The foundational lie in the psyche

[CiderThinker]

(13-07-2014 05:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(13-07-2014 05:00 PM)childeye Wrote:  It is logical to trust somebody who would die for you.

So Muslims should trust suicide bombers.

I see.

Damn got there before me...

[cjlr]

(13-07-2014 05:27 PM)childeye Wrote:  

(13-07-2014 05:15 PM)cjlr Wrote:  In what insane universe does anything I've ever said even remotely suggest "fighting the need for love"?

"Morality therefore God" is a shambling cavalcade of oblivious failure. It is not an argument. It has no substance. It is not coherent. It is a waste of everybody's time, including yours.

That is my commentary.

Welcome the Failympics. I'm your returning guide, cjlr.

Today's event is the non sequitur. Now, we've had some strong players in this field; there's never a shortage of contenders. The goal is to respond with something so unrelated, so unconnected, that the leap of insane troll logic becomes incomprehensible to the registered observers.

Next up is perennial entrant, childeye. He hasn't been competing for a while, but it looks like he's used his off-season to perfect some techniques, and he's bringing a powerfully obtuse obstinacy to the show today.

Let's see what the judges say:
Originality: 6.2/10
Conviction: 9.8/10
Insanity: 7.8/10

It's not a very original line, so he's suffered a bit there, but his conviction is unassailable, and the self-evident incoherence is simply remarkable. Here comes the final score...

Overall: 9.1/10. Would definitely troll again.

Oh, it looks like the judges have rewarded him for his conviction despite the lack of creativity. That's definitely payed off for him this time out. And we'll check the board...

That's enough to put childeye on the podium! Summer 2014 non sequitur champion! I hope he enjoys the honour.

Thanks for joining us today, folks; this is cjlr, signing off.

[Dom]

(13-07-2014 05:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  Well, in your role as God you have to devise a way of creating children that sincerely respect each others different gifts without envy or gloating in any form or manner. And without making them robots.

Why do I have to do that?

I think the story has it that god wipes out populations if he made a mistake when he created them.

[childeye]

(13-07-2014 04:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Once again, words require substantive, coherent meanings to be useful. You have amply demonstrated, time and time again, that the best you can manage is empty circular reasoning ("empathy is love is empathy is love is empathy is love is empathy is love..." give me a fucking break). As such I've given up on ever getting a meaningful response from you.

Okay. Love =empathy=the ability to feel others feelings.

(13-07-2014 03:30 PM)childeye Wrote:  Please elaborate on what deepities I have not adequately explored...

Quote:Everything out of your vapid mouth?

I doubt you can smell my breath over the internet.

(13-07-2014 03:30 PM)childeye Wrote:  And if not, please at least take some joy in knowing you do not have to define terms like value, highest and love when communicating with me.

Quote:Which only serves to illustrate the problem. Not only do you not know what words mean, but you don't care, so long as you can be self-affirming in your ignorance.

Oh I care what they mean when I say them, and I hope people understand what I mean by them. I just can't tell if you are sincere in your desire to understand what I am saying or just having me define words for some strange amusement. Ignorance cannot help but affirm it's self. That can't be helped. But if you are sincere, then I could certainly understand how I might test your patience.

(13-07-2014 03:30 PM)childeye Wrote:  I agree we experience Love. I can't say Love does nothing. It initiates sorrow for the suffering of others.

Quote:That's just re-asserting the same uncomprehendingly shallow and childish reification.

Protip: if it was semantically void the first time you said it, it'll be semantically void the next time, too.

If I told you that I saw someone cry because they lost their son and that caused me to cry. How would I describe what made me cry and not be semantically void?
Whatever the right way to say it is, that is what I meant by empathy does do things.

(13-07-2014 03:30 PM)childeye Wrote:  That's something, and only one of many things it does do. But at least you're trying.

Quote:There's nothing as cute as a fool attempting condescension. 8/10 would troll again

I apologize, I didn't mean to come across as condescending.

(13-07-2014 03:30 PM)childeye Wrote:  I'm sorry but you misunderstand again.

Quote:You say: [blithering nonsense].
I say: that doesn't make sense.
You say: [the same blithering nonsense].
I say: that still doesn't make sense. Can you elaborate?
You say: no, you just don't understand.

Uh...

Miscommunication is indeed a problem between us. I'm struggling too.

(13-07-2014 03:30 PM)childeye Wrote:  Indeed one can. When the sensation of hunger comes, we eat.

Quote:Oh look, conflation and misunderstanding.

No, hunger is a sensation I (or others) experience as a result . It still cannot be "obeyed". That still doesn't make sense, and you still have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm beginning to suspect you don't care what I mean by what I say. You seek to confound my sincere sentiments by picking at the terminology used. And then you subsequently surmise undeservedly that I don't know what I'm talking about. Well the fact remains you need food to live just like everybody else.

Quote:

Quote:Insane troll logic is not valid.

"Empathy exists, therefore Bible" is insane troll logic of the highest calibre.

Well at least you didn't put bible exists therefore empathy.

(13-07-2014 03:30 PM)childeye Wrote:  After correcting you so many times, with no thank you I might add, and telling you the definitions of basic words which I assume you know since 4 year olds know, my lack of abstract thought is not the problem.

Quote:If you had any real understanding of what you're parroting you'd be able to develop the ideas. You can't. Others question you, and you remain completely unable to express yourself.

It's somehow appropriate that you refer to 4 year olds. That appears to be the level at which most of your reasoning occurs. No slight on you, mind, that's just theism in a nutshell. Children haven't learned how to vet their pattern recognition, and are inescapably prone to teleological thinking.

Yes, God is not complicated. Three letters which define the good and true. even Jesus said you must have the mind of a child to receive the Kingdom of God.

(13-07-2014 03:30 PM)childeye Wrote:  You could put it that way.

Quote:Yes. I just did.

I know, I said you did.

(13-07-2014 03:30 PM)childeye Wrote:  Nonetheless, we need empathy to consider others in a meaningful way.

Quote:Citation needed.

self evident to children.

(13-07-2014 03:30 PM)childeye Wrote:  So let us be thankful.

Quote:Thankful for what? Why?

For empathy of course.

Quote:There's no point being thankful for being human. That's simplywhat we are; no more, no less.

On the contrary, without empathy we are less than human.

Quote:Notwithstanding none of the above is even tangentially related to theism. So there's that.

So what You're saying is God is not Love?

(13-07-2014 03:30 PM)childeye Wrote:  I think you need a hug.

Top form, my good man. I like when you don't even try to put together germane responses. Dispensing with the charade saves everybody time.

But no, let's explore this. I need a hug, eh? Why do you say so? Do you think I lack affection? Do you think I'm somehow upset? At most I'm mildly bemused by your antics. Do you suppose if I experienced the magic of a hug I would be won over the magic special God sauce and agree with you? 'Cause that'd be some highly entertaining double-down-on-failure type schlock.

It's really not that complicated. A hug says something that words can only adulterate..

[Bucky Ball]

(13-07-2014 07:21 PM)childeye Wrote:  It's really not that complicated. A hug says something that words can only adulterate..

Oh look. I think I'm jelly.
He likes you cjlr. He really likes you.

[childeye]

(13-07-2014 05:45 PM)Dom Wrote:  

(13-07-2014 05:35 PM)childeye Wrote:  Well, in your role as God you have to devise a way of creating children that sincerely respect each others different gifts without envy or gloating in any form or manner. And without making them robots.

Why do I have to do that?

I think the story has it that god wipes out populations if he made a mistake when he created them.

What if that didn't happen? Or what if it's said to drive home a sense of frustration. What if this did happen yet He intended to preach the Gospel to the dead afterwards?

[childeye]

(13-07-2014 07:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(13-07-2014 07:21 PM)childeye Wrote:  It's really not that complicated. A hug says something that words can only adulterate..

Oh look. I think I'm jelly.
He likes you cjlr. He really likes you.

Yeah I like him. So what's not to like? I like you too.

[Dom]

(13-07-2014 07:29 PM)childeye Wrote:  

(13-07-2014 05:45 PM)Dom Wrote:  Why do I have to do that?

I think the story has it that god wipes out populations if he made a mistake when he created them.

What if that didn't happen? Or what if it's said to drive home a sense of frustration. What if this did happen yet He intended to preach the Gospel to the dead afterwards?

Well, the bible says it happened. Driving home a sense of frustration to his creation? How is that godly or moral? Preaching to them once they are dead? Now I am starting to think there is something very wrong with you.

[evenheathen]

(13-07-2014 07:53 PM)Dom Wrote:  

(13-07-2014 07:29 PM)childeye Wrote:  What if that didn't happen? Or what if it's said to drive home a sense of frustration. What if this did happen yet He intended to preach the Gospel to the dead afterwards?

Well, the bible says it happened. Driving home a sense of frustration to his creation? How is that godly or moral? Preaching to them once they are dead? Now I am starting to think there is something very wrong with you.

The only thing wrong with Childeye is a severe case of "if I wish hard enough it's gotta be true, I couldn't stand it if it wasn't".

Childeye, you have to understand your audience if you wish to make a point. You have a habit of conflating terms and expecting us to just roll with it. It's not that we don't understand what you're trying to get at, it's that the way you use wordplay to get there just doesn't cut to the quick of things.

It's wordplay, and nothing else when it really gets down to it. If you want to put forth an argument that will make any of us here perk up and listen then you'll have to use words with their intended definitions so that there can be no misunderstanding of what you are saying.

The problem is that you can't do that. There is no way of explaining your ideas without abusing language into an incoherent fallacy. Is that really what god is to you? Can you really not do better than that? It's a nice sounding philosophy, but it doesn't reflect reality as a whole for one moment.

[childeye]

(13-07-2014 08:10 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  

(13-07-2014 07:53 PM)Dom Wrote:  Well, the bible says it happened. Driving home a sense of frustration to his creation? How is that godly or moral? Preaching to them once they are dead? Now I am starting to think there is something very wrong with you.

The only thing wrong with Childeye is a severe case of "if I wish hard enough it's gotta be true, I couldn't stand it if it wasn't".

Childeye, you have to understand your audience if you wish to make a point. You have a habit of conflating terms and expecting us to just roll with it. It's not that we don't understand what you're trying to get at, it's that the way you use wordplay to get there just doesn't cut to the quick of things.

It's wordplay, and nothing else when it really gets down to it. If you want to put forth an argument that will make any of us here perk up and listen then you'll have to use words with their intended definitions so that there can be no misunderstanding of what you are saying.

The problem is that you can't do that. There is no way of explaining your ideas without abusing language into an incoherent fallacy. Is that really what god is to you? Can you really not do better than that? It's a nice sounding philosophy, but it doesn't reflect reality as a whole for one moment.

Let's not be hypocritical. I do conflate God with Love, empathy. You conflate god with superstition. I worship what is worthy and good and beautiful in life and I know you do too.