nferyn: Why am I not surprised

Hehe! I used to think satire could make people change their minds.
But I found out that only those whose minds don't need changing will get it.
The rest would just see it as 'lies' or 'unwarranted insults' against their idols.

To change people's minds, one can only prepare them by debating logically and directly.
If lucky, some traumatic life events combined with the seed of doubt will force a change later.
Failing that, people will never change their political or moral or religious beliefs. Ever!

Where does that leave satire? It's a great tool for entertaining the converted, if nothing more. No shame in that.
UPDATE: well, there's something more. It can be used to get back at annoying bigots. <<evil grin>>

Ka:

Nferyn,

So you've given up? You've finally realised the gap between believer and infidel is too wide to be bridged? Oh dear!!!

That isn't necessarily true, I'm married to a believer, after all
I'm just having fun debating those true believers. I usually give the unsophisticated ones the [i]rough [/i]treatment, but sometimes there are people with whom you can truly dialogue and then the exchange is enlightening to both parties

hmm i wonder how your wife copes

They probably don't talk about it much. As long as she gets to indoctrinate the kids, she's happy. (just guessing!)

Seun: well, there's something more.  It can be used to get back at annoying bigots.

Not necessarily - not if your satire just goes 'whoosh' over their heads.

Unless of course, you take extra delight in their 'not getting it'.



Nferyn,

I don't do heated religious debates any more. The best I can hope for as a result of dialogue is to better understand the workings of the believer's mind - which itself isn't a bad thing if I want to understand how to communicate with them. But I believe that it is only a severe emotional experience that can detach someone from a religious belief - and usually, the more entrenched the belief, the more severe the emotional experience must be.

In fact, I wouldn't detach someone from their religious belief, even if I could conclusively and irrefutably prove it was false. I might end up doing more harm than good.

But I believe that it is only a severe emotional experience that can detach someone from a religious belief

I think I said that first! (Yes, I'm hungry for credit, so give it to me!)

If lucky, some traumatic life events combined with the seed of doubt will force a change later.

sisimose:

hmm i wonder how your wife copes

Pretty well, thank you for asking. Anyway, I really don't discuss religion all that much with her. It's a non-issue.
Fortunately, she's not the typical "God-head" and doesn't need to profess her religious beliefs at every occasion but keeps it private. There are some people in the family though that , , ,

Seun:

They probably don't talk about it much.

As I said

Seun:

As long as she gets to indoctrinate the kids, she's happy. (just guessing!)

No, actually you're very wrong here. She does take the kids to church sometimes, but she never tries to indoctrinate them (they're too young to understand anyway). We've agreed before that this is a no-go and that they'll make up their mind themselves when they're older. I've explained to her that this would probably result in them becoming atheist like myself, but she seems comfortable with that. She actually thinks her position has merit and that the children will come to follow her way of thinking.

Hmmm. Wow! I guess all those years of being in Belgium (not surrounded by you-know-who) have paid off in a way.

Ka:

Nferyn,

I don't do heated religious debates any more. The best I can hope for as a result of dialogue is to better understand the workings of the believer's mind - which itself isn't a bad thing if I want to understand how to communicate with them. But I believe that it is only a severe emotional experience that can detach someone from a religious belief - and usually, the more entrenched the belief, the more severe the emotional experience must be.

True, we're creatures of habit and changing our ways or thoughts can have significant emotional and physiological impact due to the nature of information storage in the brain.

Ka:

In fact, I wouldn't detach someone from their religious belief, even if I could conclusively and irrefutably prove it was false. I might end up doing more harm than good.

In real life I'm far more gentle when discussing these matters precisely because of the emotional consequences. Online, there's no need to sugarcoat things as the emotional context is very different.

Seun:

Hmmm. Wow! I guess all those years of being in Belgium (not surrounded by you-know-who) have paid off in a way.

Up to a certain level, maybe, but it's really a mixed blessing. Being separated from the majority of your family isn't always easy.

The last one from Russel's Teapot

I'd say this one is more insightful but less humorous because it targets catholics and ignores faith-healers.

@ atheists

Do you sometimes wonder if Man would one day become as powerful as God?

So far, we use 10% of our brains but we've been able to create robots that have AI.

I speak to someone on a funny looking piece of block and someone hears me some 1000miles away.
My fellow has travelled as far as the moon.

Definitely one day we will become God.

If that happens, Do you think the robots we create will ever believe we exist if we hide ourself from them.

How big is this galaxy. DO you realize it looks like a swirling maze (something going down the drain) and at the centre of it all there is a "black hole"

Do you know that the black hole has a magnetic pull that will stop even light rays from coming out of it.


Think again.

I wrote this out in less that 7 mins, give me more time and I will come up with something better.


For all I care, the galaxy may not be bigger than a test tube for some other intelligent being more powerful that man on earth.

I don't understand you guys sometimes.

Statistically and scientifically the probability that life exist elsewhere is not 0.
The probablitity that something more superior to humans exist is not 0
Therefore common sense that is not so common suggests that the probability of the existence of a being very very powerful to the point of being supreme is not 0.

GET THAT?

NOT ZERO. (0)

GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK SKULLS AND STOP THINKING EVERY OTHER PERSON IS STUPID!!!

**I WOULDNT BE THIS PISSED OFF IF YOU GUYS WERENT THINKING YOU WERE TOO SMART.**

@ Nferyn and Co

Just be prepared to meet your maker.


The sad thing now is that He will stand from eternity to Laugh at your CHOICE, please take your time to Mock him please Mock him in slow motion and quickly.

The greatest battles are always fought at the last. Your types have existed for a long time. When Tai sholarin Died I just Pitied him.

The soul that SINNETH IT SHALL DIE. IT MEANS IT SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM GOD THE GIVER OF EVER LASTING LIFE.

IF YOU DIE WITHOUT REPENTANCE HE SHALL BE SHUT UP IN ETERNAL DARKNESS. IF YOU BELIEVE IN ACCIDENTS WHY IS IT THAT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT DIED 4000 YEARS NONE HAS REAPPEARED PERHAPS BY ACCIDENT!

Bible says a fool says in his heart there is no God.

The great terrible day of the Lord is at hand repent and be ready to meet your maker. How terrible to fall in the hand of the almighty, It is so sad that you will stand in front of him you and him will know what you have done and there will be one to save you.


I just pray that you will repent for he says he does not wish that any one perish but have eternal.

For this cause he came so that he might destroy all the works of the devil.

@ stranger12
And your point is what exactly?

stranger12:

I don't understand you guys sometimes.

I think the feeling is mutual

stranger12:

Statistically and scientifically the probability that life exist elsewhere is not 0.

indeed

stranger12:

The probablitity that something more superior to humans is not 0

Yes, and? Could you define superior and how it relates to humans?

stranger12:

Therefore common sense that is not so common suggests that a being very very powerful to the point of being supreme is not 0.

Once more, your point?

stranger12:

GET THAT?

NOT ZERO. (0)

GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK SKULLS AND STOP THINKING EVERY OTHER PERSON IS STUPID!!!

You are in the process of demonstrating that you don't have a fricking clue what I was getting at with this thread. Where did I imply that every other person is stupid?

stranger12:

**I WOULDNT BE THIS PISSED OFF IF YOU GUYS WERENT THINKING YOU WERE TOO SMART.**

Short fuse, heh? Another strawman big bang in the making?

@ Backslider
Hallowed are [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ori_%28Stargate%29]the Ori [/url]

OK,

enough of my ranting.



Believe it or not, God might exist, and might not. If I can create, I can be created if I am not supreme. But what proof do I have that I am supreme or not.

answer that question first before you question the existence of GOD.


but am I making sense at all? I just don't want you to go about thinking that people who believe in God are not logical.

The existence of God is actually probable.

Don't you think so?

An intellect can educate himself/herself to the point of believing in God.
In the same way, you can educate yourself to the point of not believing.


Logic fails sometimes.

you put your water in a cup, on a table, in a continent, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy
. . . who says it ends there?

and who says you are the most supreme in your one little corner called earth? There might be another.

In a million years from now where would man be? Man would be God to the present.

Currently, we are Gods to the past. It's only God that can fly in the sky and create quakes with atomic bombs.


You don't even need proof of life eternal if you can't count from 1 to the last digit in infinity


. . .  logic falls flat without logic to sustain logic.

Check your [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ori_%28Yoruba%29]Ori[/url]

stranger12:

OK,

enough of my ranting.



Believe it or not, God might exist, and might not. If I can create, I can be created if I am not supreme. But what proof do I have that I am supreme or not.

answer that question first before you question the existence of GOD.

You are really not making much sense. Are you asking a question?
You also presuppose that the existence of God is established and that it's up to me to refute your assertion. Why?

stranger12:

but am I making sense at all? I just don't want you to go about thinking that people who believe in God are not logical.

The existence of God is actually probable.

Don't you think so?

No I don't.

stranger12:

An intellect can educate himself/herself to the point of believing in God.
In the same way, you can educate yourself to the point of not believing.

When you're saying something you need to define your terms first before any meaningful conversation can take place. I have no idea what you mean with intellect, educate and God.

stranger12:

Logic fails sometimes.

And green is a different colour.

stranger12:

you put your water in a cup, on a table, in a continent, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy
. . . who says it ends there?

Yes, who says? And your point is what exactly?

stranger12:

and who says you are the most supreme in your one little corner called earth? There might be another.

Define supreme, you and the context of that sentence. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

stranger12:

In a million years from now where would man be? Man would be God to the present.

It's very unlikely there will still be 'man'

stranger12:

Currently, we are Gods to the past. It's only God that can fly in the sky and create quakes with atomic bombs.

Yes, all sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic for those not posessing it. Doesn't that sort of invalidate your premise about the need for a God?

stranger12:

You don't even need proof of life eternal if you can't count from 1 to the last digit in infinity

Have you been using the Dilbert Mission Statement Generator a bit too often? It has affected your ability to construct meaningful sentences.

stranger12:

. . . logic falls flat without logic to sustain logic.

Meaning?

@ nferyn

I cant believe you copied and pasted my post without actually reading through it.
you've failed in the department of reading between the lines

are you a robot or something?

. . . hmmm in retrospect, you actually seem to be one

"exterminate, exterminate, exterminate. . ."


I better run lest you try to carry out that command on me

stranger12:

@ atheists

Do you sometimes wonder if Man would one day become as powerful as God?

So far, we use 10% of our brains but we've been able to create robots that have AI.

I speak to someone on a funny looking piece of block and someone hears me some 1000miles away.
My fellow has travelled as far as the moon.

Definitely one day we will become God.

Depends on your definition of "God". Also, we use practically all of our brain, not just 10%.

stranger12:

I don't understand you guys sometimes.

Statistically and scientifically the probability that life exist elsewhere is not 0.
The probablitity that something more superior to humans exist is not 0
Therefore common sense that is not so common suggests that the probability of the existence of a being very very powerful to the point of being supreme is not 0.

GET THAT?

NOT ZERO. (0)

I think most people get that; however, that's not evidence that leprechauns have hidden their pot of gold under a rainbow (that's because they hide it beneath waterfalls. Don't ask me how or why).

GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK SKULLS AND STOP THINKING EVERY OTHER PERSON IS STUPID!!!

**I WOULDNT BE THIS PISSED OFF IF YOU GUYS WERENT THINKING YOU WERE TOO SMART.**

Stop being so damn insecure and defensive. Nobody has said you're stupid and don't presume to know what we're/I'm thinking.

@ stranger12
If all arguments fail, just throw in some personal insults. You are truly a real intellectual.

I must say that I definitely don't think all other persons are stupid, but I gladly make an exception for you though. The relative rate of stable patterns resulting from your synaptic reactions is too low to detect coherence; either that or you have some kind of motor impairment, RSI in an advanced stage.

Hehe. He's definitely challenged in some mysterious manner.

I just had a bad day yesterday, thats all.

and I needed someone to spill it out on.


hey, who says I'm challenged

I don't think I went that far with either you or nferyn. And you, nferyn inferred that I am stupid.


I went through your comic strips again and I should say they seemed funny. But the down side is that it is a mockery of what some people hold dear.
But nferyn, you keep saying I'm not making sense.

Hmm, maybe I'm not good with communicating my thoughts

I will rephrase one of my questions

Do you think man on earth is the most advanced being?

your answer might be NO.

but here is my logic, what if the answer is YES.


Do you think we can in the future create intelligent beings? YES
What if we create such beings in test tubes or petri dishes. Do you think they can be smart enough to measure the size of their surroundings?
(the same way we know the size of the milky way)


If my thoughts are logical, are we not Gods to the beings we create.

Are we good or bad if we decide to bin our research?

If my thoughts are logical

But they are not logical!

@ KAG,

in reference to the 10% usage of our brain. I am not actually of that school of thought.

But I strongly believe that our brains are not efficiently applied. The 10% figure is just an arbitrary fraction.

In years to come, the average man will be more knowlegeable than Albert Einstein. The application of our brain may however not be as efficient as Albert's.

Research Report
Dormancy of the Human Brain
Dormant Brain Research and Development Laboratory
T.D.A. Lingo, Director


The human brain is only 10% functional, at best.
The first to outline this theory, later proved a fact by others, was Australian Neurology Nobel Laureate Sir John Eccles. (Lecture: University of Colorado, University Memorial Center Boulder, July 31, 1974.) "The brain indicates its powers are endless."

In England, John Lorber did autopsies on hydrocephalics. This illness causes all but the 1/6th inch layer of brain tissue to be dissolved by acidic spinal fluid. He tested the IQ's of patients before and during the disease. His findings showed that IQ remained constant up to death. Although over 90% of brain tissue was destroyed by the disease, it had no impact on what we consider to be normal intelligence.

Russian neurosurgeon Alexandre Luria proved that the 1/3 bulk of frontal lobes are mostly dormant. He did this by performing ablation experiments on persons. He gave physiological and psychological tests before, cut out parts and whole frontal lobes, the re-tested after. His conclusion: removal of part or all of frontal lobes causes no major change in brain function, (some change in mood alteration). The frontal lobes are mostly dormant, asleep. (Luria, A.R. "Frontal Lobes and the Regulation of Behavior." In: K.H. Pribram and A.R. Luria, Editors, Psychophysiology of the Frontal Lobes. New York, and London, Academic Press, 1973)

Finally, the human brain contains 10 billion neurons, mostly in the outer layer of brain cortex. the function of these currently dominant cells is fairly clear. but the brain also contains 120 billion glial cells. Aside from some secondary nurturing of neurons, the primary function of the glia is not clear. What big bang mirical awaits mankind within these mysteries?

Today, most would agree without argument that the potential of the human brain is infinite. Thus, to state that a person uses 10%, 5%, or even 1% of their potential brain capacity (infinity) is overly generous.

The point is this: There is no dispute among honestly rational experts about the latent potential of the human think box. There is only friendly dispute about how much and what still awaits us, patiently to be self-discovered between each set of ears. Hence, the wisdom of intuitive folksay was correct: "The human brain is only 10% functional." John Eccles thinks that number is too high. "How can you calculate a percentage of infinity?"

@ Seun,

Logic is not necessarily factuall.


ok, if its too big to swallow the possiblity that we are the most advanced beings in this galaxy why then do you strongly believe that God doesnt exist?


You don't understand my argument but do you think humans might one day create intelligent beings?

stranger12:

I just had a bad day yesterday, thats all.

and I needed someone to spill it out on.

Never mind, we all have our bad days - maybe I had mine yesterday as well

stranger12:

hey, who says I'm challenged

I don't think I went that far with either you or nferyn. And you, nferyn inferred that I am stupid.

Only after you said I must be a robot bent on destruction, a rather stupid comment to make. Anyway, apologies for my lack of tact

stranger12:

I went through your comic strips again and I should say they seemed funny. But the down side is that it is a mockery of what some people's hold dear.

You can mock anything I hold dear, except for my family.

stranger12:

But nferyn, you keep saying I'm not making sense.

Hmm, maybe I'm not good with communicating my thoughts

That could be it. I just don't understand what you're trying to say.

stranger12:

I will rephrase one of my questions

Do you think man on earth is the most advanced being?

your answer might be NO.

but here is my logic, what if the answer is YES.


Do you think we can in the future create intelligent beings? YES
What if we create such beings in test tubes or petri dishes. Do you think they can be smart enough to measure the size of their surroundings?
(the same way we know the size of the milky way)


If my thoughts are logical, are we not Gods to the beings we create.

It's not because something is created by something more advanced that the more advanced being is a god, it's only more advanced.
Unfortunately I still don't get the point you're trying to make

stranger12:

Are we good or bad if we decide to bin our research?

Huh?

@ nferyn

I said "

Are we good or bad if we decide to bin our research?

"
You replied "

Huh!

"

I was refererring to the petri dish analogy I posted and I mixed it with the concept of Hell.

You said "

It's not because something is created by something more advanced that the more advanced being is a god, it's only more advanced.
Unfortunately I still don't get the point you're trying to make

"

People who believe in God believe they were created by a supreme being.
People who don't believe in God believe they just happened.

I know I'm not a good communicator but I don't think its that bad.

is it the word "GOD" that is hard to swallow?

ok, for the benefit of logic, can you please substitute "God" for "a Supreme Being"