What's new
By:
Filters

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

MrNobody said:
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Yeah, that was exactly why your unfair attack against me in that other thread was not worth my time. :lol: :hysterical:

I'd really like to know why you felt the need to take my post, snip a significant part, address something I've NEVER said, mention something that other posters have said but not me, then stir it all up with a good portion of of bullshit and throw it all in my face?

Meh, I don't really expect a clear, honest answer to that. You've made your bed, now have a good night's sleep in it. :biggrin:

[STRIKE]See[/STRIKE] Read ya tomorrow. :tobed:
Click to expand...

First of all, I quoted this poster in full. So how is that even related, except both were discussing religion?

What am I supposed to answer? You haven't quoted the posts between us that you're referring to and never answered the other one.

You're an atheist, I'm not. On the other thread, you said it wasn't worth debating the subject, but here you are again, on this thread, debating it. :confused2:

Good night.

ADDED: By "this poster" I mean I quoted SPSince83 in full - the poster that you took my post from that you quoted when you wrote this. As for the other thread, I was actually concerned that you would misunderstand me or I hadn't said enough to clarify. I'm happy to take that up with you, Mr Nobody. I do not want a fight with you. I like most of your posts and respect you. Peace.
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria, seriously, can you just DROP IT for a week or two and see how we both feel about it then? We're still angry with each other. Okay. Making comments about me or about the disagreement to other posters is not "dropping it."
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Gizmo said:
Sez ye who claim to have 'never believed in god', yet you have a position on Christianity ? That's funny .

And you do believe in Xenu, et al ?

Dude, tell me you are pulling my leg !
Click to expand...

Terril was responding to Jose. Also, did you know that Terril's dad was a Christian scholar? Haven't we said here many times that
one doesn't have to be a member of a religion in order to know about it?
 
Knowing Things about the Infinite.

Originally Posted by SPsince83 View Post
Theism, atheism, and anti-theism are subsets of "belief" which is the acceptance of truth or falseness of a position without certain knowledge. Gnosis and agnosis are conditions of knowledge. One either knows or does not. Given "infinity" a finite being can gave no certain knowledge. Therefore all positions on infinity fall under belief rather than knowledge. EVERYONE is agnostic on infinity. One simply cannot KNOW there is or isn't a god. Evidence or presupposion now enter in. I am an atheist because I see no evidence to accept anyone's prior claims of gods and believe me that I've looked at most of the apologies theists have given and the critiques. This does not just apply to christians nor even to monotheists. Pantheists as well. I am agnostic to the degree that I don't KNOW there is no god. I just find the likelyhood to be many orders of magnitude to the right of the decimal point.

I wanted to take this opportunity to comment about the above post of SPsince83. Basically I think it is a fairly good post but I have some issues with it. The first one relates to this sentence:

"One either knows or does not. Given "infinity" a finite being can have no certain knowledge. Therefor all positions on infinity fall under belief rather than knowledge."

I get the point which SPS is making but to me, every clause in the above sentence is in error.

Item #1 "One either knows or does not." That is two valued logic and in this context, it does not make sense. For example, an 11th grade student knows quite a bit about Physics. Einstein knew vastly more about it than the student. Neither person knew all there is to know about physics but the student only knew a tiny percentage of what Einstein knew. If Item #1 was an absolute truth, then both Einstein and the student don't know physics so their knowledge is equal. Clearly that is not the case.

Item #2 "Given "infinity" a finite being can have no certain knowledge". I don't concede that a being can be considered finite. That is not a given by any means. Even if one could prove that a being is finite, it cannot be taken as a given that such a being can have no certain knowledge. That statement can easily be shown to be false.

Item #3 "Therefore all positions on infinity fall under belief rather than knowlege" That sentence can easily be proven to be false. Many things can be known mathematically about something which is infinite. I will provide some examples using the counting numbers, called integers.

First we know for certain that there is no largest counting integer because if such a number was stated, we could just add one to that and create an even larger integer.
Second, if we compute the inverse of an integer, using our number system based on the number 10, some integers such as 1/2 and 1/4 will quickly end in 0.5 and 0.25. However, if we try and compute 1/3 we get .3333..... and the 3's continue an infinite number of times. We know all kinds of things about such decimal expansions. We know they will go on forever. We know that other numbers will never come up in such expansions, for example the integer 7 will never appear no matter how far out we go in the expansion.

Getting a little more advanced, we know that the infinite expansion of 1/2 raised the the nth power will get closer and closer to the integer "1'" as the expansion continues:
For example, 1/2 = .50, 1/2 + 1/4 = .75, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 = .875, ad infinitum. This is the very beginnings of the subject of calculus and using elementary calculus we can say that the "answer" to any particular expansion gets closer and closer to 1 each time the next term is added. Notice also, that each succeeding term being added is getting tinier and tinier so that no matter how many term are added, the answer can never be bigger than "1". In fact, using a finite number of terms, the answer can get as close to "1" as one wants to make it but the answer can never reach the number "1". To reach the number "1", one can say that as the number of terms increases towards infinity, the answer approaches "1"

Mathematicians express the sum of this infinite series by saying as the number of terms, "n", tends towards infinity, the value of the function tends towards "1".

So in conclusion many, many properties can be known with total certainty about infinite sets of things and infinite series of numbers.

Don't get me wrong, SPs, I am aware of what you were attempting to express in your post cited above and I agree with part of what you are saying. However, I believe that with some of your remarks you are painting with much too broad of a brush.
Lakey
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria Cuervo said:
Actually that is not what occurred. from this end it was clear I was viciously attacked.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get in the middle of you and JustSheila, or at least, not more than I already have done.

Let's just say that many people here have quarrelled and that some of the quarrels were between good people who, for various reasons, had become upset with the other one. As you know, people who are angry often say some strongly worded things.

I said what I said to Jose not because he defended you but because he poured gasoline on a bonfire whose flames were already merrily a'leapin' by saying some extremely mean things himself.

So then we have a couple people saying other people aren't behaving like Christians toward each other here. Well, like I said, Christians are like anybody else. They put their pants on one leg at a time. They lose their tempers. They're human.

As far as how to be a Christian in other respects like how much one wishes to divulge on a forum or whether one can be agnostic in some respects (your explanation of the word was appreciated)- well, I think there are many ways to be a Christian and how much one chooses to discuss probably has much to do with comfort level. There are always things people wish to keep private. Trouble is, this person's things may not be this other person's. And then people get puzzled because it's not the choice they'd have made.

You should discuss as much or as little of your ideology as you wish. Although someone once (actually a few times) said to (and about) me that if you divulge some detail of your life on a msg board that you should expect to see others discuss it, still, I say it's up to the person how much detail they want to provide.

Another factor is that we humans are big ol' monkeys. We pry and we tease and we mess with each other. Whatever spirituality a person has, he or she has, but evolutionarily speaking, we're primates and that means we are incredible pains in the ass.

By the way, I truly am glad you're here even though we have multiple points of disagreement. I do like the way you phrase things and I think it's great that you're discovering your own connection to the divine after leaving CofS. The ideological paths we exes take vary greatly and are of great interest, at least to me.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

JustSheila said:
You are a liar. Report me. I have the PM you originated to me that you are still denying. You stated earlier that you never originated a PM to anybody. Again, would you like me to post it? Should we ask other ESMB members to post any PMs you may have originated to them as well?
Click to expand...


Wow.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

JustSheila said:
Maria, seriously, can you just DROP IT for a week or two and see how we both feel about it then? We're still angry with each other. Okay. Making comments about me or about the disagreement to other posters is not "dropping it."
Click to expand...

there is an emotion but not anger, chicklet. :biggrin: Calling someone a liar - well them there's fightin' words. Ok so if I am off by one pm somewhere, forgive me Lord but really who the heck cares!!!
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

. . .
How about a little musical interlude to lighten the mood around here . . .

[video=youtube;o1tj2zJ2Wvg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1tj2zJ2Wvg[/video]

:coolwink:
​
 
Re: Knowing Things about the Infinite.

lkwdblds said:
Originally Posted by SPsince83 View Post
Theism, atheism, and anti-theism are subsets of "belief" which is the acceptance of truth or falseness of a position without certain knowledge. Gnosis and agnosis are conditions of knowledge. One either knows or does not. Given "infinity" a finite being can gave no certain knowledge. Therefore all positions on infinity fall under belief rather than knowledge. EVERYONE is agnostic on infinity. One simply cannot KNOW there is or isn't a god. Evidence or presupposion now enter in. I am an atheist because I see no evidence to accept anyone's prior claims of gods and believe me that I've looked at most of the apologies theists have given and the critiques. This does not just apply to christians nor even to monotheists. Pantheists as well. I am agnostic to the degree that I don't KNOW there is no god. I just find the likelyhood to be many orders of magnitude to the right of the decimal point.

I wanted to take this opportunity to comment about the above post of SPsince83. Basically I think it is a fairly good post but I have some issues with it. The first one relates to this sentence:

"One either knows or does not. Given "infinity" a finite being can have no certain knowledge. Therefor all positions on infinity fall under belief rather than knowledge."

I get the point which SPS is making but to me, every clause in the above sentence is in error.

Item #1 "One either knows or does not." That is two valued logic and in this context, it does not make sense. For example, an 11th grade student knows quite a bit about Physics. Einstein knew vastly more about it than the student. Neither person knew all there is to know about physics but the student only knew a tiny percentage of what Einstein knew. If Item #1 was an absolute truth, then both Einstein and the student don't know physics so their knowledge is equal. Clearly that is not the case.

Item #2 "Given "infinity" a finite being can have no certain knowledge". I don't concede that a being can be considered finite. That is not a given by any means. Even if one could prove that a being is finite, it cannot be taken as a given that such a being can have no certain knowledge. That statement can easily be shown to be false.

Item #3 "Therefore all positions on infinity fall under belief rather than knowlege" That sentence can easily be proven to be false. Many things can be known mathematically about something which is infinite. I will provide some examples using the counting numbers, called integers.

First we know for certain that there is no largest counting integer because if such a number was stated, we could just add one to that and create an even larger integer.
Second, if we compute the inverse of an integer, using our number system based on the number 10, some integers such as 1/2 and 1/4 will quickly end in 0.5 and 0.25. However, if we try and compute 1/3 we get .3333..... and the 3's continue an infinite number of times. We know all kinds of things about such decimal expansions. We know they will go on forever. We know that other numbers will never come up in such expansions, for example the integer 7 will never appear no matter how far out we go in the expansion.

Getting a little more advanced, we know that the infinite expansion of 1/2 raised the the nth power will get closer and closer to the integer "1'" as the expansion continues:
For example, 1/2 = .50, 1/2 + 1/4 = .75, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 = .875, ad infinitum. This is the very beginnings of the subject of calculus and using elementary calculus we can say that the "answer" to any particular expansion gets closer and closer to 1 each time the next term is added. Notice also, that each succeeding term being added is getting tinier and tinier so that no matter how many term are added, the answer can never be bigger than "1". In fact, using a finite number of terms, the answer can get as close to "1" as one wants to make it but the answer can never reach the number "1". To reach the number "1", one can say that as the number of terms increases towards infinity, the answer approaches "1"

Mathematicians express the sum of this infinite series by saying as the number of terms, "n", tends towards infinity, the value of the function tends towards "1".

So in conclusion many, many properties can be known with total certainty about infinite sets of things and infinite series of numbers.

Don't get me wrong, SPs, I am aware of what you were attempting to express in your post cited above and I agree with part of what you are saying. However, I believe that with some of your remarks you are painting with much too broad of a brush.
Lakey
Click to expand...

It can be difficult to express completely and succinctly in on short post that which is the subject of volumes. Infinity is indeed a mathematical construct but you frequently hear the expression regarding the ability of a puny human to understand the infinite mind of god or gods. And yes there are greater and lesser degrees of knowledge on any given subject, some questions are in fact binary. God or gods either exist or they do not. I can't think of an intermediate position, although there may be one I suppose. Spiritual beings are real or imaginary. Can't think of an intermediate position.

You are correct that many things are asymptotic and never quite run parallel or cross the limit. But I was speaking of infinity in the theocratic or spiritual usage rather than the mathematical. But then again the concept of "proof" scientifically only exists in mathematics. Evidence leading to a conclusion is not "proof" in any certain sense and can be modified based on new observations and evidence. I'm referring here to things which cannot be observed in any reliably repeatable way with any predictive value. If I cannot test a given hypothesis, how do I decide it's veracity? And can you give me a method of discerning between the imperceptible and the non-existent?
]
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria Cuervo said:
there is an emotion but not anger, chicklet. :biggrin: Calling someone a liar - well them there's fightin' words. Ok so if I am off by one pm somewhere, forgive me Lord but really who the heck cares!!!
Click to expand...

The gloves are off. C'mon Newbie, go ahead, stir up some shit. Why else are you here except to distract, disrupt and stir up shit as much as possible? Good job! I see as soon as others thought peace was a good idea, you stirred it up even more.

I like the musical interlude. It adds dimension to this comical, transparent act of loving kindness forgiveness peace of yours.

[video=youtube;qzPcMzy4WI8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzPcMzy4WI8[/video]
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Claire Swazey said:
I'm not going to get in the middle of you and JustSheila, or at least, not more than I already have done.

Let's just say that many people here have quarrelled and that some of the quarrels were between good people who, for various reasons, had become upset with the other one. As you know, people who are angry often say some strongly worded things.

I was followed around on ESMB for about a year by one poster, every time I made a post, he would follow right behind me and attempt to negate my post. Actually, I knew this person socially and he is a nice guy. His motive was noble, he meant well and thought he was doing the right thing. Basically we agreed on almost everything except for one large item. I never went in behind him and tried to sabotage his posts. Though we were both well intended good people, he did everything humanly possible to stop my opinions from influencing ESMB members. Meanwhile, I never attempted to block his views from being heard.

My point is that good people can get into a quarrel over posting but It is not a matter of being good or well intended which drives the quarrel, it is a matter of agenda. One poster's agenda is only to impart information and/or anecdotes to viewers and to get feedback from them and engage in further discussion. Meanwhile, this type of poster allows others to post their views, even if those views are contradictory. The second poster has a different agenda. Their agenda has to do with them having certainty that their view of things is correct and because of that, they need to derail viewpoints of others who don't share their views. I don't consider these two posters to be equal contributors to their quarrel. One poster is playing by the rules and is allowing opposing viewpoints to be heard while the second poster has an agenda. Their agenda is usually not divulged but it commands him or her to go after posters who they consider may be a threat to whatever viewpoint they espouse.

I said what I said to Jose not because he defended you but because he poured gasoline on a bonfire whose flames were already merrily a'leapin' by saying some extremely mean things himself.

So then we have a couple people saying other people aren't behaving like Christians toward each other here. Well, like I said, Christians are like anybody else. They put their pants on one leg at a time. They lose their tempers. They're human.

As far as how to be a Christian in other respects like how much one wishes to divulge on a forum or whether one can be agnostic in some respects (your explanation of the word was appreciated)- well, I think there are many ways to be a Christian and how much one chooses to discuss probably has much to do with comfort level. There are always things people wish to keep private. Trouble is, this person's things may not be this other person's. And then people get puzzled because it's not the choice they'd have made.

You should discuss as much or as little of your ideology as you wish. Although someone once (actually a few times) said to (and about) me that if you divulge some detail of your life on a msg board that you should expect to see others discuss it, still, I say it's up to the person how much detail they want to provide.

I agree with your point about divulging some detail of you life on a msg board, If you do that and others comment and discuss it you can't complain about that but you can complain about the manner in which they discuss it.

Another factor is that we humans are big ol' monkeys. We pry and we tease and we mess with each other. Whatever spirituality a person has, he or she has, but evolutionarily speaking, we're primates and that means we are incredible pains in the ass.

By the way, I truly am glad you're here even though we have multiple points of disagreement. I do like the way you phrase things and I think it's great that you're discovering your own connection to the divine after leaving CofS. The ideological paths we exes take vary greatly and are of great interest, at least to me.
Click to expand...

Good people can get into a quarrel over posting but it is not a matter of being good or well intended which drives most quarrels, it often is a matter of an agenda. One poster has no agenda except that of imparting information to viewers, getting feedback from them and engaging in further discussions. The second poster has a different agenda. for some reason usually not revealed. They have certainty that their view of things is correct and when they spot someone who they feel is opposing their view, they feel compelled to criticize their posts and often criticize some personal traits of the poster as well. When this happens, the poster being attacked gets upset and fight's back. Once the fight has started it is often difficult to see who is the real instigator. To be politically correct, we often treat both parties as equal contributors to the quarrel.

Christians may be like the rest of us in many respects such as putting on their pants, one leg at a time. However, Christianity is built to a large part on loving others and on forgiveness. If two Christians are quarreling and these two traits are not in evidence, to me, that is a red flag that there MAY be some things having to do with the argument that we board members are not privy to. Maybe some sort of hidden agenda is present but those are usually not visible and difficult to spot. One can only speculate that an agenda MAY exist but unless one knows for certain, the default option should be to not be accusatory unless one has facts with which to back up their speculation.
Lakey
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey, My point is only that I have, several times, asked her to let it go. This has only resulted in her redoubling efforts to keep escalating not just this dispute, but a disagreement I had with another poster a few days ago where she jumped in the middle and revived the post in an effort to revive and escalate that disagreement. it. It is a distraction and a waste of my time and everyone else's, including yours. And frankly, it's just nasty. As it continues, her intentions become more clear. I'm willing to drop it at any time. It's not me you need to speak to. You don't know whether she has an agenda or not, nor do I, but these sort of actions ares not healthy for ESMB or anyone else here but there's no stopping her, lol, she thinks she's on a mission or something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top