The Religion Discussion

[MD Marketers]

I recently found Jesus a couple weeks ago and so I am now a believer in many things, just wanted to share this with you guys. God does exist, you just need to look hard enough.

Look hard enough?
Quite the opposite, you need to close your eyes and ignore everything logical in order to find God.

Anyone see the hypcoritical Mr. York?
Condemning Christians for following a compilation of contradictory books whilst he himself follows a compilation of contradictory books.
Then tells me "I need guidance"?

[bluesclues]

I recently found Jesus a couple weeks ago and so I am now a believer in many things, just wanted to share this with you guys. God does exist, you just need to look hard enough.

Look hard enough?
Quite the opposite, you need to close your eyes and ignore everything logical in order to find God.

also quite true. u may have no idea how accurate that statement is.

[MD Marketers]

I recently found Jesus a couple weeks ago and so I am now a believer in many things, just wanted to share this with you guys. God does exist, you just need to look hard enough.

Look hard enough?
Quite the opposite, you need to close your eyes and ignore everything logical in order to find God.

also quite true. u may have no idea how accurate that statement is.

^
And this does not worry you?

[bluesclues]

I recently found Jesus a couple weeks ago and so I am now a believer in many things, just wanted to share this with you guys. God does exist, you just need to look hard enough.

Look hard enough?
Quite the opposite, you need to close your eyes and ignore everything logical in order to find God.

also quite true. u may have no idea how accurate that statement is.

^
And this does not worry you?

not at all. not wheny you consider that any God capable of manifesting all this power and maintaining it will be operating on a logical level far too advanced for us to fully comprehend. making it seem illogical to us in our current level.

but he did say, close your eyes and meditate, zone out all your surroundings to abandon the 'logical self/ego and physical world' to arrive in his realm.

so u see the metaphorical parallel in what u said?

[Habit7]

Ok since cyanide in cassava has habit chasing his own tail,how about this.

 Acanthamoeba Keratitis is an eyeworm that borrows into your eye, where it eats it until you are blind ,sometimes even reaching your spinal cord causing paralysis.
What loving God would make such a thing,it's only skill set is to cause human suffering .maybe it's to deal with sinners,but wait ,didn't Jesus already die for our sins , or did I read that wrong?

 here is a report about a woman who had one and had to stay awake for 7 days in hospital while eye drops were put in every 10 minutes to kill it before she went blind

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... sight.html

crock101 you are assuming your conclusion/begging the question. A logical fallacy that I showed is also present in what I quoted above, but it seems like it went over your head. Let me break it down for you

What injustice is God doing to you by allowing you to die/suffer/be uncomfortable?
Do you deserve eternal bliss and God is depriving you?
As an atheist why does the fortuitous death of ppl bother you?

[MD Marketers]

I recently found Jesus a couple weeks ago and so I am now a believer in many things, just wanted to share this with you guys. God does exist, you just need to look hard enough.

Look hard enough?
Quite the opposite, you need to close your eyes and ignore everything logical in order to find God.

also quite true. u may have no idea how accurate that statement is.

^
And this does not worry you?

not at all. not wheny you consider that any God capable of manifesting all this power and maintaining it will be operating on a logical level far too advanced for us to fully comprehend. making it seem illogical to us in our current level.

but he did say, close your eyes and meditate, zone out all your surroundings to abandon the 'logical self/ego and physical world' to arrive in his realm.

so u see the metaphorical parallel in what u said?

Regarding us not being able to understand God because of our "limited" knowledge is a very poor argument. Here is why:
The words you use to describe something is the way you communicate with others.
1+1=2
1+1= a sum
1+1=3
The first one requires basic knowledge
The second one requires higher knowledge
The 3rd one is illogical.

What religious people attempt to do is say something like "3 really means 2 in another language".
So when someone says God is a merciful God even when sending people to hell for eternity, the word "merciful" does not carry the same meaning in their mind as others.
Changing the meaning of a word to win an argument is just starting a new argument without telling your opponent that he is arguing a different topic.
Consider this:
What is your interpretation of a merciful being?
A merciful being is expected to show mercy to all. (my understanding)
A merciful being is one merciful to those he loves. (another's understanding)
If we cannot agree on the meaning of the words "merciful being" then we cannot have a proper discussion due to a language barrier.
This isn't a matter of differences of opinion, it's simply a language issue which can be easily overcome.
Here is where the deceit lies:
When people convince other persons to sway their belief they play on their emotions.
When you say "God sacrificed his Son" you change the common meaning of the word sacrifice to play on my emotions. If I knew he really didn't sacrifice his Son, since the being known as Jesus still exists I may not have converted as the act doesn't hold as much meaning to me now.
When you say "God is a merciful being" you change the common meaning of the word merciful to "sometimes merciful based on certain conditions". If I knew he really isn't all that merciful in the end maybe I may not have converted. Why? Would you worship a God only to escape an unmerciful punishment? I don't care what god think's merciful means, it matters what I/you think it means. If it's bad for me then I could care less if God thinks it is good for him or someone else.
He could re-write the script a million times with his all powerful hands to make it right in his eyes but it will not change the fact that it is wrong NOW in my eyes.

Debates between Theists & Atheists are plagued with these communication barriers & leaves all debates incomplete. If we are to have proper discussion we need to be consistent with meaning of words.

All I ask is that we do not misrepresent the meanings of words when describing something to another individual or you will convey the wrong impression.
What makes you think I am somehow incapable of understanding the higher logic which you claim to possess? If you would use the right words to describe something the message you are trying to portray will be properly understood.
Your unwillingness to take these logic based discussions under the microscope regarding your world view does not bode well for your credibility Bluesclues. I have long since stopped arguing with you because you throw logic out of a conversation that you initiated with logic in order to explain things when they don't make logical sense.

Regards,

Shane

[bluesclues]

u need to calm down. because i could give u logical problems from the world of mathematics that you wouldnt be able to solve. does that mean that advanced mathematics is illogical? no. it means you require a higher level of understanding and application.

example. can you divide zero? for all basic mathematics the answer is no. but for high level advanced mathematics there is actually an exploratory process where they do divide zero into fractions to use in calculation. but besides that the divide by zero concept exists in nature. that's why we even have something called "division by zero". it crashes all logical processes yet is part of a logical physical world.

so we just have to look at the universe when it gives us divide by zeros and infinite recurring decimals and say "ah ok bro thanks for the mindfcuk". because its like there's nothing we can do about it. infinity and nothing are not logical concepts. yet.. here we are.

[bluesclues]

and please never accuse me of unwillingness to go into as much detail as u want to your satisfaction. i consider that my duty and will always time willing venture further with you or anyone.

but you guys have a habit of taking the conversation in all kinda direction, never allowing me to finish my point before changing the topic and then later coming back and saying i avoided answering the question.. when we was going down that road before u changed the channel.

i agree we need to iron out the meaning of terms.. but i hope u agree with me, we should try to learn to focus on one specific topic and hash it right down. and not change the topic before it is finished. if that isnt too tedious for you.

[MD Marketers]

u need to calm down. because i could give u logical problems from the world of mathematics that you wouldnt be able to solve. does that mean that advanced mathematics is illogical? no. it means you require a higher level of understanding and application.

example. can you divide zero? for all basic mathematics the answer is no. but for high level advanced mathematics there is actually an exploratory process where they do divide zero into fractions to use in calculation. but besides that the divide by zero concept exists in nature. that's why we even have something called "division by zero". it crashes all logical processes yet is part of a logical physical world.

so we just have to look at the universe when it gives us divide by zeros and infinite recurring decimals and say "ah ok bro thanks for the mindfcuk". because its like there's nothing we can do about it. infinity and nothing are not logical concepts. yet.. here we are.

Watch how quickly you are going to throw logic based discussion out the door after initiating a topic with logic based subjects.
Watch how language and misuse of words can lead a topic of track.

You claim to have omniscience in stating that you could give me a logical based math problem that I cannot solve but someone else can.
Very disrespectful and distasteful starting statement. I will ignore it for now.

Zero is a mathematical construct which for all intents and purpose means "nothing".
If you divide or multiply anything by zero you will get zero.
A fraction that is closer to zero than it is to 1 is still not zero.
To claim a fraction (no matter how small it is) to be the same as zero is changing the meaning of the word zero to mean "closer to zero"

If you wish to argue that we can divide by "closer to zero" then I will agree this is possible but at least give me the opportunity to agree to this new definition of "zero".
The same goes for infinite recurring decimals. In a finite world you can have infinite mathematical constructs which will still fall under the subset of a finite world.
In a cubic foot you can have an infinite amount of cubic fractions less than the size of a cubic foot and yet still never exceed the finite space of a cubic foot.
Infinity will always be bound by the finite if we agree that the finite word everything means everything and does not carry some hidden meaning. The word "everything" has a limit if not then it would no longer mean "everything".

Once again a theist tries to win a logic base argument by changing the meaning of a word.

[crock101]

Habit , I think there has been some misconceptions of my view point, let me clear them up.
I operate in my life and all my arguments under the assumption that god ,whether it is yours or anyone else's ,does not exist nor has ever existed.
I do not blame god for anything bad that happens nor do I praise god for anything good that happens.
When I ask "why would god put poison in food" It is not because i actually think that god put poison in food. From my perspective it would not be plausible for god to do anything since I don't even acknowledge the god exists in the first place.
From my perspective, suffering in the world is simply part of nature, but that does not stop me from emphasizing with other human beings and animals who are suffering and making attempts to ease their suffering.
My issue comes when people come along and claim that there is a supernatural being who loves us all ,is all powerful,can heal the sick,can raise the dead, yet stands idly by while 9 million children under the age of 5 die every year.This is obscene, while it is impossible for me to hate god as I don't think he is real ,I do hate the idea the such horrendous entity exists.
As if all this weren't bad enough ,the come along the religious die hards who are willing kill those who disagree with them as if that would prove their religion was more peaceful.While god may not be capable of any actual evil ,has fan clubs sure do keep busy in the atrocities department.

[Habit7]

So you create an idea of a god you hate, you hate that idea of a god you created, and you are not willing to have that idea of the god you created be informed by the actual God that Christians trust in?

Am I to believe that you are as evil and murderous as the Kim boys, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and other atheists who made the 20th century the bloodiest ever? Because I can be comfortable with that false belief and refuse to be challenged like some ppl I know who has a post above this one...

[MD Marketers]

The highest percentile religious group in the world today only takes up less than 25% of the planet's human population. Assuming that group believes in the same God concept and that God is the true God, where does that leave the rest of us?
Are we then to believe that (at the very best) only 1 in every 4 people has proper knowledge of Good & Bad?

You are committing the logical fallacy of personal incredulity. You are say you have to be right because you cannot fathom being wrong.

You misinterpret the statement.
Where do I state that anyone is right or wrong? By throwing out fantasy statistics that seeks to validate your assumption, you are saying you are right
I don't just speak from guess, the statistics are valid, just google it. Even if it weren't accurate it still does not detract from the fact that we cannot all be right about Good & Bad if we use religion as our determining factor. How did you come to believe it is a "fantasy statistic"? My statistic proves the 1:4 ratio for the highest probability of following a true God. In essence you cannot use God as determining factor when deciding wright from wrong, since we all do not follow the same God.
It's a discussion about the "probability" of being right.
I am stating that we need a better approach for determining Good or Bad. So how would we know if the new approach is good or bad since by your estimations, how we currently determine good or bad needs to be improved upon?
it's not a new approach. It's an old approach based on a common sense method for determining right from wrong. There are many situations where religion cannot help you determine the right answer. Eg. Deceased wife turns up 1 year later and you are re-married. Is your only reason for not attempting an alternatively sound approach because it is different?
One that can be applied to all religious and non religious denominations and still yield positive results. How do we know what would be "positive" since the current approach to good and bad needs to be improved?It's not everyone's approach in the first place and many of us do a lot of good on a daily basis without the fear of God in us or strict adherence to religious guidelines. We do it because we know it is good for us and others.
Doing things in the name of God does not always increase the general well being of others & in some cases unfairly brings about the opposite. Who or what determines wellbeing?A god that only the minority of Humanity follows? An atheist would be left out of your approach. What if your friends follow a false God. Your approach is fallible. It's a question based on perspective. Not everyone follows the same God so how can your guideline be applicable to all? It is much easier for everyone to agree to follow a "be good to all approach" than it is to all follow the same God. Doing good should be your decision to make & not someone else's. Religion is simply an excuse for the simple minded.
Do you think those ISIS terrorists put good intentions and general well being of others before God? I think ISIS thinks they do. And as a secularist, who is to say your view supersedes theirs?[b]if they do put good intentions & general well being in front of their decision making process then I would consider them good persons. However a few simple questions can easily prove ISIS intentions weren't for the purpose of GENERAL well being.

If you want to be a generally good person then do more good than bad.
If you want to be a generally bad person then do more bad than good.
I think Kim Jong-un thinks he does more good than bad and that he is a good person.. This drives home my point. A religious person can easily tell themselves that God approves their actions whereas a non religious person has to give more effort""

Religion should not determine morality, but rather just a means of having a relationship with your God. How can one have a relationship with their God and not have it determine their morality?

Please quote link to credible statistics.

Who determines what is common sense? Common sense for North Koreans is very different than common sense for Swedes?

What is "positive" or "good" if our current approach to good needs to be improved according to you?

Who or what determines well-being?

ISIS believes they are ridding the world of bad ppl. Do you think they are wrong? By what standard do you hold them accountable to that supercedes the standard they claim to faithfully adhere to?

Kim Jong-un is not religious, does he give more effort to arrive at his position of how he treats his ppl.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... opulations
I will repeat:
"Even if it weren't accurate it still does not detract from the fact that we cannot all be right about Good & Bad if we use religion as our determining factor."
If you are going to harp on a 6% inaccurate statistic that does not invalidate the above point, then it is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Moving forward:
Why is there a need for an uncommon determiner in the form of another being's perspective?
Are we that daft as a species that we are incapable of telling right from wrong on our own?
If we are, then how is it we are able to do so after religious atrocities have been committed & the religious apologetics see now what the religious minded couldn't see then?
You see your approach still involves interpretation and human perspective to determine right from wrong, it is no different from my approach except that you throw objective reasoning out the door to blindly follow a dogma or doctrine that may be incorrect or misinterpreted.
I am simply refining the process of logic with regards to determining right from wrong.

Is it really that hard for an ISIS member to know something they are about to do is going to hurt innocent people unfairly?
Why should collateral damage be an accepted method of defense? Many religious scriptures enforce it & hence we have come to accept it, but it is not right.
Kim Jong can be put under the same magnifying glass and found to be wrong in many decisions as well.

There is no need for a universal determiner when we have a perfectly functioning rationale of our own.

Intellectual laziness is killing us as a species

Besides not directly answering my questions...

You keep borrowing from a worldview you are trying to defeat. Only a divine morality can apply to all ppl. Any contrived morality will only be limited to its sphere of influence.

We have good examples of ppl throwing off their divine morality and establishing a secular one and it is fraught will atrocities such as is communist China and Soviet Union and even currently with North Korea. So what you are advocating is nothing new.

So while you are seeing the actions of ISIS and painting a broad brush over all religions, you continue to devise your morality. I and many in the West will continue to practice our Judeo-Christian morality of honesty, justice, charity and esteeming others greater than yourself, by which we can judge ISIS as evil and fight against it.

You as a secularist can't say its evil, you can only say it is different.

[bluesclues]

u need to calm down. because i could give u logical problems from the world of mathematics that you wouldnt be able to solve. does that mean that advanced mathematics is illogical? no. it means you require a higher level of understanding and application.

example. can you divide zero? for all basic mathematics the answer is no. but for high level advanced mathematics there is actually an exploratory process where they do divide zero into fractions to use in calculation. but besides that the divide by zero concept exists in nature. that's why we even have something called "division by zero". it crashes all logical processes yet is part of a logical physical world.

so we just have to look at the universe when it gives us divide by zeros and infinite recurring decimals and say "ah ok bro thanks for the mindfcuk". because its like there's nothing we can do about it. infinity and nothing are not logical concepts. yet.. here we are.

Watch how quickly you are going to throw logic based discussion out the door after initiating a topic with logic based subjects.
Watch how language and misuse of words can lead a topic of track.

You claim to have omniscience in stating that you could give me a logical based math problem that I cannot solve but someone else can.
Very disrespectful and distasteful starting statement. I will ignore it for now.

no pal. it doesnt work that way. u cant just discard a factual statement to proceed on your own logical tangent. i brought that to the fore because it is the foundation for the point. whether your feelings are hurt or not by statement has no bearing.

the fact remains, that just because u have a logical mind, does not mean that you will be able to deduce ALL THE LOGICAL progressions that come before you. some will be out of your scope of understanding. thus in entirety, a highly advanced system would be logical. it just appears illogical to you who does not yet have the full understanding.


you feel offended to be baffled? or to admit that there are people that may be smarter than you?

i want to see how u will say i change the topic now. u want to define terms. logic is logic. yes. but what is undecipherable logic? not gibberish? until we could figure it out? so if you ent figure it out yet, of course it might seem illogical to you. doesnt mean it is.

Once again a theist tries to win a logic base argument by changing the meaning of a word.

and not at all. as u can see i have defined 2 states of logic. logic and undeciphered logic. undeciphered logic defines your state of incomplete knowledge. thus coming to any conclusion from that state is called making an assumption.

[Slartibartfast]

So you create an idea of a god you hate, you hate that idea of a god you created, and you are not willing to have that idea of the god you created be informed by the actual God that Christians trust in?

Am I to believe that you are as evil and murderous as the Kim boys, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and other atheists who made the 20th century the bloodiest ever? Because I can be comfortable with that false belief and refuse to be challenged like some ppl I know who has a post above this one...

Don't forget that all Christian morals are based off of an atheistic moral law.

[MD Marketers]

u need to calm down. because i could give u logical problems from the world of mathematics that you wouldnt be able to solve. does that mean that advanced mathematics is illogical? no. it means you require a higher level of understanding and application.

example. can you divide zero? for all basic mathematics the answer is no. but for high level advanced mathematics there is actually an exploratory process where they do divide zero into fractions to use in calculation. but besides that the divide by zero concept exists in nature. that's why we even have something called "division by zero". it crashes all logical processes yet is part of a logical physical world.

so we just have to look at the universe when it gives us divide by zeros and infinite recurring decimals and say "ah ok bro thanks for the mindfcuk". because its like there's nothing we can do about it. infinity and nothing are not logical concepts. yet.. here we are.

Watch how quickly you are going to throw logic based discussion out the door after initiating a topic with logic based subjects.
Watch how language and misuse of words can lead a topic of track.

You claim to have omniscience in stating that you could give me a logical based math problem that I cannot solve but someone else can.
Very disrespectful and distasteful starting statement. I will ignore it for now.

no pal. it doesnt work that way. u cant just discard a factual statement to proceed on your own logical tangent. i brought that to the fore because it is the foundation for the point. whether your feelings are hurt or not by statement has no bearing.

the fact remains, that just because u have a logical mind, does not mean that you will be able to deduce ALL THE LOGICAL progressions that come before you. some will be out of your scope of understanding. thus in entirety, a highly advanced system would be logical. it just appears illogical to you who does not yet have the full understanding.


you feel offended to be baffled? or to admit that there are people that may be smarter than you?

i want to see how u will say i change the topic now. u want to define terms. logic is logic. yes. but what is undecipherable logic? not gibberish? until we could figure it out? so if you ent figure it out yet, of course it might seem illogical to you. doesnt mean it is.

Once again a theist tries to win a logic base argument by changing the meaning of a word.

and not at all. as u can see i have defined 2 states of logic. logic and undeciphered logic. undeciphered logic defines your state of incomplete knowledge. thus coming to any conclusion from that state is called making an assumption.

There is no such thing as undeciphered logic. You are not even using the english language properly.
What you meant to say was "undiscovered knowledge" which has nothing to do with logic.
You are making these things up as you go, Deepak Chopra style.
I CAN discard a statement if it has nothing factual in it. You are still in the process of presenting facts yet somehow assume that the mere act of you saying it makes it factual.
You always do that.
Make a statement that is totally unpopular & expect people to think it's fact just because you said it's fact.
Unless I agree to it, I or no one else here is going to believe that "closer to zero" shares the same meaning as "zero".

Why did you say:
"just because u have a logical mind, does not mean that you will be able to deduce ALL THE LOGICAL progressions that come before you"

Yes you can deduce all "logical" information presented before you.
Apparently you do not understand how logic works.
If I am presented with logical pieces of information that correlate and validate an arguement I will be able to understand the logic.
If you bring incomplete, illogical or fabricated pieces of information & refuse to show how you arrived at the information then this is not a higher level of logic. This is simply you being difficult.

Logic is not the process of finding truth or knowledge. It is the process of making sense of the information presented before you to arrive at the same conclusions.
Do you see how stupid "undeciphered logic" sounds.
The only way to have "undeciphered logic" is if the person presenting it did not provide sufficient information for you to arrive at the same conclusion they did. In such a case the flaw is not with the listner but rather the presenter.
Maybe they themselves does not have all the knowledge required to explain how they came to their conclusion & therefore it is mere guesswork for the sake of attention.
Filling the gaps with speculation & trying to sound knowledgeable isn't going validate an argument Bluesclues.
I thought by now you would have learned this.
Your thought process is too hasty & you let your imagination run wild without taking time to stop and consider all factors involved. You chalk it up to "i'm just that gifted" but in reality you should be saying "i'm just that lazy".
Every conversation I have with you will always end with your starting a topic that sounds intellectual and when placed under the microscope you cannot back up what you are saying.
Prove me wrong.
Don't run this time.
Show me how Zero can be divided with the use of fractions and not give Zero as the answer.
Show me how you are able to divide by zero.

If not then stop throwing random pieces of irrelevant information out there in an effort to look like your on to something.

[crock101]

Habit.
I never made up any god,that was you guys,I didn't make up those horrible stories about him, that was you guys.
I just simply don't like the character,nor do I find the stories particularly sensible.
But again I repeat ,I don't actually blame god for anything since I don't actually think he is real in the first place.
I could be wrong ,this I know to be a possibility,however unlikely. While I am pretty sure there is literally nothing that will make you give up on your beliefs,no matter how strong the evidence is.

Am I wrong,is there something that would get you to change your mind?

[Habit7]

Habit.
I never made up any god,that was you guys,I didn't make up those horrible stories about him, that was you guys.
I just simply don't like the character,nor do I find the stories particularly sensible.
But again I repeat ,I don't actually blame god for anything since I don't actually think he is real in the first place.
I could be wrong ,this I know to be a possibility,however unlikely. While I am pretty sure there is literally nothing that will make you give up on your beliefs,no matter how strong the evidence is.

Am I wrong,is there something that would get you to change your mind?

What would the evidence(s) be, that would disprove God?

[bluesclues]

There is no such thing as undeciphered logic.

yes there is.

here is a perfect example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript

The Voynich manuscript is an illustrated codex hand-written in an unknown writing system. The vellum on which it is written has been carbon-dated to the early 15th century (1404–1438), and may have been composed in Northern Italy during the Italian Renaissance.[1][2] The manuscript is named after Wilfrid Voynich, a Polish book dealer who purchased it in 1912.[3]

Some of the pages are missing, with around 240 still remaining. The text is written from left to right, and most of the pages have illustrations or diagrams.

The Voynich manuscript has been studied by many professional and amateur cryptographers, including American and British codebreakers from both World War I and World War II.[4] No one has yet succeeded in deciphering the text, and it has become a famous case in the history of cryptography.

all languages carry a logical foundation. if all logic placed before us can be easily deduced.. then please.. by all means.. decode the information in this document.

u really have alot to learn. knowledge is based on information. information is data. data is derived facts. facts help us to deduce the logic or reasoning associated with solving a problem. you telling me you can come to an accurate logical conclusion without facts? without data? and with incomplete data?

[MD Marketers]

There is no such thing as undeciphered logic.

yes there is.

here is a perfect example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript

The Voynich manuscript is an illustrated codex hand-written in an unknown writing system. The vellum on which it is written has been carbon-dated to the early 15th century (1404–1438), and may have been composed in Northern Italy during the Italian Renaissance.[1][2] The manuscript is named after Wilfrid Voynich, a Polish book dealer who purchased it in 1912.[3]

Some of the pages are missing, with around 240 still remaining. The text is written from left to right, and most of the pages have illustrations or diagrams.

The Voynich manuscript has been studied by many professional and amateur cryptographers, including American and British codebreakers from both World War I and World War II.[4] No one has yet succeeded in deciphering the text, and it has become a famous case in the history of cryptography.

all languages carry a logical foundation. if all logic placed before us can be easily deduced.. then please.. by all means.. decode the information in this document.

u really have alot to learn. knowledge is based on information. information is data. data is derived facts. facts help us to deduce the logic or reasoning associated with solving a problem. you telling me you can come to a logical conclusion without facts? without data? and with incomplete data?

Then it is not undeciphered logic. It is undeciphered knowledge.
Learn the English language.
It's almost a year now I have been explaining what logic is and you still dont know.

Logic:
"reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

There is no such thing as "undeciphered reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

Are you this dense or is English not your main language? What other languages you speak? Maybe i can translate it.

If you do not give proper information then you cannot communicate a point properly. The process by which you communicate is based on Logic.

You DO NOT get to give incomplete information in a logical discussion and claim a valid conclusion. Lack of relevant information renders an argument inconclusive. You lack proper research practices and your information is almost always full of gaps yet somehow you think this is sufficient to validate your claims.
How can you not see the asburdness of this approach. It's completely useless for anyone that uses logic to communicate.
The only way I can see this can be possible for you to know something but unable to explain it is due to a language barrier.
As far as I can tell your knowledge is mere speculation and guesswork until you start using proper approaches to logic to explain yourself.
Do you even respect the amount of effort people like me put into gathering information and properly studying it before coming to conclusions that can be reciprocated on any public forum?
Try to spend more time meditating on reasearch than just reading it and you just might be able to explain your points better.
You ridicule this process with your wild imagination and inconsistent approaches to logic.

This is where we currently stand:
You claim you or someone else can divide by Zero and not get Zero
I say this is not possible and I give relevant examples which make logical sense & even if it didn't you haven't even bothered to disprove it.
You reply without providing ANY points to show how it is possible & expect this would work why?
Now your discussing ancient document codes in an effort to prove what? That it is possible to divide by zero & not get zero because it is written somewhere in a text that no one has decoded yet including you?
Or did you decode it, figure out how to divide by zero & not get zero, remember that "you figured it out", but forgot the part of HOW you figured it out?
You expect me to believe you can divide by zero and not get zero based on your "i know it's possible because of my hidden knowledge which i have hidden from myself & therefore cannot fully explain it" approach?

[bluesclues]

u see u disagreeing with me and u dont understand what you disagreeing with. language is not knowledge. it's cryptography. all ancient languages were deciphered by studying the writings to deduce logical patterns and putting together references. cryptography is advanced logic. born from simple logical constructs compounded with a logical formula to create encryption and the appearance of complexity.

so u basically proving my point with your current rhetoric. many things u dont understand but assume u do and come to a conclusion based on ur own assumptions. many of which are wrong or do not align with the real world.

u say u do alot of study, but if u can disagree with simple statements like those im making it doesnt support your claim. or perhaps u have more studying to do. decrypting a language or any sort of logical deduction process does not have to come natural to you in all areas. what you may be able to decipher, another person wont.. and vice versa. why cant you admit that?

[MD Marketers]

u see u disagreeing with me and u dont understand what you disagreeing with. language is not knowledge. it's cryptography. all ancient languages were deciphered by studying the writings to deduce logical patterns and putting together references. cryptography is advanced logic. born from simple logical constructs compounded with a logical formula to create encryption and the appearance of complexity.

so u basically proving my point with your current rhetoric. many things u dont understand but assume u do and come to a conclusion based on ur own assumptions. many of which are wrong or do not align with the real world.

u say u do alot of study, but if u can disagree with simple statements like those im making it doesnt support your claim. or perhaps u have more studying to do. decrypting a language or any sort of logical deduction process does not have to come natural to you in all areas. what you may be able to decipher, another person wont.. and vice versa. why cant you admit that?

Now your argueing with another person. Im right here, stop arguing with the person that said "language is knowledge". He is stupid & tell him stop disagreeing with you. Tell him I said some people can decipher languages while others can't & he needs to admit that.

Back on topic.
What does an undecoded language have to do with dividing by Zero to get something other than zero?
If it can prove it & you know how to do it because you understand this language then by all means let's have it.
I hope you don't mind but I will be replying every post you make from now on with a request for you to show how you can divide by zero and not get zero. My curiosity is peaked too much now to give it a rest so soon.

[bluesclues]

u say Back on topic to move to a tangent? no.. stay on topic. the topic is whether or not you can perceive all forms of logic when they are presented to you. the answer should be no. its no for me. and it should be no for you and everyone. if it's yes for you i find that rather interesting. especially since u cant demonstrate it with one example.

but what may be more interesting is that i am apparently speaking to another person with the name md marketers who i quoted in my responses 0.0

goodnight
#wastesomeoneelsestime

[MD Marketers]

u say Back on topic to move to a tangent? no.. stay on topic. the topic is whether or not you can perceive all forms of logic when they are presented to you. the answer should be no. its no for me. and it should be no for you and everyone. if it's yes for you i find that rather interesting. especially since u cant demonstrate it with one example.

but what may be more interesting is that i am apparently speaking to another person with the name md marketers who i quoted in my responses 0.0

goodnight
#wastesomeoneelsestime

No you didn't quote me in your responses. You willing to put money on that? No where in your response did you quote me, it's there for everyone to see. Why are you resorting to lies? Stop being dishonest please.

If the topic is "you cannot perceive all forms of logic when presented to you" then you have to show what you mean by that.
You cannot speak English?
Learn the meaning of the word Logic
How many times do I have to repeat the following:

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic

Undeciphered/Deciphered Language is not a form of logic.
Undeciphered/Deciphered information is not a form of logic
Undeciphered/Deciphered Knowledge is not a form of logic.

You bring up "dividing by zero & not get zero" to do what? Prove that there is such a thing as undeciphered logic?

Logic is the process by which we validate conclusions based on the premise of information given.

If you are making and unsubstantiated claim and the listener requires you to validate that claim then you need to provide the information necessary to logically form a decisive conclusion.

I am saying once you are provided with the right information you can logically come to a valid conclusion.
You are saying even if you are not provided with the right information you can still logically come to a valid conclusion.

Don't you see how absurd this sounds?
You expect us to believe we can come to a valid conclusion about the existence of a particular type of God without you providing the necessary evidence for us to logically follow your conclusion?

There is not one instance where we can logically form a conclusion about something if the conclusion does not logically follow the premise.

Eg. I prayed for the sun to rise this morning when I went to bed and it did, therefore God must exist.

Finding God without the use of logic is simply being dishonest with yourself.
Yet this seems to be the only way you can find God.

For the 4th time now:
Still waiting for you to divide by zero and not get zero.
Failure to do so each time i ask only strengthens my belief that you are a farce Bluesclues.

[nareshseep]

12510230_478065052394425_9019736902060740121_n.jpg (25.53 KiB) Viewed 2729 times

12509011_478268115707452_2198994583709681645_n.jpg (44.12 KiB) Viewed 2727 times

[nareshseep]

[nareshseep]

[MD Marketers]

They wrote this article after studying Bluesclues:


Quote:
As Marcello Truzzi, a renowned
skeptic and professor of
sociology in the United States,
once said: “An extraordinary
claim requires extraordinary
proof.” This notion
unfortunately doesn’t stop
people the world over from
believing things that are
demonstrably untrue, and a
new study published in the
journal of Judgment and
Decision Making shows that
those who are more receptive
to what the authors term as
“BS” tend to be both less
reflective and less intelligent
than their peers.

Profound-sounding
statements, incredibly vague
claims, and scientific-sounding
fakery are all considered to be
“BS” by the authors of the
research – who use the
pejorative a record-breaking
200 times in a single academic
paper. An example of this type
of BS is as follows:
“Hidden meaning transforms
unparalleled abstract beauty.”
This is inherently meaningless,
but it appears to communicate
something because it appears
to have an organized linguistic
structure we inherently
recognize.

Gordon Pennycook, a Ph.D.
candidate from the University
of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada,
used a website to randomly
generate profound-sounding
phrases to demonstrate the
ease of creating BS.
“Healing is the growth of hope,
and of us. We vibrate, we exist,
we are reborn” was the phrase
that we were greeted with upon
visiting the homepage.

Pennycook and a team of
researchers recruited 300 test
subjects to rate the profundity
of these randomly generated
BS phrases on a relatively
arbitrary scale of one to five.
On average, the sentences
were rated 2.6, suggesting that
the quotes were halfway
between “somewhat profound”
and “fairly profound.”

[...]

When the individual results
were compared with the
person’s measured numeracy
skills, verbal intelligence,
religious beliefs, and ability to
distinguish between a
metaphorical and a literal
statement, a fairly clear pattern
was revealed. Those who were
more likely to believe
outlandish conspiracy theories,
those that think alternative
medicine is effective, those
with a strong belief in the
paranormal, and those that
confuse metaphors for factual
pieces of information, were
found to not be the most
analytical or intelligent of
people.

[crock101]

Habit .
Instead of showing the evidence for god you are asking me for evidence disproving god. Well to be perfectly honest I don't have any evidence to prove the non existence of God,which is the same amount of evidence that you have to prove his existence.
It would be the same situation if I asked you to provide evidence to disprove the existence of leprechauns.

[Habit7]

While I am pretty sure there is literally nothing that will make you give up on your beliefs,no matter how strong the evidence is.

So first you were saying that there is strong evidence, now you are saying there is no evidence. So for you as an atheist "there is no God" is on blind faith?

I know in your theologically minimalistic mind the immaterial, eternal, non-spacial source for our material, temporal, spacial world that has been recognised by all human civilisation saved for those who have to intentionally replaced this obvious reality by something contrived, is on the same level as...an Irish folklore figure, you will have to convince others first. Other than that, it just an obvious cop out as the vacuousness of your position is becoming more evident.

[crock101]

Habit .
Again you are claiming that my insistence on only believing in what is supported by evidence is equal to the faith that you have that a snake and donkey can talk.
There is very little similarity between the two, but I am not surprised that you have a hard time understanding this.
After all you think the story of your god and that of leprechauns are somehow different,both are unrealistic myths.
I could be wrong about God, I have considered this possibility.tell me have you ever seriously considered if you are wrong ,not just about his existence but what if all this time you have been praying to the wrong God . Just imagine getting to heaven and meeting Zeus and he was pissed, wouldn't that constitute a wasted life