-
- Taylor
- Registered User
-
Member for 18 years, 3 months, and 17 days
Last active Thu, Jan, 14 2016 16:35:49
- 8 Followers
- 12,626 Total Posts
- 83 Thanks
-
Oct 6, 2008
I have only one thing to say about your list:Posted in: Ugstal Urniancepter Doggienavicenewton Bobwebacks
-
Oct 6, 2008
@ Magic Mage: Yes indeed there are, read the comment right below yoursPosted in: Thoughts on Religion.
@Tarmogoyf: Yes I am wrong.... that's what I said.... And this is not 'about you.' I am writing this blog because of all the many people with your point of view that I have come across on these forums.
1)No, it's clearly not, as you say in your next point.
2) See, your linking the two together. The problem here is that you feel religion=ignorance. <- This is wrong. This is right-> religion=religion and ignorance=ignorance. Many very smart people had faith, from Newton to Einstein.
3) YOU seem to have a very strong belief in you're own rightness. I am talking about people like you(and me).
4) See, you lumping all theists into the same group again. That would be like me saying all atheist think its ok to have sex with minors because I found a video on youtube by an atheist that was saying it was ok. SOME SMALL groups of theist feel that faith and modern science can't go hand and hand. But MOST theist believe that God made the universe with a set of rules, and we are allowed to figure out those rules, which is also called science.
5) So, you believe if she gave up her faith her IQ would jump?
I do not know if your PS is a joke or not, so I do not know how to respond to it. If you would like to talk to me more please go here:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=109078&page=6 -
Sep 29, 2008
Taylor posted a message on Invisible Pink UnicornsThe amount I know about everything, compared to the amount that CAN be known about everything, is almost exactly 0. So, I do not know how probable it is.Posted in: Thoughts on Religion.
Yes, exactly my point. TYQuote from Cabalwannabe »Life is for living, not pointing the finger saying "My understanding of the world is better, so you're inferior to me". -
Aug 13, 2008
Taylor posted a message on Incredible what 3 years can change.hu, I live in NH. You going to the PTQ this week?Posted in: The Cadet's Random Idiocies
I can't make it. -
Jul 24, 2008
Taylor posted a message on Experience: what you don't have until after you need it.But everything is much easier when your level one.Posted in: Thoughts on Religion.
-
Mar 4, 2008
Taylor posted a message on If I am to have a Blog... This post should be in it!You should go over to the debate section than:Posted in: Thoughts on Religion.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/forumdisplay.php?f=217
I think if you posted a mortified version of this reply on there as a topic starter you might be surprised at the number of very intelligent Theists come out to argue. -
Mar 3, 2008
Taylor posted a message on If I am to have a Blog... This post should be in it!Your last statement is very arrogant. One of the basic forces behind me becoming agnostic was because I did not feel like my opinion was more or less valued than anyone else's.(even-though I love to argue with people, I found I was only able to form arguments if I understood the other person's side)Posted in: Thoughts on Religion.
The "only if you are willing to comprehend" bit seems to metaphysical and cryptic and as such does not go with the rest of your post. -
Mar 3, 2008
I find that drafting in this set is very hard. It really makes you remember what you have picked, and pushes you if you do not. The creature type in most other drafts is the lest important part, but here its the most. As such you have to know EVERYTHING about EACH card you drafted.Posted in: TarmoBlog
I have won drafts where I could just barley remember which color I was drafting I was so tired, but for this, you COULD NOT do that. (and the signals are much harder to read, since its color AND creature type)
I think that limited in this formate is about as far from 'n00b' as you can get.
As for the set design being 'n00b' I think they did a much better job with this tribal block than with the lest. They went back a re-did EVERY creature type in ALL of magic, to make sure changelings where good. I love looking back at the old cards and seeing what they changed.... ITS COOL!
This was a good set to kick off the new creature type policy! - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And I stuck to pretty much just that.
I also stated a few tautologies like:
Some philosophical facts, like:And, asked a bunch of questions about how you justified declaring things unassailable.
Can you show me where I goal-post-shifted?
I mean, YOU were talking about a bunch of other stuff. But, you were talking past me, so I didn't really feel the need to respond to it. I was more talking about how the Munchhausen trilemma forces us to do what Highroller is talking about to DJK3654. It is also related to the discussion you are having with Crushing00 on the other thread; mainly, logic can't be used to prove logic. Thus, you MUST (as a logical necessity) accept SOMETHING without justification, so you can justify other things. You have to have a bases to start from, and you can't justify your bases because -if you do- it no longer is your bases; your justification is and will become your new bases unless you try to justify IT, which only kicks the can further down the road.
If you want a more formal version of what we're all trying to say, you should check out Tarski's undefinability theorem. It is -again- more of the same.
Humans CANNOT prove everything; we've proven it.
You might be trying to make this about something else, but I'm not going into your "pick AorB" strawman.
You believe feelings -like a belief in faith or a belief in a desire for pleasure- are unassailable. Full stop. End of discussion.
"The feeling is a description of my inarguable experience. I know what I am feeling. "
So, you -or anyone else- can't 'coherently' question my own thoughts. You can't tell me I 'shouldn't' have faith anymore than I can tell you you 'shouldn't' like pleasure. So, I guess that's that. There isn't any disagreement, only a need for clarification, which has been given. I have faith (which is a mod of thought), and you can't argue.
Right? I am understanding your point correctly? (<-not rhetorical)
Since I don't share you're opinion that some things 'should be' unassailable, I will fully admit this to be an axiom.
I mean, aren't we arguing and questioning it right now?
How are you justifying
I thought that was one of the major issues people had with 'faith;' that it was declared "inarguable and unquestionable." That it was a feeling they have deep inside they know to be true.
How can you tell me your feelings about pleasure and pain are assailable, but mine about the scientific method shouldn't be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchhausen_trilemma
I guess I confused the forum software with my "ü."
If you look at the format of that post (quote the original, and note it's not been edited by me) you can see it does. I guess the assumption was I was making some glib statement about circular reasoning with a circular link.
I wasn't.
I was trying to invoke the Munchhausen trilemma, which -as far as I know- is inescapable. We all -as far as I know- are stuck in that metaphorical mud, with no way out.
I am not arguing what 'requires' justification. I am simply pointing out things that are without justification are -by definition- "unjustified."
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sleep deprived and stressed out; so, I'm not going to tell you my reading of that block of text is spot on, but the ONLY specific 'method' he has mentioned so far (as far as I can tell) is 'science.' So, my reading of that quote was "I can then using this principle (which is science and some other stuff I'm not naming) to choose the methods of justification (scientific method) for truth by assuming those methods (scientific method) are true because they fit my principle(which is -again- science and some other stuff I'm not naming)."
But -Stairc- you might disagree to what extent that is 'circular reasoning' (because of the 'some other stuff I'm not naming'); however, you know where I am going with this. He's going to have to eventually accept something without proof or justification, 'faith,' as a starting point. I mean, he already has admitted as much a few times, he's just not seeing it.
We both know he's going round in circles trying to catch his own tail, or pull himself out of the mud by his own hair.
You might as well have said: "I am justified in assuming the Bible is true, because the Bible says right in it that it's true."Can you give a concrete example? Or imagine one?
So, you don't see any connection between "simply affirming" something is true (knowing you'll never have absolute proof) and "faith?"
Cuz....
"Faith is complete confidence or trust in a person or thing; or a belief not based on proof."[1]
Anyway, in your OP, you asked: "What would change your mind?"
I would like to ask you what it would take to shake your 'confidence' in the scientific method?
But, not just hate towards them, hate towards Islam.
They want Muslims living in the West to be mistrusted and shunned. They want non-radical Muslims to be kicked out of communities.
They want everyone who is not Muslim to hate Muslims, so -in that disrepair- those hated Muslims will turn to ISIS.
I'm just going to leave these here:
http://imgur.com/gallery/YUiKI
And, do you have faith in that method?
But, since I've already done my own literature search and gotten info I am satisfied with, I guess I shouldn't let your Argument from Ignorance bother me.