Why am I not banned?

[420Joey]

I am trying to convince people of what exactly? That I can't explain the origin of everything? That's hardly a baseless belief. If you want to have faith in a god that's completely fine by me. I don't see the reason to get so angry about what I think unless you somehow doubt your own beliefs.

I did present logical arguments but you refuse to answer them, because you lack the ability to refute them.

Now go get laid virgin boy.

Your again being dishonest, papaya. That's not what you state. You hardly ever present argument and I'm not going to click on a link that shows an instance where you may have been trying to construct some meaningful dialogue (although I doubt that) when in the last 2 weeks you have almost 500 posts intended to insult or debunk (which you never do). You have nothing to contrast which is fine but please stop like an immature child. Your switching things around, or trying to, which is fine but one day you'll be forced to grow up and conduct yourself properly when people have differing views especially when it comes to a frame of reference for reality which is a supposition at best. Stop letting it consume you, stop trolling. It will be O.K

 

[YoYoPapaya]

If you don't look at the arguments then we can't really discuss them can we?

My guess is that you already looked at them but couldn't come up with an answer so you choose to pretend you don't care. If you don't want your beliefs challenged, I think a science forum is a bad place for you. There are plenty of religious forums where people will agree with you that atheism is evil and magic jews can walk on water.

 

[420Joey]

Dude I read the content of your thread, it was retarded so I closed it. Here is the content of your topic's main post.

There are a lot of religions in the world. New ones are created all the time. How do you determine what the chances are for each of the religions to be real and the other just superstitions?

Personally I KNOW that Pastafarianism is the one true religion, but I'm sure that other religious people feel there same way about their religion as well.

So let's hear.
YoYoPapaya

I've allready explained that you have a predisposed bias towards god because of organized religion. I dont believe in organized religion. Not in the slightest. What argument do you have here or did you present? It sounds like half-retarded trolling to me with the pastaficm shit.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

You should have read on. It's not about organised religion. It's about all beliefs imaginable. I post an equation later in the thread, that you should take a look at, if you're genuinely interested.

 

[chimpkin]

I didn't find it trolling...he's got an odd way of putting it.

But which religion IS the one true religion...and since we don't know the answer how can one calculate the probability you're worshiping the right deity(deities) in the right way or ways?

That's a valid question.

Just because you were raised to regard your own natal religion as "The One", or converted, does not make it so.

You may think Yoyo's making fun of religion with Pastafarianism, but that's an assumption...quite frankly you ought to ignore the FSM worship and examine the question.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

I didn't find it trolling...he's got an odd way of putting it.

But which religion IS the one true religion...and since we don't know the answer how can one calculate the probability you're worshiping the right deity(deities) in the right way or ways?

That's a valid question.

Just because you were raised to regard your own natal religion as "The One", or converted, does not make it so.

One of the reason that it's strangely worded is that it was a genuine thought experiment. I hadn't thought of the equation or tried to word those thoughts properly before.

 

[quadraphonics]

I didn't find it trolling...he's got an odd way of putting it.

It's obviously trolling - the overt mocking of religious convictions, as an invitation for the religious to fall all over themselves trying to prove something outside the realm of formal logic. Red flags everywhere, there.

But which religion IS the one true religion...and since we don't know the answer how can one calculate the probability you're worshiping the right deity(deities) in the right way or ways?

That's a valid question.

No, it isn't. There is no basis for such a statistical inference. Its a necessarily invalid question - a classic one, known as such by everyone for a long time - advanced as a troll pretext.

Just because you were raised to regard your own natal religion as "The One", or converted, does not make it so.

But it does make you a great target for trolls of this type, supposing you aren't canny enough to recognize and avoid such.

You may think Yoyo's making fun of religion with Pastafarianism, but that's an assumption...

If somebody is invoking a satire of religion, like Pastafarianism, then they are either mocking religion, or are really, really stupid. No assumptions required, there.

quite frankly you ought to ignore the FSM worship and examine the question.

Again, the question is invalid, and so an obvious troll pretext. The invocation of FSM should make that clear, and so alert people to what's going on. Anyone who'd overlook the FSM reference in their zeal to take the question seriously, has taken the trollbait.

 

[quinnsong]

this is not necessarily true. this is another example of not understanding that logic is not always enough. this is because we don't understand how everything works anyways. just trying to rationalize a subject doesn't mean it will automatically lead to a correct conclusion either.

before the double slit experiment was possible, we didn't know that an outcome could be changed just by viewing it. what do you think people would have said back then if you had speculated this? most likely that it is not logical or rational. that it is stupid or idiotic.

even scientists can't explain it that well and their explanations are speculations at this point.

Birch what other way do you propose that we try to explain or understand the unknown then?
I love the double slit experiment example as it makes my point,scientists will now need to question their own preconceived notions with logic and reason to explain something previously not known about particles and waves which may in turn explain other strange and unexplained phenomena. Science has the best chance of uncovering mysteries of this extraordinary universe and that is where I am throwing my hat.

i

 

[Randwolf]

Or, at least, that there are both good and bad trolls. The relevant question is how good at trolling someone is, measured by how much lulz they produce, and for whom.

I am to assume that a "good" troll produces more "lulz" then? Do you consider yourself to be a "good" troll?

I recognize and embrace the attraction of this site for what it is: a giant troll's nest, cultivated and maintained for exactly such purposes. It affords manifold opportunities to trolls at all levels of interest, sophistication and style.

Agreed, with reservations - see next reply.

It does almost nothing else well.

I believe that it is possible to learn here as well. On many levels - factual, cultural opinion, behavioral interaction, etc. from people of many different countries the world over. Do you disagree?

Adequate consideration would have precluded your comically inaccurate characterization of BillyT (and my own interactions with him).

I know you don't believe in differentiating facts from opinions, so I shall do so for you. That statement, sir, is straight up merely an opinion - yours in this case. I happen to disagree. So?

Also, when somebody doesn't give a fuck what I think of their opinion, they characteristically do not make a point of bringing it to my attention, repeatedly.

I was replying to more than one point Quad. This particular assertion applies only to whether we share a mutual opinion of BillyT's posts. In this instance, I don't give a fuck whether you agree with me or not. Pretty simple, eh?

There's a reason I've chosen to be somewhat oblique about that issue, and I see no reason to change course now.

So you're here posting time and again about something that you refuse to disclose your personal definition of. Interesting...

I suppose that you also would like to hold your "reason" for reticence close to your chest as well, correct?

I'd always been taught that it was redundant - and so, bad style - to point out that you are stating an opinion, in contexts where such should be obvious.

IMO, you should clearly state when you are advocating an opinion as opposed to stating a fact. In other words, don't sacrifice substance for "style". Just my opinion...

I'm pretty sure I've more-or-less advanced a simple definition of "troll" in this very thread, in my interactions with both you and Dwyddyr. To recap, it's somebody who engages in a divisive mode aimed to frustrate and humiliate "outsiders" for the amusement of "insiders."

So, contrary to your assertion above, here you are "advancing" a definition of trolling. Presumably you consider this definition to correct, right? So in the discourse that you mention, who is doing the trolling? You, me, dwy, all of the above or some other subset?

By all means, list them.

How about just one? Learning something new. Have you never accomplished that over the internet? How about here on Sci? If yes, I guess you incorporate gaining knowledge as part of the definition of trolling, right?

Now that's just petty - but instructive.

I know. I included it because it seemed to fit well with the other two points I was making. Us trolls have to be artistic, no?


Plus I get such lulz...

 

[YoYoPapaya]

It's obviously trolling - the overt mocking of religious convictions, as an invitation for the religious to fall all over themselves trying to prove something outside the realm of formal logic. Red flags everywhere, there.



No, it isn't. There is no basis for such a statistical inference. Its a necessarily invalid question - a classic one, known as such by everyone for a long time - advanced as a troll pretext.



But it does make you a great target for trolls of this type, supposing you aren't canny enough to recognize and avoid such.



If somebody is invoking a satire of religion, like Pastafarianism, then they are either mocking religion, or are really, really stupid. No assumptions required, there.



Again, the question is invalid, and so an obvious troll pretext. The invocation of FSM should make that clear, and so alert people to what's going on. Anyone who'd overlook the FSM reference in their zeal to take the question seriously, has taken the trollbait.

It's not a troll. I have never heard of or seen that equation before. If you think it's an invalid question you should prove it.

 

[birch]

Birch what other way do you propose that we try to explain or understand the unknown then?
I love the double slit experiment example as it makes my point,scientists will now need to question their own preconceived notions with logic and reason to explain something previously not known about particles and waves which may in turn explain other strange and unexplained phenomena. Science has the best chance of uncovering mysteries of this extraordinary universe and that is where I am throwing my hat.

i

i never denied this but that isn't the issue. the issue is people tend to believe that what we know now can be used to justify everything that is real or what is not. that's just as much ignorance and dogma as those who state it has to be supernatural.

they just can't leave it up to the fact we don't know, that some things can or have been proven to be hoaxes or untrue but not all of them are and that speculation is part of trying to understand or at least consider a subject.

 

[420Joey]

You should have read on. It's not about organised religion. It's about all beliefs imaginable. I post an equation later in the thread, that you should take a look at, if you're genuinely interested.

You made an equation on all beliefs imaginable? Lmao. Why not post it here instead of me rampaging through your spew of bullshit on organized religion as if that discredits god. If your genuinely interested in showing me, post it so I can laugh in regards to how clueless you really are.

 

[420Joey]

I didn't find it trolling...he's got an odd way of putting it.

But which religion IS the one true religion...and since we don't know the answer how can one calculate the probability you're worshiping the right deity(deities) in the right way or ways?

Are you even reading our interactions? I dont believe in organized religion period neither does he yet he uses this man made construct to use as a basis of discounting god? It doesent work.

That's a valid question.

Just as valid as doing an equation on all the worlds myths and story books, I suppose.

Just because you were raised to regard your own natal religion as "The One", or converted, does not make it so.

You may think Yoyo's making fun of religion with Pastafarianism, but that's an assumption...quite frankly you ought to ignore the FSM worship and examine the question.

I was not raised with any natal religion and I dont believe in organized religion if you yourself wasnt trolling and actually read the exchanges. What was the point of your post again, it didnt actually have one.

 

[420Joey]

It's not a troll. I have never heard of or seen that equation before. If you think it's an invalid question you should prove it.

What variables could you possibly include in that equation? Organized religion is nothing but a bunch of story books and myths. You dont believe it yet invest so much of your time trying to debunk organized religion which isnt the same as debunking god as a cause. Epic fail. Your sentiments are not wanted and doesent stimulate any course of discussion.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

OK

There is exactly one (1) true reality.
There is an unknown amount of imaginable beliefs about what this reality is (including all know religions and all future religions). We can call this x. This number is approaching infinity.

so 1/x for which x approaches infinity is the probability for any one of these beliefs about what true reality is. Pretty simple right?

As you can see this probability is very small. Approaching zero.

 

[quadraphonics]

I am to assume that a "good" troll produces more "lulz" then?

Well, it's an aesthetic question, with more factors than simple quantity. There's the magnitude of the lulz, the question of what audience they're available to, etc.

Do you consider yourself to be a "good" troll?

Well, it would depend on what heuristic one uses to distinguish good trolls from bad trolls, which is pretty subjective. But frankly I'm not sure - it's the sort of question that inherently defies self-evaluation, and I've had little luck in getting anyone to give me useful feedback on such here.

I believe that it is possible to learn here as well. On many levels - factual, cultural opinion, behavioral interaction, etc. from people of many different countries the world over. Do you disagree?

Kind of irrelevant - it's possible to learn from any experience, anywhere.

The question was what this place does well. And, no, I don't think it's particularly distinguished as a site of such learnings. More often than not, you get hardened, fixed positions endlessly grinding it out in ugly terms, than any kind of productive academic exchange.

I know you don't believe in differentiating facts from opinions, so I shall do so for you.

Trolling, or mere pig-headedness?

That statement, sir, is straight up merely an opinion - yours in this case. I happen to disagree. So?

So nothing. What do you think you're proving to me, with this bluster? You think I didn't know that my opinions are exactly such? Or that you disagree?

In this instance, I don't give a fuck whether you agree with me or not. Pretty simple, eh?

In the first place, I don't believe you - you wouldn't be making a point of belaboring your opinion, or supporting it, if you didn't care what I thought of it.

In the second place, your hostility is overwhelming you - making you an easy troll target.

So you're here posting time and again about something that you refuse to disclose your personal definition of.

Not really, no.

I suppose that you also would like to hold your "reason" for reticence close to your chest as well, correct?

I'm fairly sure that I explained such explicitly right after that quote you selected to reply to. Maybe don't quote so selectively next time, if you want to advance such a charge.

Again, you're marking yourself as easy troll food with this loss of composure.

IMO, you should clearly state when you are advocating an opinion as opposed to stating a fact. In other words, don't sacrifice substance for "style". Just my opinion...

Meh, I already do so where I do not think that such is clear. Beyond that, my distaste for pandering dictates otherwise.

So, contrary to your assertion above, here you are "advancing" a definition of trolling.

? When did I assert otherwise?

It's "lulz" that's problematic to define directly, in this sort of context.

Presumably you consider this definition to correct, right?

Seems a safe assumption - do you have some dispute with that definition?

So in the discourse that you mention, who is doing the trolling? You, me, dwy, all of the above or some other subset?

Pretty much everyone here does it to some extent or another. I have said as much many times in this exchange already, haven't I?

How about just one? Learning something new. Have you never accomplished that over the internet? How about here on Sci? If yes, I guess you incorporate gaining knowledge as part of the definition of trolling, right?

Not so much "into the definition," as to note that they're kind of orthogonal questions. You can learn, or not, by trolling, and by being trolled. Point is that I don't see much learning of salient things not related to trolling here. What first-order learning does occur, gets done better and more consistently in other places lacking the pathologies of this one. And so people interested in that go to those places, and people interested in trolling come here. Free market is a wonderful thing like that.

I know. I included it because it seemed to fit well with the other two points I was making. Us trolls have to be artistic, no?

Doesn't seem to have worked that trick.

Plus I get such lulz...

If you say so.

 

[AlexG]

There is exactly one (1) true reality

You haven't established that. Nor have you defined that.

 

[420Joey]

ok

there is exactly one (1) true reality.
There is an unknown amount of imaginable beliefs about what this reality is (including all know religions and all future religions). We can call this x. This number is approaching infinity.

So 1/x for which x approaches infinity is the probability for any one of these beliefs about what true reality is. Pretty simple right?

As you can see this probability is very small. Approaching zero.

Roflmaoooooooooooooooooooo :m:
I wish we had signatures on this forum. I'd place this right on there testament to the logic of some athiests.

 

[chimpkin]

Joey 420 said:
I was not raised with any natal religion and I dont believe in organized religion if you yourself wasnt trolling and actually read the exchanges. What was the point of your post again, it didnt actually have one.

Quite frankly I skim a lot of people's posts in the religion forum, if I go there at all.
That's because I've been raking that particular ground myself since I was 12...so it's not like there's a whole lot that's going to surprise or persuade me there.

My spiritual beliefs are so cobbled-together and eclectic that I rarely feel I have any axe to grind anyway.

Joey 420 said:
yet he uses this man made construct to use as a basis of discounting god? It doesent work.

So you are saying that there is a religion that was not created by humans

So Papaya wants you to point out which that one is based on logical fact.

Part of the point may be that it's not possible.
I already know I can't based on logic, therefore am not going to try.

Understand?

YoyoPapaya said:
There is exactly one (1) true reality.

Really? Funny, but I'm one of those subsets of people who believes that whatever faith one has,after-death reality will conform to your expectations.

I'm also not 100% sure we're all in the exact same reality now.

I do not accept your statement as a given in real life...however, if you want me to look at it as part of a 'thought experiment', I will do so.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

Me:

There is exactly one (1) true reality

You haven't established that. Nor have you defined that.

That's a good point. I'm gonna post it on the original thread if you don't mind.