 | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | (...) What if God isn't perfect? What if he purposefully put in mistakes as a sort of "test of faith"? (...) We could be, where is your undeniable proof that we aren't? For all you know your entire reality is just some form of illusion. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) How is that relevant to Dave's question? Ryan stated his belief that the bible (not portions, or "except the bits to test our faith") is literal truth. If one holds the entirety as literal truth, then any example of non-literal truth (...) (24 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | (...) Uh...what question? Are you getting something I'm not or did I miss another meeting? (...) A yup. (...) Not entirely true, it could all be literally true whilst parts could still be incorrect. You might ask why, but then I'd have to start (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) <many other people wrote, but the attributions have been snipped> (...) Oops, silly me. c/question/argument (...) Go ahead, amaze me. Statement: the Bible is all literal truth. Statement: part of the bible is not literal truth. I'm fascinated (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | (...) Okay let's really break this down first. You have two things, A and B. A is true, but only when B is false B is true, but only when A is false A is true, and so is B, therefore the premises are false. Okay, that's some standard logic right (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | | Disregard my last post, I mistyped a few of my sentences (got all my true and false mixed up), I also bothered to run spellcheck this time. (...) Okay let's really break this down first. You have two things, A and B. A is true, but only when B is (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | | (...) You are hedging the issue. He asked you a simple question, "Which is correct?" (I would add an "and why" to it, though) and you avoid it by saying "One of them." This is not answering his question. As well answer the math teacher's question of (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | | | (...) No I'm really not son, I broke it down to pure logic. I can even break it down further into truth tables, but I doubt you even know what those are so I won't bother. (...) Actually that isn't what he asked me. Don't you know what a premise is? (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | | (...) It's times like this when I wish we could score articles as "Troll" and "Obvious ego autoflagellation" like on Slashdot... :-P Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Well, we can't... but we CAN spotlight stuff we agree with. You got my vote on this one, Brother Sproat. ++Lar (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | A washed-out Robert (Was: Robert gets to invalidate logic) —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Wow, cool, thanks Brother Lar. Keep the flattery up, you might make a Larritarian out of me yet! ;-) I'm noticing (and I'm sure it's been observed before) that these kind of noisemakers come in cycles, but only last a short time. Burn brightly (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I have not even BEGUN to inflate my ego! I can produce devastating walls of text in my sleep the likes of your puny brain has yet to comprehend! `, Þ Robert (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Even awake for that matter, I suspect, as comprehending gibberish that has no underlying meaning is a bit beyond Sproat's prowess. I've got one of those gibberish generators too, though, so producing text that is incomprehensible isn't much of (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Well I suppose if I was doing some social engineering I could stop...but since I'm not that might be a problem. If I was social engineering anyone I would not be so straight forward and blunt in my posts. Robert (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | | | (...) So why you just don't cut your holly book into two slices, and put your intellect between them and shove it all together to your holly hole, instead just losing your holly time here? If you want to debate, than debate till the end, if you (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I tell ya, seems you guys have absolutely no sense of humor, at all. (...) There be no holly on my intellect! What do I look like, a jolly fat elf with a sack full of presents? Robert (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Indeed it has. You might want to parcel it out a bit cautiously, as it would be a shame to run out of it too soon. ++Lar (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | (...) Heh..heh..heheheh.he...e...heheh. Selçuk (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't know what you're smokin....but I want some! : ) Robert (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | (...) Not smoking anything but Camel, but, just breathing your melodious fart that sounds like "oh my dear lovely and only intellect" maybe? Selçuk PS. Why don't you put your true identity that we are already familiar, Hatter? (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) You're equivocating. James has done a good job of fielding your foul balls while I've been away, but I'd like to point out a few additional flaws in your logic. (...) In fact, it is nothing at all like that. It is like this: "If all of The (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | | | (...) Not at all. An entire text that I have written may represent the truth of what I believe, however when things are taken out of context, they do not represent the truth of what I believe. Therefore as a whole it is true, but not when broken (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Trying to find equivocation in your arguments is like trying to find grass in a meadow. I don't have all that much experience on Usenet, as you so proudly proclaim yourself to have, but your style of argument (about which, see below) was old (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | | | (...) Again simply accusing me of being equivocal, but this time doing it in a rather prolix over exasperated way, as if that somehow makes it any less transparent and laughable. In case you hadn't noticed I'm still "holding" the position I started (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) There no reason to say this except to let him know that you don't really believe he's right and your wrong, i.e. you *do* have a problem letting him believe you're wrong and he's right. Bruce (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | | | (...) Ahh, but that's only your interpretation of it, remember, I'm an experienced social engineer. Given that you really can't say what I really mean or think. That's not to say I'm trying to manipulate anybody, it just means I'm trying to control (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) More sophistries. And yes, I can say it (there it is above). Not only that, I'm right. (...) You failed in your stated purpose. It seems you aren't as clever as you like to think you are. (...) Sometimes known as jerking people around. What's (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | | | (...) Let's keep you thinking that way, shall we? (...) I like how you say I failed in my stated purpose, but then fail to explain why. Not that it's any real surprise. (...) If you say so. (...) No, not at all. When I take a side I try to argue and (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) That's a pretty pathetic comeback. I thought you said you are clever - I'd figure you'd use something good for a stock phrase. I'm not impressed. (...) Oh, I'm sorry - you keep telling me how clever you are. I thought you could figure it out. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | | | (...) Well your lame was pretty pathetic. You shouldn't expect any more than you're willing to give out yourself. (...) I think maybe I missed a meeting, I didn't know we were flaming against one another. If that was the case I probably would have (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) Hahaha. You got ever worse - where's this cleverness you keep gloating about? A Mystic 8-Ball has better comebacks. Concentrate and ask again. (...) I think I missed that same meeting - why are you flaming *everyone*? I'm for one sick of it. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Aaron West
|
| | | | | | | And now for something completely different: "Gentlemen, you have no chance. Make your time." www.planetstarsiege....video.html Captain West, LSF Ertbergle (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Steve Lane
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That explains a lot! I'm now quite glad we don't share an interest in Transformers. Steve (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | | (...) Bobby, just answer just *one* question, ok? Just *one*. Here goes...what is your point? *shake* *shake* *shake* ...OUTLOOK NOT SO GOOD... *shake* *shake* *shake* ...REPLY HAZY, TRY AGAIN... *shake* *shake* *shake* ...VERY DOUBTFUL... *shake* (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh you are so right, what can I say, I guess ya beat me, huh Bruce? (...) Well I'm not actually. I only flame when I get upset or when I'm hired and certainly haven't been hired for anything here, and I'm not upset...it seems you are though. I (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Immense powers of destruction! I sleep better at night knowing that. (...) And you're actively defending us from external onslaught! I sleep better at night knowing that too. (...) OK, clue us in. (...) When we said *who* was the Mad Hatter? I (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm still waiting on your cleverness... (...) Not for lack of trying. (...) Hey, I'm just having some fun! I think you need to develop a thicker skin. Note above how *you* are the one claiming *we* (that includes you, junior) are flaming each (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) Hey Bruce, watch yer attributions - You're actually replying to your own post ((URL) I really think such long & scathin) replies belong in e-mail, rather than a public post. I'd say the same to Robert / Matthew / Mad / ??? but I feel it would (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) I understand the NBA, as noted before here, and the guy retaliating always getting called for the foul. :-) I take it you didn't make it to the end of message, where I said the following: (...) Happy? Bruce (24 years ago, 8-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) BZZT, wrong. Thanks for playing, though. If you want to use logic terminology to restate my challange, please do it correctly. Statement: A is true if and only if all occurances of B are true. Statement: B is false. Reconcile away. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | (...) Oh really, how so? (...) Oh, and whose logistic standards would those be? I'm partial to Copi and Cohen's work myself. You do realize that logic isn't exactly something written in stone, right son? (...) Ahh but that's putting it into your (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robert gets to invalidate logic (was Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)) —Robert Bevens
|
| | | | Oops, in case anyone caught it I sorta used the f word in my last post, I didn't mean to do that, I have since applied a filter in my Lugnet spell checker which will alert me to it if it happens again. Again I apologize to anyone who has been (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
