proof behind it, but still works and is commonly accepted in logic. Why would you accept things that are "purely" faith based?!?! You see, even though it does take faith, there is more than enough evidence through experimenting and observation (the "blindest faith" of all postulates) we can know beyond a reasonable doubt it is true.
Please tell me you understood that Basan.
[right][snapback]234302[/snapback][/right]
That is what I've been trying to tell people this whole thread. What I've been trying to say is this:
You have to at least start off having faith that you're in the correct reality. Otherwise, all your opinions and ideas no matter how concrete they are, will be questioned. So call me arrogant for saying that we're in the correct reality.
If you question anything about us not being the correct reality, then you're questioning EVERYTHING thing has ever been thought up of, created, seen, and etc. Infact, you'll even be questioning your own logic and reasoning.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-06-13 at 19:21:32
Exactly, both sides have to at least agree on certain boundaries or things that are true, and be on the same page.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-06-13 at 21:49:06
Love is real. Also, this tasty hotdog I'm eating.