Christian Forums.

[SSY]

Does anyone here ever go over the Christian forums and read what our rather less free thinking friends have to say on certain issues?

I have been perusing these forums for a while now, and have to say, the level of misinformation spread around the forum is truly disturbing, no wonder we get quite a few nutters overflowing into our corner of the internet. For example, something I found today.

This is a simple argument from modal logic for the existence of an immaterial self. I found it interesting.

Let's say we have 2 objects A and B.
1) If A is identical to B (A=B) then everything that is true about A will also be true about B.
2) Let's say A is my body and B is me.
3) If I (B) am identical to my body (A) then everything that is true of my body will be true of me.
4) It's possible that I can exist without my body (perhaps in an afterlife or something).
5) There exists at least one property that is true about me that is not true about my body, namely, that "I can possibly exist without my body".
6) Therefore I am not identical to my body.

I think this argument is certainly valid. The argument hinges on the possibility of my existing without my body. For the argument to fail I think it has to be shown that it's impossible for me to exist without my body.

Shocking, just inserting " I might have a soul like thing " into the argument via  a premise, in order to come out with the conclusion of maybe having a soul, is just mind numbingly dull. I fear for the liberation of the religious at this rate. This person obviously rather fancies themselves as a methodical thinker, they may even know the laws of modal logic, but they fail, and fail hard when applying it to religion*.

*only their own though.

[Will]

Holy crap, that's... whoa.

[Kylyssa]

WTF?

[Whitney]

I use to post on Christian Forums....I quit, for obvious reasons.

[AlP]

:idea:

[buttercupbaby]

Is the brain in charge of you or are you in charge of the brain?.....Karl Pilkington

[OldGit]

You can save fuel on cooking, like that:

1.  Let's say we have two identical potatoes.
2.  If they are identical, then everything which is true of potato A is also true of potato B.
3.  Now cook potato A.
4.  If everything which is true of potato A is also true of potato B, then potato B is now also cooked.
5. Praise the lord for the power of logic.

[karadan]

I use to post on Christian Forums....I quit, for obvious reasons.

 

[Forseti]

You can save fuel on cooking, like that:

1.  Let's say we have two identical potatoes.
2.  If they are identical, then everything which is true of potato A is also true of potato B.
3.  Now cook potato A.
4.  If everything which is true of potato A is also true of potato B, then potato B is now also cooked.
5. Praise the lord for the power of logic.

I think this argument is certainly valid. The argument hinges on the possibility of potato B is cooked without being cooked. For the argument to fail I think it has to be shown that it's impossible for potato B to not being cooked without being cooked.

 

[G-Roll]

Does anyone here ever go over the Christian forums and read what our rather less free thinking friends have to say on certain issues?

I have been perusing these forums for a while now, and have to say, the level of misinformation spread around the forum is truly disturbing, no wonder we get quite a few nutters overflowing into our corner of the internet. For example, something I found today.

This is a simple argument from modal logic for the existence of an immaterial self. I found it interesting.

Let's say we have 2 objects A and B.
1) If A is identical to B (A=B) then everything that is true about A will also be true about B.
2) Let's say A is my body and B is me.
3) If I (B) am identical to my body (A) then everything that is true of my body will be true of me.
4) It's possible that I can exist without my body (perhaps in an afterlife or something).
5) There exists at least one property that is true about me that is not true about my body, namely, that "I can possibly exist without my body".
6) Therefore I am not identical to my body.

I think this argument is certainly valid. The argument hinges on the possibility of my existing without my body. For the argument to fail I think it has to be shown that it's impossible for me to exist without my body.

Shocking, just inserting " I might have a soul like thing " into the argument via  a premise, in order to come out with the conclusion of maybe having a soul, is just mind numbingly dull. I fear for the liberation of the religious at this rate. This person obviously rather fancies themselves as a methodical thinker, they may even know the laws of modal logic, but they fail, and fail hard when applying it to religion*.

*only their own though.

My favorite part of that post reads as follows:

1) If A is identical to B (A=B) then everything that is true about A will also be true about B.
2) Let's say A is my body and B is me.
3) If I (B) am identical to my body (A) then everything that is true of my body will be true of me.
6) Therefore I am not identical to my body.

You can throw 4 and 5 in there as filler.

I was kicked out of christian friends forum before i was ever able to say I am an atheist. There was a thread about laws in islamic nations that outlawed public preaching. I said I thought it was a good idea and I was banned because it prevented the spread of the word of jesus. True story.

[OldGit]

I think this argument is certainly valid. The argument hinges on the possibility of potato B is cooked without being cooked. For the argument to fail I think it has to be shown that it's impossible for potato B to not being cooked without being cooked.
 

I think you mean, it's not impossible for potato B to not be not cooked without being cooked.  This follows from the argument of Pope Flatulentius in the encyclical De Crapulo: 'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?'

[G-Roll]

some times you have to hit the rasta forums to find the really truley amazing thoughts.

oringinal post:

By PAUL THARP

Flying under the radar of the -Microsoft rivalry in the high-stakes search industry is a new gang of sites that build deep dossiers on your secrets -- and those of your pals -- just from your keyboard strokes.

The launch of Microsoft's Bing on Wednesday is putting the spotlight on some of the darker corners of the search industry, including sites that online experts say act like privacy pirates on the prowl for users' secrets.

Under the guise of "marketing research," these new search engines feed on social and people networks -- as well as contents of your e-mail address books -- to collect data ranging from favorite foods to photos with old flames.

full article...

and then the well thought out reply:

Well lets be careful spreading our beloved rasta culture on internet ...

We cant let it go into the wrong hands ....

god forbid it should fall into said wrong hands.

[LoneMateria]

Don't forget to have them wrap their hands in tinfoil, thats the only way it won't get your credit card information -_-

I really wish we had a facepalm smiley.

[Whitney]

I really wish we had a facepalm smiley.

[LoneMateria]

:facepalm2:  

OMFG yes, It was next to that purple thing and I didn't notice it TY Whitney.