Log in

No account? Create an account
..:: .::: .:: .::.::.:.: .. ..:: .::: .:: ....

May 2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

Ys [userpic]

I <3 ladytabitha.

She's fun to read, she's fun to chat with. I'm betting we'd be laughing our asses off if we ever got to spend time together in person.

Oh, and she's fun to flirt with. She's quite possibly as twisted as I am, if in different ways.

Just had to mention that.

Current Mood: flirtyflirty

You less than three me!

You realize I don't believe in the fairy theory of computing, right? The entire post is an illustration of how ridiculous the fence-sitters are when they base their whole argument and worldview on "you have to believe in the possibility of god and consider it valid just because you can't prove a negative in a non-falsifiable theory."

Thanks for showing what's wrong with the fairy theory, and by extension, the related existential negative fallacy theories on god. Don't spill the beans though.

Of course I do. I've seen your other posts. *grin*

See, I can drive people nuts in proveyourgod because I do not, in fact, believe in the concept of objective reality -- but I don't use that as a basis for saying that I think folks should believe in the possibility of god.

Have you read my intro posts to the community? They're back a ways, and I can find 'em if you like. I think you'd enjoy 'em. I really confused taniwha at first, I think. I think he finally decided that my leaning-towards-solipist his-quote sophistry his-unquote didn't keep me from being an entertaining conversational partner.

See, I completely agree with the idea that arguing that "you can't prove or disprove anything" means "you have to grant the possibility of a god" is a fallacious argument, even though I'm nominally theist myself. Of course, I'm not a Magic Jesus and his Daddy in the Sky theist, which also confused people at first. *grin*

I just had to point out that the problem with the Fairy Theory of Computers is not that it's fantastic. Quantum mechanics is pretty fucking fantastic...but it explains the observable results quite well.

By the way, I like the solution to getting me a semi-private message. *grin*

Hey, you're one of the more amusing people there. I figured you'd gotten it and were playing along (as you confirmed above), but just on the off chance...

I don't usually go for banning people, but I think using the existential negative fallacy, then insisting that using the argument "since you can't prove god doesn't exist, you have to accept the possibility" is somehow something other than a demand to prove a negative should be banworthy just like the Ben and Jerry thing. It basically proves the person in question doesn't actually know how to debate or think rationally. Either that or they're trolling by being deliberately obtuse.

As near as I can figure, the reaon it isn't a demand to prove a negative (at least in the idiot in question's mind) is that he never specifically said "I demand you prove god doesn't exist" in so many words. Nevermind that his sole argument is the existential negative fallacy.

I'm glad that I entertain. That's really most of my point in being there, what with the whole 'prove' in the title of the community being a not-real concept in my worldview. (Well, okay, you can prove things in math, but you're working with a severely limited domain when you do that. Anytime you limit the domain enough, you can do things that you otherwise couldn't.)

Well, that and it's often fun conversation for me, too... I love to think about things. I even like the whole Theory of Fairy Computing thing! I just know too much about semiconductor theory and computer architecture, that's all. *grin*

I mainly came up with it as a response to "open-minded" idiots who accept damn near anything as long as it can't be disproved (even if it can't even be disproved in theory). The fun part is when you get some fanatical theist (or fanatical fence-sitter like our mindless pal gravity) using the existential negative fallacy to "prove" god exists, who then turns around and denounces the Fairy Theory of Computing as utterly ridiculous and not worthy of consideration.

Yup. Dammit, if you're going to be crazy, at least be consistent! I can have a little respect for consistent insanity, at least. *grin*

Damn straight. We're (myself and my Krew) batshit bleeding crazy, but at least we're (for the most part) crazy within well-defined boundaries.

I actually did a sort of experiment at one point a while back. I posted this:

I am Faery. (Or, if you prefer, "I am a fairy." or "I am Faerie." -- I see distinctions between the three, but they are personal and for these purposes they are equivalent.)

What is your response to that assertion? Yes, this is invitation to comment freely, I am remarkably difficult to offend, and I regularly keep "You know, you're probably completely bonkers" in my head as one of the likely possibilities. I'm really curious what the various people who know me online and RL think about that statement.

I was really curious to see how people would react to that and was entertained by the various reactions I got.

In many ways proveyourgod is the same thing. (Though I still keep reading it proveyouregod instead, and I laugh every damn time. Easy to amuse, that's me.)

Yep. And it's an opportunity to show idiots what's wrong with their ridiculous beliefs. I think I made mad_the_swine cry.

Unfortunately, I don't think most of the idiots actually care that much about the logical fallacies and other holes in their beliefs. So they just assume anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and wrong and go on with their idiocy.

Then again, I am a misanthropist at heart.

"Unfortunately, I don't think most of the idiots actually care that much about the logical fallacies and other holes in their beliefs."

You think? That's pretty much a given when it comes to theists. I actually had an idiot ask me if I was ever in the Army. When I said no, his reply was "then you've never been in a foxhole." It then turned into him claiming the adage "there are no atheists in foxholes" proves god exists, nevermind that A: I know an atheist who was in combat over in Bosnia (and thus an atheist in a foxhole); and B: all it would prove (assuming it was true, etc) would be that everybody in a foxhole believes in some form of god. As we all know, belief doesn't mean actual existence.

I once (ha!) RPed in a world where belief meant existence.

The world was flat, because everyone believed it was so. So I created a character who truly believed that belief creates existance and who had mind-control capabilities, and he got together with another PC who truly believed that the world was round, and we put together an adventure where we would take a boat out and by the time we got to the edge of the world, everyone on the boat would believe that the world was round. We wanted to know one boat's worth of people was enough to let that one boat go around the world.

Never did manage to get past the first session, though, so we never did find out what our GM would've done to us. *grin*

Sounds nearly unplayable. I run GURPS games (paleogamer -- been playing RPGs since the early '80s with a bastardized version of D&D based solely on the old three-hole-punched blue Expert Set in 1981), and it sounds like play balance would be nearly impossible to mainain. After all, what's to stop you from simply disbelieving the big bad guy?

Oh, see, a single person's belief is demonstrably not enough to make a significant difference. Even a boatload of folks wouldn't normally be enough to make any difference -- except that we'd be away from the larger masses of nominally sentient beings, and so it might work. Then again, it might not. That's part of what was fun.

Think Discworld and Small Gods rather than a truly 100% subjective reality.

Did you manage to get a GURPS 4th Ed. Deluxe set? I didn't know they were available until too late, dammit.

I didn't get it. I lost my job just before I found out about them, and for obvious reasons didn't have the extra $125 handy. At this point I think I'll wait until next summer so they have a chance to do a fixed printing -- you know the SJ Games propensity for needing an errata pamphlet for the first printing of a given book.

I started playing GURPS back when 2nd Ed came out. I have rather a lot of GURPS stuff, though mostly these days I GM rather than play. (Trying to change that some right now, in fact.) That Small Gods-esque world was one in which I spent five RL years with a GURPS-playing group.

I'm reasonably impressed with 4th ed so far, for the record. The books are really nice and I've not found significant errors, and the rule changes are quite sane (if also things that blow some of our house rules out of the water until I figure out whether to redo them, and if so, how).

Cool. I'm working up a bastardized version based on 3rd edition and 4th edition Lite. That's what we'll be using here until I find a new job and pick up the new books. How are the bindings, anyway? I have to say I've been less than impressed in the past with the bindings in a lot of their books (I have something like 7 books in 3-ring binders, and another few I'll have to drill pretty soon). Granted, out of over 100 sourcebooks, that isn't TOO bad, but it's still annoying as Hell to spend $20+ on a book and have the binding disintegrate.

They appear to be proper sewn bindings. Obviously I don't know how they'll last long-term, but they look good.

Good. I was worried about that, since the hardcover 3rd edition book had kind of a crappy binding.

Oh, and it was either this or IM you on Yahoo, and a LOT of people throw hissyfits if you do...

Bah, you're welcome to IM me on yahoo if you like. (But I'm not there right now, even though I look like I am. I'm at work, and it's my computer at home that's logged in.) If you want to IM me during the day you have to use my MiscDeborah@msn.com MSN account, since I only have officially-approved MSN at work.

Eh. I'm usually online as larzmachine from 3PM to 3AM CST. I might not be at the machine, but I can hear the chime. IM if you get bored.