VirusInTheSystem

I once asked God why he was always silent.

Just as he was about to answer me, I thought "Wait a minute, if you *answer* me, you will no longer be silent, so there will have been no point in your answering me in the first place."

He must have agreed that this was the case, because he didn't answer my question.

So I guess its only my fault I still don't know. Shouldn't have opened my big mouth

Goliath

Your first post in this thread seemed to be rife with arrogance.

That's good.

Mostly correct. To be technical, atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of any gods.

Duly noted.

Apology accepted.

Again, my first post in this thread was merely a response to your perceived arrogance and presumption regarding a field that you know next to nothing about.

I had said:

To which you replied:

Not when compared to some of the xians that I know and know of, not to mention the alleged character of Jesus in the bible (but that's for another thread, at another time).

In what ways were my responses that you mentioned nonsensical? You claimed that there was a god of mathematics, and I asked for a proof of that claim. What is nonsensical about that?

Well, since you yourself have admitted that you are unable to prove any of the claims that you have made in this thread regarding the universe or the supernatural, then I'm not sure what there is to discuss.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

davidm,

I didn't sneer at all when I wrote that. You seem to be reading emotion into those two words that was simply not present when I wrote them.

Huh? A loose metaphor for what? The only thing that I saw in Virus' opening post was a misuse of mathematical arguments.

Poisoning the well, are we?

I doubt anyone would debate that. What I'm interested in is a proof of existence of a god.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "apprehending" a part of reality.

Sincerely,

Goliath

VirusInTheSystem

quote: Your first post in this thread seemed to be rife with arrogance.

in whose opinion? yours? who is to say that your opinion is necessarily valid? It sounds to me like the concensus on this thread would disagree with you. (that is, anyone who has implied an opinion about whether my first post sounded "rife with arrogance"

quote: It seems as though you are unable to take criticism of any kind without lashing out with petty insults, even when I have extended my hand in apology.

reply: actually, it isn't. its anything *but*.

to which you replied: Not when compared to some of the xians that I know and know of, not to mention the alleged character of Jesus in the bible


so "some of the xians you know" are definitive of christianity? the nature of christianity is limited to "some of the xians you know"?
Here is a parallel statement (by the implication of your statement): Some of the atheists I know are arrogant and generally mindless, *therefore* athiesm is an arrogant and generally mindless belief system.

Also, by all means cite examples of Jesus: "lashing out with petty insults, even when someone's hand was extended in apology". If you have some information to offer as evidence that Jesus was prone to doing that, please show us.

quote: In what ways were my responses that you mentioned nonsensical? You claimed that there was a god of mathematics, and I asked for a proof of that claim. What is nonsensical about that?

First, i did not mention a godd of mathematics, but a "goddess", the female counterpart of a god. But going beyond that petty detail.
I did not say: There is a goddess of mathematics. Nor did I say anything that equates to it. I said, that judging by your reaction, perhaps I had offended the very goddess of mathematics. This statement does not directly say that I think there is such a goddesss. It implies that perhaps *you* think that. And hence the term "sarcasm". But since sarcasm itself is not mathematically sound, perhaps you actually could not grasp it. Let me explain it in your terms: the folowing equation is not valid: sarcasm=mathematics.

But all jokes aside, I'm sure that yu *did* grasp the idea that I was using "sarcasm" in said statement, and not stating any personal belief in a female diety of mathematics.

So your request for proof of this Goddess was non-sense. Unless we accept the possibility that you were indeed incapable of understanding sarcasm.

So either
A. you did not realize something was sarcasm when it was painfully obvious

or

B. What you typed in response appears to be an attempt to debate sarcasm with the scientific method, which is complete non-sense. By using one method to reply to another method which is completely incompatible, you were making a rather feeble attempt at mockery of the original sarcasm.

for your sake, I hope it was "B"
------------------------------------
quote: In what ways were my responses that you mentioned nonsensical? You claimed that there was a god of mathematics, and I asked for a proof of that claim. What is nonsensical about that?

by saying this you must either be:

A. Seriously interested in how your reply was nonsense, because you still do not realize my use of sarcasm.

B. Still entrenched in your "let's use scientific logic to make fun of sarcasm" mode (which at this point is even more tedious and weak then it was when you first introduced it).

C. You believe that your original attempt to mock sarcasm with logic was, in fact, very sensible. Predictable, yes. It fits your apparent nature like a glove. Sensible: I would argue that it is not sensible at all to discredit one form of communication using another that is a polar opposite of the first. It would be very difficult or impossible to "discredit" sarcasm using scientific questioning. To even attempt it is to assume a completely ridiculous premise: that sarcasm is scientifically valid

Therefore, it is nonsense.
---------------------------------------
i said: I'm hoping we can get past petty bickering and try to have more intelligent conversation from now on

you replied: Well, since you yourself have admitted that you are unable to prove any of the claims that you have made in this thread regarding the universe or the supernatural, then I'm not sure what there is to discuss.

had i said, "...try to have more intelligent converstion on *this topic*", your rebuttal would have been valid, or at least coherrant. But my statement did not refer to any particular conversation; it refered to "conversation" in general. By which I meant that hopefully whatever communication passed between us from now on would be more intelligent. I said absolutely *nothing* about *this* conversation. So your reply is based on a laughable assumption from the very start.

Unless you meant to say: since you have failed at proving your claims in *this* thread, I don't see how we could have intelligent conversation on *any* topic.

that also, is illogical.

A parallel statement would be: Since you gave me an apple that I didn't like, I don't see any possibility that you posses any good aplles.

That statement is comedic.

Or perhaps you have moved beyond your "let's make fun of sarcasm using logic" mode to a new mode. Namely:

"let's make fun of an extension of good will and mutual peace using a ridiculous and fragile bit of logic."

so if you are, in fact, incapable of moving on to intelligent conversation, as your last statement would strongly suggest, than I suppose you have inderectly answered my offer of good will:

"Although *you*, Virus, may want to move on to mature and resonable conversation, *I* am obviously incapable of that. So you see, we are intellectually incompatible. And to prove it to you, I will make my parting statement a brilliant picture of laughable and fallicious logic! So there!"

you showed me


your always,
Virus

VirusInTheSystem

in reponse to some of the things Goliath said to David:

quote: You seem to be reading emotion into those two words that was simply not present when I wrote them.

emotion was not present when you wrote that? So you were in a completely neutral and emotionless state, much like your role model: mathematics?

Let us do a disection of the words: "condescension unappreciated"

appreciation is a feeling of gratitude or thankfulness. it's an emotion.
un-appreciation would be the emotional opposite of "appreciation". It does not imply simply the neutral lack of the emotion: appreciation. or perhaps to Goliath it would imply that. To me, and to David, it would imply ative "*un*-appreciation", the emotion opposite to appreciation.

So theoretically, your statement implied emotion to a number of readers.
------------------------------------

quote: Poisoning the well, are we?

exactly what is the well? does Goliath="the well", or does the well refer to something on a larger, more general scale. would you specify? The nature of that remark currently allows confusion as to its meaning.

or by "the well", do you refer collectively to people who are not "sick", and are therfore "well"?

Then your statement would actually make a lot of sense, for it is an encouragement that we should not introduce a harmful substance into the bodies of people who are in good health. I agree that this is a morally quaetionable activity. But morality itself is a questionable term, so perhaps poisoning people who are well is in fact a valid activity? I'm getting confused.

In any case, I think that Goliath offered sound advice regardless of moral implications. If not for moral reasons, it is good to refrain from poisoning healthy people simply for the rick it involves to one's *own* health. If you regard your own helth, you will consider that a lifetime spent in feeding poison to healthy people may eventually result in a lot of angry people, which in turn could be a very negative influence on your *own* health.

so if we are to assume that Goliath didn't refer to moral implications, then his noble statement becomes a lttle less noble, as it turns only to preserving one's personal safety. But I hardly see this as a noble reason for refraining from poisoning innocent, healthy folks. But that is, of course, just my opinion. And also we do not yet know whether Goliath made his statement based on morals or self-preservation.

We need more in-put <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Note, Goliath, I have just demonstrated for you an example of the fallowing non-sensical form of communication: attempting to mock "cliche" with "philisophical logic". Cliche is not based on logic, it is form of visual imigery that is over-used and worn out. So to try to extract a form of philosophy from it is utter nonsense.

Not much different than using scientific logic in response to "sarcasm".
----------------------------------------

With Sincerity,
Virus

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: VirusInTheSystem ]</p>

Jobar

A-hem.

Gentlemen, although you seem to be working towards the properly intellectual level for this forum- no ad homs, no bitterness, no sarcasm (though irony is OK)- let me make a couple of observations. Goliath, I once chided Koy for being a perfect example of The Stepongzi Extreme, which is stated Why use a fly swatter when an atom bomb will do? You need not stomp on an argument with hobnail boots, when all it needs is brushing off.

Anyway, I prefer you in your 'Zen Atheist' mode- the terse and sometimes koan-like replies I have seen you make are more effective than attempting to channel Koy.

Virus, if you have personal issues with the way Goliath, or any other poster here, interacts with you, please try to settle it via private message instead of on the public boards. If some of us senior members get a bit testy, because we may have seen the same arguments numerous times before, chalk it up to the fact that too often we have had things shoved in our faces unpleasantly, by self-righteous fundamentalists. (I hasten to add that I am not accusing *you* of doing this.) None of us are unfailingly polite- including me- but we do strive for that as an ideal on this forum.

I feel a bit strange, counselling people to turn the other cheek- but in this case it's appropriate! Jobar, moderator.

VirusInTheSystem

thanks jobar for your keen observations. you're right

I did try to make my most recent "attacks" on Goliath with less sarcasm... less overt insults.

I did *try* to change the entire course of mine and his conversation (you have to admit that for a few minutes, i did try). But it seemed to me that he didn't *want* to get out of the "battle" mode. I feel like everything I say, even when I am trying to offer good will, is dissected under the heavy hand of mathematics to be thrown back at me in some way.

So i just thought, "forget it", if he wants to throw ridiculous debates back and forth, I'll rise to the challenge.

Hey, sometimes a good fight is hard to resist

But I'll remember to keep it to private messaging from now on. thanks

-Virus

Goliath

Virus,

Yes. Note that I said that your post seemed to be rife with arrogance.

It was valid in the sense that it seemed as though your post was full of arrogance. Now, did you intend to be arrogant when you wrote your first post in this thread? I don't know.

And this is relevant to the discussion.........how?


And when did I make this claim? Just because a behavior seems to be a "xian" behavior, that does not mean that said behavior is definitive of xianity--just the part of xianity that I know.

Now you really are putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim.

Stuff that strawman!

Even if some of the atheists you know are arrogant and mindless, your conclusion is demonstrably false, since atheism is not a system of belief. Atheism is the lack of belief that any deity exists.

No examples of that exact behavior come to mind, but here are just a few reasons why I find the morality of the Jesus character to be far behind the average human of the twentieth century:

1. Jesus is allegedly responsible for one count of humanicide when he allegedly flooded the entire earth (and yes, Jesus did this, since he is supposedly the exact same thing as the xian god (even though one is the father and the other the son... )).

2. In a temper tantrum that would make many five year old children take pause, he cursed a fig tree.

3. He said that anyone who wishes to follow him must not only hate themselves, but their families as well. Wow! What an upstanding, moral example! I'm glad that my PhD advisor doesn't require me to hate myself and my family, in order to get my degree.

4. He said that he would divide families and pit the members against each other ("I come not to bring peace, but a sword...")

5. He advocated self-mutilation, including castration (something about "If thy hands offend thee, cut them off. If thine eyes offend thee, pluck them out" (rough paraphrase)).

Those are five things that I came up with off the top of my head in about...oh...two minutes (if it weren't for the fact that it's almost 2am here, I probably would've added a couple more to that list). If you want me to supply bible verses, I can do so, or you can get them yourself <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com" target="_blank">here</a>.

Okay, duly noted. Replace "god" with "goddess" in my original question, then.

If you don't believe that such a goddess exists, then why would you make such a judgement to said reaction?

Since I am an atheist, I--by definition--hold no such belief.

Well, you know what they say: sarcasm is the lowest form of humor.

No, I grasped it. However, I found no humorous content in the suggestion that you think that I think that a goddess of mathematics exists.

Since you seem to think me a humorless boor, perhaps you could enlighten me: what is the inherent humor in the concept that an atheist mathematics student might believe that a goddess of mathematics exists?

I'm looking for the humor, and I'm not finding it.

As far as the rest of your rant goes about sarcasm, yes, I realize that you were being somewhat facetious. However, I found absolutely no humor in your dry, sarcastic remarks, so I looked for any interesting content that said remarks might contain.

I wasn't surprised at what I didn't find.

I had said:

To which you replied:

Ah, correct. My mistake. Again, I apologize (and again, I expect you to not care).

I should've said: "Since you yourself seem to have no interest whatsoever in supporting any claim you make, save for using a poor excuse for mathematical "arguments" to "prove" your "points," I must conclude that I'm not honestly sure what there is to discuss, on this or any other topic.

Is that better?

Then, you accuse me of essentially saying this:

No, I'm afraid that the logical arguments that I've used in this thread are quite sound. I have given a point by point refutation of your "proof" that the universe is "self-aware" (whatever that means).

I have, several times, apologized to you. I have extended my hand in good will. And how do you respond? By more "arguments" that are either straw men or easily torn apart.

So, it is clear that you are accusing me of what you yourself are most guilty.

Sincerely,

Goliath

(edited to fix a small mistake)

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Goliath

Oops, double post.

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Goliath

Virus,

When did I say that? I said that he was reading emotions that were not present when I wrote the words "condescension unappreciated." davidm claimed, in particular, that I sneered. I had no such emotion in my system to make me sneer.

Oh, and poisoning the well is a logical fallacy. You can read about it <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Sincerely,

Goliath

(edited to add the bit about the misunderstanding regarding "Poisoning the Well.")

(edited again....grrr...UBB can be annoying, sometimes...)
[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>