• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Logical? Deism.

I have to say with all your name calling "Elephart" and "Elepants" (which are rather dull and uncreative btw) you are coming off as less of a serious thinker and more of an insecure bigot who simply cannot accept a fair examination of ideas. If you are going to promote claims as extraordinary as the one's you are Franko, I'd suggest a more mature approach. People are having a hard enough time taking you seriously as it is.
Click to expand...

The A-Theists take me a lot more serious then they let on. Their actions (constantly starting threads about me, following me around like teenage girls chasing one of the Beetles, and attempting to get me Banned for daring to be skeptical of the religion of A-Theism) speak far louder than their words. I use the A-Theists to make my point, but it's not the A-Theists that I am interested in. For the most part the A-Theists on this forum are lost causes. They've already ceased to exist, it's just that they don't realize it yet (A-Theists have very poor perception) ...
 
So Ele-pants ... a link to a website is the best defense you have for the fundamental tenet of your religion?

I mean ... your whole "theory" seems to hinge on the fact that things can be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time (or neither at the same time), yet you cannot explain this in your own words, nor provide one single clear and valid example?

I guess you can't provide any logic for the things you believe?

I guess you are like any other would-be cult leader who simply demands to be taken at his divinely inspired words? We should just trust you on "good" Faith?

Why should I take you on Faith? You have already established that you don't believe there are any consequences for your actions. Essentially you have told me that if you see a benefit in lying to me and you can get away with -- YOU WILL.

So why should I simply take your word?
 
Franko said:


The A-Theists take me a lot more serious then they let on. Their actions (constantly starting threads about me, following me around like teenage girls chasing one of the Beetles, and attempting to get me Banned for daring to be skeptical of the religion of A-Theism) speak far louder than their words. I use the A-Theists to make my point, but it's not the A-Theists that I am interested in. For the most part the A-Theists on this forum are lost causes. They've already ceased to exist, it's just that they don't realize it yet (A-Theists have very poor perception) ...
Click to expand...
Of course, when the question of banning Franko was voted on, the no-ban option won by a three-to-one margin. Why does Franko omit this telling piece of data from his harangue? Well, actions speak louder than words.
 
Of course, when the question of banning Franko was voted on, the no-ban option won by a three-to-one margin. Why does Franko omit this telling piece of data from his harangue? Well, actions speak louder than words
Click to expand...

The Skeptics spoke on that one. Apparently they Still outnumber the A-Theist religious fanatics on this forum by a 3 to 1 margin.

Either that, or some of the A-Theists aren't quite as devoted to the Cult as they pretend to be ...
 
Franko said:


The Skeptics spoke on that one. Apparently they Still outnumber the A-Theist religious fanatics on this forum by a 3 to 1 margin.

Either that, or some of the A-Theists aren't quite as devoted to the Cult as they pretend to be ...
Click to expand...
Really, Franko? Interesting who you have on your skeptics list now. Those who spoke out against banning include:

Myself
CWL
Q-Source
The Fool
Kodiak
Gnome
Ustardust

All of these people have had numerous debates with you. There are others from your "list of the damned" who have previously spoken out against banning, but did not post a reply on this thread.

Only about four posters spoke out voiciferously in favor of banning.

I guess a lot more of us atheists are skeptics than you calculated.

No Franko, the "They're all out to get me" defense is unsupported. You'll have to be contented with self-pity.
 
wraith said:


Why?
Let me see Drew and I will tell you whether I think that he is tall or not
Click to expand...

That would be a subjective judgement. What use is 'what I think' in a discussion about logic?
 
Here's my latest list Tricky:

THE ARMAGEDDON LIST

This list is nothing more then my own personal, subjective opinions of who on this forum is an Atheist, an Agnostic, or a Theist/Deist. Don’t complain to me that you are on “the wrong list”. 1) This is only My opinion, and 2) Actions speak louder than words ...

The Forces of Light – the Saved
Consciousness makes Matter – Deist/Theist
(people who are Sane/Lucid)

Beleth
Beth Paulkey (Butch Slade)
BiliousGreen
BobM
Christian
Csense [mia]
dsm
Filip Sandors [mia]
Franko (Serpent)
Gentlehorse
hammegk (Mr. Hand)
Interesting Ian (Mr. Quick)
Jedi Knight (Knight)
LukeT (Luke)[mia]
metachristi
PotatoStew
Roadtoad
Sorgoth
stamenflicker
strongstevesaint (Mr. Sleep)
Thanz
Win
Wraith (Wraith)
Yalel


The Legion of Darkness – the Damned
Matter makes consciousness – Atheist
(Religious Fanatics)

a_unique_person [mia]
Aardvark
aerosolben [mia]
arcticpenguin
AtheistArchon [mia]
Billyhoyt [mia]
chulbert
Colloden [mia]
CWL
DanishDynamite
De_Bunk [mia]
Diogenes
Dorman [mia]
Doubt
evildave
Fool
Fade
Futurefan [mia]
GoodPropaganda [mia]
Gnome
ImpyTimpy
joshua korosi
Kodiak [mia]
Latimer
Lizardpeople
Lucifuge Rofocale
Oceansize [mia]
Paradox [mia]
PixyMisa
Plutarck
Resonabledoubt [mia]
Magnifico
Mossy
MRC_Hans
Segnosaur [mia]
Shemp
Sir-drinks-a-lot
Stimpson (Necromancer)
Synaesthesia
Thaifoodken
Titanpoint [mia]
Tricky
Trish [f] [mia]
Upchurch
Victor Danilchenko
Whitefork
Wolfgirl [f] [mia]
xrayecho [mia]
Yahzi
Zombified


Neutral Charge – No Allegiance
Not enough information – Agnostic
(If you are on this list, then I consider you a Skeptic)

Bjorn (-)
BillyJoe (=)
Darat (-)
Davidhorman (-)
Gregor (-)
Hal bidlack (=)
LeFevre (+)
Lillyofthepink (-)[f][mia]
Loki (-)
Luceiia (+) [mia]
Martinm(-)
Pahansiri (+)
Q-Source [f] [-]
Randfan (+)
Scribble (+) (Mobius)
Seelie (+) [f]
Slimshady (+) (Shadow)
Soubrette (+) (Enchantress) [f]
Shroud of Akron (-) [mia]
Sundog (-)
Vorticity (+)
Whodini (-)



[mia] = I haven’t seen you posts in the R&P in a while.

Religious Person = a person who has at least one metaphysical belief which they cannot prove (and is not disproven) which the individual acknowledges they hold purely because it makes them “happy”.

Religious Fanatic = a person who holds at least one metaphysical belief which is obviously contradicted by empirical observation (i.e. they hold a logically contradictory belief), yet the person refuses to acknowledge this fact.
 
Can't help noticing that I'm still not on your list, Frannie
Click to expand...

You and the A-Theist Fool have a lot of little things in common.

So where would I put you Ele-pant? The only thing I am sure of, is you aren't an Agnostic.

I'm tempted to just stick you on the LOD list, but that would seal your Fate ...

Why do you even care that you aren't on my list? Since when does my opinion matter to you?
 
Franko said:
Here's my latest list Tricky:

(list snipped)

Religious Fanatic = a person who holds at least one metaphysical belief which is obviously contradicted by empirical observation (i.e. they hold a logically contradictory belief), yet the person refuses to acknowledge this fact.
Click to expand...
Just making a quick count, I see 24 on the Forces of Light list, 22 on the Neutral and 50 on the Legions of Darkness.

If they voted proportionally and every neutral person said "don't ban", then there would still be a majority of atheists. Yet, the voting was 3 to one for "don't ban". This would mean that more than half of the atheists would have to vote for "don't ban".

Your contention that the atheists are trying to have you banned is disproved. The evidence is staring you in the face.

BTW, the only part that empirical observation has in logic is in giving evidence for the assumptions.
 
UndercoverElephant said:


That would be a subjective judgement. What use is 'what I think' in a discussion about logic?
Click to expand...

I wasnt aware that there was a universal height threshold that determined tallness

:eek:
 
wraith said:


I wasnt aware that there was a universal height threshold that determined tallness

:eek:
Click to expand...
Gosh golly. There's not a universal height threshold. It is relative. That is the principle of fuzzy logic. I'm glad you finally understand.
 
Franko said:

You don’t have “free will” to stop yourself from attempting to harm me, and I don’t have “free will” to prevent me from annihilating you in return.

Click to expand...

What a unique and clever way to avoid taking direct personal responsibility for one's actions.

"Your honor...I was fated to shoot him. It wasn't my choice."
 
wraith said:


I wasnt aware that there was a universal height threshold that determined tallness

:eek:
Click to expand...

So whose side of the debate do you think that statement supports, Franko-Wraith?

It is you who believe the Universe is governed by Aristotlean binary logic! :D
 
Tricky:

Gosh golly. There's not a universal height threshold. It is relative. That is the principle of fuzzy logic. I'm glad you finally understand.
Click to expand...

Relativity is part of Logic (or "binary logic" to use the Elephant's term). You do remember that other figment of your imagination -- Einstein -- don't you?
 
Franko said:
Religious Fanatic = a person who holds at least one metaphysical belief which is obviously contradicted by empirical observation (i.e. they hold a logically contradictory belief), yet the person refuses to acknowledge this fact.
Click to expand...

Quick and simple questions to Frank/Wraith which still remain unanswered:

1) What are the empirical observations which lead you to the conclusion that there is a benevolent supreme being?

2) If the answer to 1) is "Fate"; what are the empirical observations which lead you to the conclusion that there is something called "Fate" and how do you define it?
 
1) What are the empirical observations which lead you to the conclusion that there is a benevolent supreme being?
Click to expand...

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
You obey TLOP.

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more complex and conscious then CAR; TLOP is more complex and conscious then YOU.

2) If the answer to 1) is "Fate"; what are the empirical observations which lead you to the conclusion that there is something called "Fate" and how do you define it?
Click to expand...

Fate (or Karma [same difference]) is part of the equation:

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics (TLOP).
You are made of Atoms.
You obey TLOP.

That’s Fate.

You didn’t get to choose your parents, your gender, the Time or place of your birth. These things are the fundamental elements that made YOU who YOU are (your DNA, your genetics, your environment). Since the moment you were born, all of your actions are simply the inevitable result of a long unbroken chain of cause and effect, cause and effect, cause and effect, stretching back to at least as far as the moment of the “Big Bang” and the primordial conditions known as The Initial State. Simply stated, all of your actions are determined solely and entirely by your past experiences, and the Laws of Physics.
 
(The Other White Meat) said:

Elephant,
You might have missed some of this while you were away. The logic used in Logical Deism is not Aristotelian, Boolean, Predicate, or Sentential. Nor does it appear to be Fuzzy logic. For evidence to support this, see these threads
Click to expand...

I know that you A-Theist Fanatics can't resist your Destiny to try and make simple things complicated, but let me restate what I have already said at least 100 times on this matter.

In a computer everything comes down to zeros (0) and ones (1). That is the kind of logic I am talking about. Everything ultimately expressable as nothing more than TRUE or FALSE.

In other words, no magic A-Theist "fuzzy" "logic".

(non-existent, mystical, supernatural, pseudo-scientific, claptrap)
 
Franko-Wraith wrote

Fate (or Karma [same difference])
Click to expand...

Depends on how you define fate. Karma is not incompatible with Free Will, indeed most people who believe in Karma neccesarily see it as the result of Free Will. You make a certain Free Will decision, and Karma is a pseudo-deterministic result of that Free Will decision. Universal predestination rules out any meaningfull karma mechanism because it rules out Free Will. However - if by 'fate' you mean that you determine your fate by your Free Will decisions then this use of 'fate' would be the same as karma.

It very much depends on whether you are saying fate is something that you create for yourself by your own actions in the present or whether those actions themselves are predetermined by fate since the beginning of time.

So Frank, which is it?

Was everything fatalistically predetermined at the beginning of time? (no karma)

Or is the future fatalistically determined by the present. (karma)

'fate' can mean both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom