Is time an illusion?

[367kGNh0]

How come your most common contribution to any thread (that I've noticed at least) is to insult people?

Myself or "Furry Guy"?

I've had much fun watching the back and forth of the battling theories.

I can not agree more, you'd never guess it is a c++ forum

[helios]

Furry Guy.

you'd never guess it is a c++ forum

You should have seen the religion flamewar we had a few years ago. It went on for quite a few pages, as well. Fun times.

[zapshe]

Furry Guy.

Was that sarcastic?

You should have seen the religion flamewar we had a few years ago. It went on for quite a few pages, as well. Fun times.

Is there a link to that? I'm curious to read it if it's archived.

EDIT:

I think I found it, is it this one? :
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/126687/

[helios]

No, it was even older, although the one I'm talking about didn't get quite as long as that one. Looks fun; a shame it seems it happened during one of my hiatuses.

[zapshe]

Lol, well I'm glad you look forward to forum wars! While we seem to argue a lot, I'm pretty sure we're a lot more similar than we are different.

[helios]

Oh, well, never mind! http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/126687/11/#msg688254
I guess I erased all memory of that one.

While we seem to argue a lot, I'm pretty sure we're a lot more similar than we are different.

Maybe. Me and my best friend get into all sorts of silly arguments because we both like to argue, and we can do it past the point everyone else is sick of listening to us.

[zapshe]

Yea, I read some of your posts on there!

[helios]

It was a fun read. It's a shame some people don't see the appeal of arguing for argument's sake, and seem to feel the need to rain on other people's parades. That post by BHX rather pissed me off.

[zapshe]

You don't know how hard I LOLed when you told him to gtfo ! And yea, arguing is nice to do, kind of like how others like sports.

[367kGNh0]

Wow, your defending claims there were on the hull alot shorter than yours here. A change in you or was it a matter on the topic?

[helios]

I didn't really make any claims in that thread, I was just tearing down Nathan's claims.
All arguments about religion are so played out it takes barely a sentence to respond to them. I can just say "Pascal's wager is invalid" or "argumentum ad infernum". A more complex discussion needs more complex replies.

Not to mention I'm not going to waste my time making elaborate rebuttals if I think the other person will come back with "but muh bible!" An appeal to authority is hard enough to take seriously when the authority is not imagined.

[zapshe]

Yea, only when they take away the bible to talk more logically about the existence of God can you actually have a decent argument going. But even then it really goes no where.

I was having a conversation with a classmate. By the end of the discussion I practically made her realize everything she was believing made no sense. But after that day, it was almost like she started blocking out all the logic when it didn't come to terms with her belief. I guess fear, social acceptance, and the way God is drilled into people's minds at a young age make it hard for logic to make its way in.

[helios]

Humans are creatures of habit. You can't change someone's worldview in a conversation, but you can make them question themselves, which will eventually let them arrive at their own conclusion, rather than rely on what others have told them. That's generally the best you can hope for.

Some people, like Nathan, don't care if they believe false things, and they believe that even considering whether what they believe is true is wrong. You can't reason with those people; they've locked their brains and thrown away the key. Like I said in that thread, I think that's one of the scariest aspects of religion, because such people can be convinced to do anything without hesitation. You can't convince someone who's always asking "why" that driving a truck into a crowd is the right thing to do.

[367kGNh0]

By the end of the discussion I practically made her realize everything she was believing made no sense. But after that day, it was almost like she started blocking out all the logic when it didn't come to terms with her belief. I guess fear, social acceptance, and the way God is drilled into people's minds at a young age make it hard for logic to make its way in.

Goodness, are you sure you are not exaggerating? Such realisation and contemplation can be very impactful, making somebody question their existence is plausible, but is it too much?

[zapshe]

Yep. And people will say that their religion is peaceful (which most religions aren't), but that's not even the point. They throw out logic which means they can be convinced to do anything as long as it's what God wanted.

There are those that try to use logic in their interpretations (to get passed those minor inaccurate science claims), but then you have to wonder where they draw the line. If you keep logic throughout your belief, you'll inevitably conflict. There should be a voice in your head making you wonder why you trust a random book to begin with.

You can think back, realize it was probably because of family practices that you now are the religion you are. Look around, and realize there's a lot of other religions out there, and they all can't be true. Look at history, then you realize even more inaccuracies in most religions and that being crucified horribly like that probably doesn't put you in a forgiving mood.

[367kGNh0]

You can think back, realize it was probably because of family practices that you now are the religion you are. Look around, and realize there's a lot of other religions out there, and they all can't be true. Look at history, then you realize even more inaccuracies in most religions and that being crucified horribly like that probably doesn't put you in a forgiving mood.

Ok we are going a little rudderless here, but to your claims on their logic bypassing. They could say god made logic and is, therefore, the only one who can defy it

[z05DSL3A]

I always think of Douglas Adams when God and logic are mentioned together...

“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[helios]

Then I could say

hypothetical me wrote:

If God isn't bound by the laws of logic then you can't make any statements about him. You could say "God is good" and it might be true, false, both, neither, or all four simultaneously. An illogical (or prelogical) god is inherently unknowable to a human, so any claims coming from supposed revelation can be dismissed without analysis.

[zapshe]

They could say god made logic and is, therefore, the only one who can defy it

And I could say I am God. No evidence = no claim. You can't have a working system called logic, then say it works differently with God for no reason.


@Grey Wolf - That's because you look at the finished product and think "How!?" Simply look at evolution and realize we may be complex, but far from perfect. Our evolutionary traits are very clear. As for the rest of the story, it really uses twisted logic in order to make fun of people.

[z05DSL3A]

zapshe, no it's just that I like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and I get reminded of that passage, don't read more into it than is there.