The Ultimate Irrational Precept to... determine rationality?

Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
The Ultimate Irrational Precept to... determine rationality?

Can you genuinely prove I'm not the "Man of Lawlessness", as was predicted by quite a bit of holy scripture and even some renaissance prophecy?

Edit:Maybe this precept needs some fine tuning...

What I meant to say was wrote:
Do you have any proof whatsoever that I'm not the "Man of Lawlessness"?


Perhaps I should clarify this precept even FURTHER!

 

I want other RRS'ers to demonstrate:

  1. how my posts denote (thus far!) theistic beliefs
  2. how my posts thus far denotes irrationality within my mental contents
  3. how my mind displays (or even flaunts?) weakness(es)
  4. that I have indulged the irrational precepts, somehow
  5. That I'm a parasite of some particular sort or another
  6. That I am indeed "not special", and am better off understanding this
  7. That "Survival of the Fittest; elemination of the 'Unfit'" is an unpragmatic ideal
  8. That having unlimited ambitions is, inherently, counter-productive
  9. a.That self-fulfilling prophecies are either nonexistant or irrelevant|b. That there hasn't been countless attempts to "create gods (and goddesses!) from mere mortals"; otherwise ambitious, death-prone individuals who seek to break the nearly impenetrable barrier between LEGEND, and DEMIGOD, throughout recorded history. | c. That someone (like me!?) is NOT going to inevitably attempt to "create gods and goddesses from 'mere mortals'" again, this time using TECHNOLOGICAL superiority instead of asinine, unweildy rituals and ceremonies of 'coronation'. (either in this century or the next...) |d. That we should NOT attempt Technological Singularity, because some intangible, Skydaddy-oriented sense of ethics and moral values prevent us from doing so!
  10. That we should NOT attempt to be masters and mistresses of our own domain... i.e. masters and mistresses of 'realism'

Demonstrate this... and demonstrate it *WELL*, or else your silence will indicate indecisiveness of thought, and ultimately... agreement. Either way...

...I wish to be told the faults of my character!

(so that I may... correct said faults)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
No.

No.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

No.

Dude... you aren't even trying! Disappointing.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Any proof or evidence

Any proof or evidence whatsoever folks... that's all I'm asking! I don't care what form said 'evidence' comes in...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
  my god told me that you

 

 

my god told me that you are not the man of lawlessness. this is conclusive proof that you are not the man of lawlessness

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Whatthedeuce wrote:    

Whatthedeuce wrote:

 

 

my god told me that you are not the man of lawlessness. this is conclusive proof that you are not the man of lawlessness

Your god is.... 9b? You seem to have some strange html code planted in your post. Alas...

 

What verbal identifier does your 'god' go by? (other than God, or some such garbage)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Whatthedeuce

Kapkao wrote:

Whatthedeuce wrote:

 

 

my god told me that you are not the man of lawlessness. this is conclusive proof that you are not the man of lawlessness

Your god is.... 9b? You seem to have some strange html code planted in your post. Alas...

 

What verbal identifier does your 'god' go by? (other than God, or some such garbage)

 

the verbal identifier of my god is "he who decides whether or not kapkao is the man of lawlessness"

Upon reading your OP, he revealed himself to me and proclaimed that kapkao is not the man of lawlessness

edit: where did you get 9b from?

 

 

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, I know for a fact that

Well, I know for a fact that you simply cannot be the anti-christ. He is already a member here and you are not him.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Now THIS is what I want to see here...

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well, I know for a fact that you simply cannot be the anti-christ. He is already a member here and you are not him.

 

Which member is this??

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:What I meant to

Kapkao wrote:

What I meant to say was] Do you have any proof whatsoever that I'm not the "Man of Lawlessness"?

Not actually my problem, or any of ours.  If you want to make a claim about being a "MAN OF LAWLESSNESS", it's your responsibility to, you know, make the claim. Explain what the hell this "MAN OF LAWLESSNESS" is, provide links to the prophecy and explain how you fit the prophecy.  Then we'll explain why prophecy is bullshit and why anyone with a pulse and knowledge of the prophecy could "fullfill" it.  Otherwise everyone's going to shrug and this thread will wind up forgotten in twenty-four hours.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Answers in Gene

Kapkao wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well, I know for a fact that you simply cannot be the anti-christ. He is already a member here and you are not him.

 

Which member is this??

 

David Mabus

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:Not actually my

Kavis wrote:

Not actually my problem, or any of ours.  If you want to make a claim about being a "MAN OF LAWLESSNESS", it's your responsibility to, you know, make the claim. Explain what the hell this "MAN OF LAWLESSNESS" is, provide links to the prophecy and explain how you fit the prophecy.  Then we'll explain why prophecy is bullshit and why anyone with a pulse and knowledge of the prophecy could "fullfill" it.  Otherwise everyone's going to shrug and this thread will wind up forgotten in twenty-four hours.

You bore me.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
I didn't realize you'd asked

I didn't realize you'd asked for entertainment.  Rereading your first post, I still don't see it.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I answer thusly to "whatthedeuce"...


“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:I didn't realize

Kavis wrote:

I didn't realize you'd asked for entertainment.  Rereading your first post, I still don't see it.

I believe I asked for social stimuli on this particular subject. A ridiculous dismissal on the grounds of "blah some guy's asking me to prove a negative blahblahblah" will fail to produce the necessary social stimuli for my "sentient feedback loop", as a self-aware being.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
You asked us to prove that

You asked us to prove that you aren't the "MAN OF LAWLESSNESS".  You provided no information about what the "MAN OF LAWLESSNESS" is and why you might be the "MAN OF LAWLESSNESS".  How can you reasonably expect anyone to disprove something without any idea of the concept you're trying to prove? 

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Critique of Pure Reason, pt 2

Kavis wrote:

You asked us to prove that you aren't the "MAN OF LAWLESSNESS".  You provided no information about what the "MAN OF LAWLESSNESS" is and why you might be the "MAN OF LAWLESSNESS".  How can you reasonably expect anyone to disprove something without any idea of the concept you're trying to prove? 

What concept am I trying to prove exactly?

I want others to disprove a concept (if they can!), nothing more.

 

edit, just for good measure: the important part of that sentence being disprove.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
One: You haven't defined the

One: You haven't defined the concept you want others to disprove.

Two: I don't have to disprove a vague hypothetical without any relationship to reality (that is, a concept that is not being claimed).   Can you prove that I am not the colour of infinity?  I'm not actually claiming to be, but you have to disprove it.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


2252David_Mabus2252 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
meh?

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

David Mabus

Is this an actual registered user, or simply a faceless fraud, kind of like the one I'm portraying RIGHT NOW? (I'm actually Kapkao)


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:  I don't

Kapkao wrote:

 

I don't understand what your answer is. Is it an admission that I have unquestionably provided a conclusive, irrefutable proof that you are not the man of lawlessness? If it is anything other than the admission of my ultimate success in disproving the statement it is either irrelevant or incorrect.

 

 

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Critique of Pure Reason, pt 3

Kavis wrote:

One: You haven't defined the concept you want others to disprove.

Two: I don't have to disprove a vague hypothetical without any relationship to reality (that is, a concept that is not being claimed).   Can you prove that I am not the colour of infinity?  I'm not actually claiming to be, but you have to disprove it.

Are you the color of infinity? What would such a color look like? Your logic falls flat on it's face because it makes the painful assumption that a claim must be made for a concept to be disproven. I could demonstrate this with particular ease, using historical examples.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
I never said it couldn't be

I never said it couldn't be disproved if you aren't claiming it, just that I don't have to feel any need to tell you why meandering hypothetical conjectures are stupid.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Allow me to be irrelevant...

Whatthedeuce wrote:

I don't understand what your answer is. Is it an admission that I have unquestionably provided a conclusive, irrefutable proof that you are not the man of lawlessness? If it is anything other than the admission of my ultimate success in disproving the statement it is either irrelevant or incorrect.

In what manner have you been successful? You talked to... something, and you received a pre-determined answer. Why do I care?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ha! Critique of mistaken logic and self-identity...

Kavis wrote:

I never said it couldn't be disproved if you aren't claiming it, just that I don't have to feel any need to tell you why meandering hypothetical conjectures are stupid.

Humans don't have a capacity for self-fulfilling prophecies? If they don't (and I mean absolutely do not), then yes, you are wasting your time.

If they do, then you might want to consider demonstrating how this supposed behavior is "stupid".

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
In fact, Kavis... it could

In fact, Kavis... it could be argued that you are wasting your time being an atheist. A world without self-fulfilling prophecy is a world without belief systems.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Whatthedeuce

Kapkao wrote:

Whatthedeuce wrote:

I don't understand what your answer is. Is it an admission that I have unquestionably provided a conclusive, irrefutable proof that you are not the man of lawlessness? If it is anything other than the admission of my ultimate success in disproving the statement it is either irrelevant or incorrect.

In what manner have you been successful? You talked to... something, and you received a pre-determined answer. Why do I care?

 

You care because the something I talked to is god. As god, it is omniscient and it never lies. There fore what it says must be true.  What it says is that you are not the man of lawlessness. Therefore you must not be the man of lawlessness.

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Whatthedeuce wrote: There

Whatthedeuce wrote:

 There fore what it says must be true.  What it says is that you are not the man of lawlessness. Therefore you must not be the man of lawlessness.

I'm seeing weird HTML in your posts again.

Quote:
You care because the something I talked to is god. As god, it is omniscient and it never lies.

Well, I can assure that last line is complete and utter bullshit. The reasons for this are FAR too numerous to even hope of making a semi-comprehensive list, but most people posting at RRS should at least know why, at a basic level.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Humans don't

Kapkao wrote:

Humans don't have a capacity for self-fulfilling prophecies? If they don't (and I mean absolutely do not), then yes, you are wasting your time.

If they do, then you might want to consider demonstrating how this supposed behavior is "stupid".

It depends on what you mean by self-fulfilling prophecy.  If you simply mean that a person can make a prediction, and in knowledge of that, another person will behave differently in such a way that the prediction becomes reality, that is no special feat.  Anyone with enough guile and care could arrange such a sequence of events.  If, however, you mean to imply a supernatural entity or force that reveals information about the future with the intent of causing that future, no, that is untrue.

Kapkao wrote:

In fact, Kavis... it could be argued that you are wasting your time being an atheist. A world without self-fulfilling prophecy is a world without belief systems.

This doesn't follow.

1) No supernatural prophecies are true.

2) ?

3) No belief systems can be constructed.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Whatthedeuce wrote: my god

Whatthedeuce wrote:

 my god told me that you are not the man of lawlessness. this is conclusive proof that you are not the man of lawlessness

Being his god, I back this statement.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Whatthedeuce

robj101 wrote:

Whatthedeuce wrote:

 my god told me that you are not the man of lawlessness. this is conclusive proof that you are not the man of lawlessness

Being his god, I back this statement.

[sarcasm]Oh... sorry. I didn't realize he was your sexually submissive counterpart[/sarcasm]

Provide solid reasoning to destroy my irrational precept(s). I have not a shred of interest in what "God" has to say about my beliefs (I didn't really care all that much since being born)

I do, however, wish to make one feeble, final attempt at "sophiaphilia". I will accept the philosophy of others for the next week or so; perhaps even unquestioningly! If I find no philosophy worth keeping... I will find sophiaphilia completely abominable and meaningless. I will discard it! (becaues, let's face it; with so much sheeple in the world... sophiaphilia is quite often "meaningless drivel&quotEye-wink

 

edit:and I sometimes wish the board had an option to disable smilies in posts!  hmmm.... oh well.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:]Provide solid

Kapkao wrote:

Provide solid reasoning to destroy my irrational precept(s). I have not a shred of interest in what "God" has to say about my beliefs (I didn't really care all that much since being born)

I do, however, wish to make one feeble, final attempt at "sophiaphilia". I will accept the philosophy of others for the next week or so; perhaps even unquestioningly! If I find no philosophy worth keeping... I will find sophiaphilia completely abominable and meaningless. I will discard it! (becaues, let's face it; with so much sheeple in the world... sophiaphilia is quite often "meaningless drivel" )

 

edit:and I sometimes wish the board had an option to disable smilies in posts!  hmmm.... oh well.

  It's a little early to declare victory.  It's certainly too early to declare philosophy valid for only the next week (get supplies while they last! CALL NOW! OPERATORS ARE STANDING BY!)

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:Kapkao

Kavis wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Provide solid reasoning to destroy my irrational precept(s). I have not a shred of interest in what "God" has to say about my beliefs (I didn't really care all that much since being born)

I do, however, wish to make one feeble, final attempt at "sophiaphilia". I will accept the philosophy of others for the next week or so; perhaps even unquestioningly! If I find no philosophy worth keeping... I will find sophiaphilia completely abominable and meaningless. I will discard it! (becaues, let's face it; with so much sheeple in the world... sophiaphilia is quite often "meaningless drivel" )

 

edit:and I sometimes wish the board had an option to disable smilies in posts!  hmmm.... oh well.

  It's a little early to declare victory.  It's certainly too early to declare philosophy valid for only the next week (get supplies while they last! CALL NOW! OPERATORS ARE STANDING BY!)

You ceased to bore me. Good.

But you still miss the boat on sophiaphilia: "attraction towards others". Most of the time they are unbelievably bullshit! Occasionally there is some useful information to acquire from others.

Here's my $0.02 on theism: "No Gods except those we make" (borrowed somewhat from the Terminator movies)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Can you

 

What I meant to say was wrote:
Do you have any proof whatsoever that I'm not the "Man of Lawlessness"?


Perhaps I should clarify this precept even FURTHER!

 

I want other RRS'ers to demonstrate:

  1. how my posts denote (thus far!) theistic beliefs
  2. how my posts thus far denotes irrationality within my mental contents
  3. how my mind displays (or even flaunts?) weakness(es)
  4. that I have indulged the irrational precepts, somehow
  5. That I'm a parasite of some particular sort or another
  6. That I am indeed "not special", and am better off understanding this
  7. That "Survival of the Fittest; elemination of the 'Unfit'" is an unpragmatic ideal
  8. That having unlimited ambitions is, inherently, counter-productive
  9. a.That self-fulfilling prophecies are either nonexistant or irrelevant|b. That there hasn't been countless attempts to "create gods (and goddesses!) from mere mortals"; otherwise ambitious, death-prone individuals who seek to break the nearly impenetrable barrier between LEGEND, and DEMIGOD, throughout recorded history. | c. That someone (like me!?) is NOT going to inevitably attempt to "create gods and goddesses from 'mere mortals'" again, this time using TECHNOLOGICAL superiority instead of asinine, unweildy rituals and ceremonies of 'coronation'. (either in this century or the next...) |d. That we should NOT attempt Technological Singularity, because some intangible, Skydaddy-oriented sense of ethics and moral values prevent us from doing so!
  10. That we should NOT attempt to be masters and mistresses of our own domain... i.e. masters and mistresses of 'realism'

Demonstrate this... and demonstrate it *WELL*, or else your silence will indicate indecisiveness of thought, and ultimately... agreement. Either way...

...I wish to be told the faults of my character!

(so that I may... correct said faults)

1) No comment.  I'm unfamiliar with your posts outside this thread, and it would be inappropriate to comment on them.

2) In this thread, you have displayed a scatter-shot approach to discussion.  You've left weird comments, unsupported assertions, and undefined terms scattered around.  I should note, however, this may be a flaw in the delivery of these ideas, rather than in the ideas themselves. 

3) See 2.

4) Is it more irrational to work within the confines of a biased brain, or to seek to eliminate bias?  How could you know if you succeeded?

5) er?

6) Depends on what you mean by special.  You are an individual with a unique history and thought patterns not entirely like those of anyone else.  That said, you are also not unique in the sense that many other people share aspects of your history, tastes, and ideas (if not the precise arrangement found in yourself).  If by "special" you mean you occupy a space outside of a bell curve measuring some aspect of human existence, you are certainly not.

7) Not sure what you mean.  Do go on.

8 ) We'll assume for the moment that having unlimited ambition is something a human is capable of (you haven't demonstrated that it is). The obvious problem with unlimited ambition is that of the mismatch between ambition and capability.  You can reach for the moon all you like, but your arm is still only a few feet long.  Much better to use it to accomplish something that is reasonably possible (like building a vehicle to take you to the moon) than to waste resources chasing that won't happen.

9) Self-fulfilling prophecies are not supernatural and often a byproduct of the human tendency to seek patterns and causality.  Prophecy a vague enough prediction, get enough copies in circulation, give it centuries to play out, and nearly anything can be made to fit. 

9b) Instances of deification are trivially easy to locate.  Guan Yu springs to mind.
 

9c) I, for one, welcome our supercomputer overlords, and would humbly like to request a modest partition and access to CPU time.

10) Being masters of our domain runs into the problem of capability.  We may try, but we are simply not able to compete with the universe itself.   Our existence is tenuous, and we WILL be snuffed out one day.  My hope is that we may get a chance to design the species that replaces us.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
btw Rob... help a fellow deity out?

I'm looking for a goddess. Do you know where I might find one? Ideally:sexually capricious goddess of Celtic and/or Mediterranean decent (straight hair only, plz!)... knows how to make life-long indentured servants out of her male romance interests, etc...... in return for being my Supreme Alpha Female, she must share a few secrets on "How to be a Supreme Alpha Male"

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kavis

I think Kapkao's meds need adjusted again.  He's a nice guy, but wacky.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote: 1) blablabla2)

Kavis wrote:

 

1) blablabla


2) In this thread, you have displayed a scatter-shot approach to discussion.  You've left weird comments, unsupported assertions, and undefined terms scattered around.  I should note, however, this may be a flaw in the delivery of these ideas, rather than in the ideas themselves. 

3) See 2.

What can I say? I'm something of an orchestrator of intellectual chaos!

Which is bizarre... since no one has shown interest in my psychosocial chaos until now....

Quote:

4) Is it more irrational to work within the confines of a biased brain, or to seek to eliminate bias?  How could you know if you succeeded?

5) er?

6) Depends on what you mean by special.  You are an individual with a unique history and thought patterns not entirely like those of anyone else.  That said, you are also not unique in the sense that many other people share aspects of your history, tastes, and ideas (if not the precise arrangement found in yourself).  If by "special" you mean you occupy a space outside of a bell curve measuring some aspect of human existence, you are certainly not.

7) Not sure what you mean.  Do go on.

8 ) We'll assume for the moment that having unlimited ambition is something a human is capable of (you haven't demonstrated that it is). The obvious problem with unlimited ambition is that of the mismatch between ambition and capability.  You can reach for the moon all you like, but your arm is still only a few feet long.  Much better to use it to accomplish something that is reasonably possible (like building a vehicle to take you to the moon) than to waste resources chasing that won't happen.

9) Self-fulfilling prophecies are not supernatural and often a byproduct of the human tendency to seek patterns and causality.  Prophecy a vague enough prediction, get enough copies in circulation, give it centuries to play out, and nearly anything can be made to fit. 

9b) Instances of deification are trivially easy to locate.  Guan Yu springs to mind.
 

9c) I, for one, welcome our supercomputer overlords, and would humbly like to request a modest partition and access to CPU time.

10) Being masters of our domain runs into the problem of capability.  We may try, but we are simply not able to compete with the universe itself.   Our existence is tenuous, and we WILL be snuffed out one day.  My hope is that we may get a chance to design the species that replaces us.

And... I'm out of thought-fuel for tonight. But I must say I do find your latter two responses bring a smile to my face that I rarely exhibit. NIght everyone...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
*growl*

cj wrote:

I think Kapkao's meds need adjusted again.  He's a nice guy, but wacky.

Perhaps I simply exhibit hypomania, my thoughts are suddenly 'wired' more towards 'Fight' rather than 'Flight'

 

I'm not psychotic, I merely have a few mood disorders. I am, in fact, quite lucid at the moment. It's my affect, not my sanity that is troublesome in this regard. Some days I'll feel like a 'top dog', on top of things, etc; other days I'll feel like I've been thrown under a bus.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
my meds need adjusting alright

too much paxil Sad

20 mg shoots me from "hypomania" ALL THE UP INTO "Attila the Hun Syndrome"

as in... 'throwing tomatoes at RRS cores' craziness.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
You do know that you really

You do know that you really should not be changing your meds without talking to your doctor, right?

 

Unless you have already been declared incapable of making medical judgments by a competent probate court, then your doctor is legally bound to work with you and adjust them to be more to your liking but he will make the change fairly slowly so as to not induce other complications such as anhedonia, which you are risking if you make sudden changes on your own.

 

Trust me on this, you will not enjoy a case of induced anhedonia.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

You do know that you really should not be changing your meds without talking to your doctor, right?

 

Unless you have already been declared incapable of making medical judgments by a competent probate court, then your doctor is legally bound to work with you and adjust them to be more to your liking but he will make the change fairly slowly so as to not induce other complications such as anhedonia, which you are risking if you make sudden changes on your own.

 

Trust me on this, you will not enjoy a case of induced anhedonia.

 

I've been anhedonic before.... or do you mean dysphoric? Meh... I've suddenly stopped antideps before. Which may be a problem because... I feel really fucking invulnerable/incurably witless as of late.

 

Hmmm.... I've been anhedonic before. Not a gravy train... better than picking a fight with everyone I run into.

 

BLUP BLUP BLURPITY BLURP BULLSHIT EDITTED OUT! (Doesn't really apply to me, anymore)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ugh... what a shitstorm I create sometimes...

 

Kavis wrote:

 

 

2) In this thread, you have displayed a scatter-shot approach to discussion.  You've left weird comments, unsupported assertions, and undefined terms scattered around.  I should note, however, this may be a flaw in the delivery of these ideas, rather than in the ideas themselves. 

Don't take it personally! The indirect/cryptic approach to verbal expression is often the most productive one - people I've known (usually theists) often speak with a great deal of dishonest pretense in their voice. So the (decisive) solution to this to provoke irrational aggression by feigning psychological weakness; further aggressive behavior by continuously feigning mental weakness -aka "incoherent babbling" and eccentricity-, become quiet, watch others approach to 'heckle' or 'mock' in some pointless manner or another. Watch personal attacks ensue for a brief moment longer than:

STRIKE!

Meaning, of course, pointing out how idiotic the 'mob' has just proven itself to be... bulleted point-by-point arguments.

I'm not a fan of mob-mentality, myself.

Quote:
4) Is it more irrational to work within the confines of a biased brain, or to seek to eliminate bias?  How could you know if you succeeded?

Fault:a biased mind may one day become unbiased.

Quote:
5) er?

Irrelevent, since you and I have not spent much time talking with each other.

 

Quote:

6) Depends on what you mean by special.  You are an individual with a unique history and thought patterns not entirely like those of anyone else.  That said, you are also not unique in the sense that many other people share aspects of your history, tastes, and ideas (if not the precise arrangement found in yourself).  If by "special" you mean you occupy a space outside of a bell curve measuring some aspect of human existence, you are certainly not.

You took the 'wind' out of whatever I was going to say next!

You're a good bit more intelligent then I originally estimated.

Quote:
7) Not sure what you mean.  Do go on.

Eugenics: determination of optimal genetic configuration(s) to attempt to better our species.

Quote:
8 ) We'll assume for the moment that having unlimited ambition is something a human is capable of (you haven't demonstrated that it is). The obvious problem with unlimited ambition is that of the mismatch between ambition and capability.  You can reach for the moon all you like, but your arm is still only a few feet long.  Much better to use it to accomplish something that is reasonably possible (like building a vehicle to take you to the moon) than to waste resources chasing that won't happen.

The dictionary demonstrates this perfectly:

American Heritage wrote:

megalomania  meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a (měg'ə-lō-mā'nē-ə, -mān'yə)
n.

  1.  A psychopathological condition in which delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence predominate.

  2.  An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

I'm a megalomaniac, apparently Sticking out tongue

Quote:

9) Self-fulfilling prophecies are not supernatural and often a byproduct of the human tendency to seek patterns and causality.  Prophecy a vague enough prediction, get enough copies in circulation, give it centuries to play out, and nearly anything can be made to fit. 

9b) Instances of deification are trivially easy to locate.  Guan Yu springs to mind.
 

9c) I, for one, welcome our supercomputer overlords, and would humbly like to request a modest partition and access to CPU time.

10) Being masters of our domain runs into the problem of capability.  We may try, but we are simply not able to compete with the universe itself.   Our existence is tenuous, and we WILL be snuffed out one day.  My hope is that we may get a chance to design the species that replaces us.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)