|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 5, 2016 12:20:47 GMT 10
The corner question is the easy one. Here's the doozy: How many sides does a circle have?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 5, 2016 12:22:28 GMT 10
You asked your imaginary friend if "he" was real ... and he said "Yes". "I see, Mr Occam's ... (takes out notepad and adjusts glasses) ... how long have these delusions been taking place?"  I hear a duck. No delusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 5, 2016 12:23:38 GMT 10
You mean the old saying? Two. (inside and outside)? ... ...Or is it one continuous line? How can you be on the left side or right side of it, if it only has one side? Discuss... |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 5, 2016 12:28:21 GMT 10
I hear a duck. No delusion. You're quackers. Ouch. That pun was so bad it offends everyone, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 5, 2016 12:35:47 GMT 10
Ooooh that's deep.
Just like the question: Is a hole a object, or the absence of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 5, 2016 12:41:16 GMT 10
You asked your imaginary friend if "he" was real ... and he said "Yes". "I see, Mr Occam's ... (takes out notepad and adjusts glasses) ... how long have these delusions been taking place?" Now that's a wee bit dismissive, Earl. The mentally ill are still capable of valid arguments. ...And its only a delusion to believe in things proven false. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 5, 2016 12:45:12 GMT 10
The answer could be quite plain.  The "plane" being divided into 3 "parts" by a circle ... but a plane with a "hole" taken out of it? I'm not sure that a name has been given to that.  Like how a boat is a hole in the water surrounded by wood, that you throw money into? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 6, 2016 20:31:57 GMT 10
Three of them are pretty closely divided. This is only Australia, however...
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 6, 2016 20:55:27 GMT 10
Three of them are pretty closely divided. This is only Australia, however... Seeking clarification, which three do you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 6, 2016 21:52:39 GMT 10
Three of them are pretty closely divided. This is only Australia, however... Seeking clarification, which three do you mean? Afterlife, nowhere, and don't know. (Although technically, 'don't know' isn't exactly a definitive response.) *Keeping in mind these statistics are specific to Australia. |
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Dec 6, 2016 21:54:54 GMT 10
When you die, the blood supply to your brain ceases, then your brain is irreparably damaged, then you start to decompose, and eventually you end up as dust plus a few bones. Or if you are cremated, then you end up as ashes. And that is it....goneburger!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 7, 2016 1:17:34 GMT 10
Your brain is only a tool of the mind; the mind is non-corporeal
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 7, 2016 7:06:29 GMT 10
Your brain is only a tool of the mind; the mind is non-corporeal You clearly are an exception as your brain gas been hijacked by a book written by man about an imaginary friend. Maybe you should try peter Pan next. At least he can fly in circles. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 7, 2016 7:08:04 GMT 10
Slartibartfast, you are an Atheist. We get it. Move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Dec 7, 2016 7:41:38 GMT 10
Athiest is a label dreamed up by theists.
The correct term is “non-belief of delusional god clap-trap without proof!”
It doesn't need a label (except in the minds of head-fucked religionists).
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 7, 2016 8:19:37 GMT 10
Slartibartfast, you are an Atheist. We get it. Move on. Then stop the stupid claptrap and move into reality. |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 7, 2016 8:21:06 GMT 10
Athiest is a label dreamed up by theists. The correct term is “ non-belief of delusional god clap-trap without proof!” It doesn't need a label (except in the minds of head-fucked religionists).  |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 7, 2016 8:35:21 GMT 10
Why? He is telling the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 7, 2016 10:00:56 GMT 10
Actually, Atheists originally applied the word to themselves in the 18th century.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 7, 2016 10:10:03 GMT 10
Slartibartfast, you are an Atheist. We get it. Move on. Then stop the stupid claptrap and move into reality. Atheists are not any sole authority on 'reality'. It is also a contradiction to insist on the concept of 'free thought', while you insist on conforming to atheistic ideals in the same breath. Your Internet proselytizing is ineffective ...So what'cha gonna do? Ridicule me into becoming an Atheist? |
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Dec 7, 2016 11:12:48 GMT 10
Actually, Atheists originally applied the word to themselves in the 18th century. Not me. I don't need to slap a label on myself to describe my non-believing of delusional, unproven bullshit (the imaginary god inside the heads of theists, including YOU), and which cannot been seen, or heard, or tasted, or smelled, or touched, or measured, or theoretically calculated in a scientific sense. And I note that you are continuing to go 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round in circles. Have you considered taking up a worthwhile hobby? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 7, 2016 11:52:03 GMT 10
Actually, Atheists originally applied the word to themselves in the 18th century. ...and which cannot been seen, or heard, or tasted, or smelled, or touched, or measured, or theoretically calculated in a scientific sense. ...And how can you accept that as the sole arbiter for truth and reality, when those senses themselves, rely entirely on philosophical assumptions? |
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Dec 7, 2016 12:15:03 GMT 10
Well....you are free to PROVE the existance of your god, just to convince us it isn't merely a “god delusion” inside your head.
The onus is always on people who claim the reality of something rediculous to put up the PROOF, not the other way around.
And the fact I refuse to blindly believe without the proof doesn't mean I need an athiest label (or any label). It merely means I DON'T BLINDLY BELIEVE.
And I don't need a bullshit book to refuse to blindly believe unproven bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 7, 2016 13:26:45 GMT 10
. The onus is always on people who claim the reality of something rediculous to put up the PROOF, not the other way around. Then where is the proof for that claim? Your assertion is self-refuting, and therefore a delusion unto itself. |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 7, 2016 13:28:29 GMT 10
Actually, Atheists originally applied the word to themselves in the 18th century. Wrong!! Comes from the Greek word athe(os) meaning "godless", originating around the year 1565. |
|
