Monday July 9th, 2007 @ 2:04pm
Thursday April 7th, 2011 @ 10:06pm
It actually is funny.
Monday July 9th, 2007 @ 10:29pm
I Think it’s pretty damn funny. Mainly cause so many people believe in a fictitious man who was supposedly the son of god.. and god at the same time.
Tuesday July 10th, 2007 @ 11:44pm
Great. As for the “fictitious man” argument– assertion. It might be an inference based upon some (perhaps even a LARGE amount of evidence), the evidence would never suggest that “Jesus” did “not exist,” just, perhaps, would not suggest that he did.
Sort of the “lack of evidence is not evidence of lack” argument again. So.. perhaps a correct statement would be “Mainly cause so many people believe in a man for which there is no reason to believe actually existed who was supposedly the son of god.. and god at the same time.”
To assume something does not exist is not the same as to there is no reason to believe something exists.
Does this mean that people who accept what you find there to be no reason to accept are wrong? No, I would contend, because like many other things, “reason,” as it’s being used in this sentence, is subjective.
I find “reason” to go to the store. Does that mean you do? I find “reason” to believe X. Does that mean you do? Of course, you could attack the “rationality” of whatever “reason” is stated, but that’s another issue completely.
As for the “Son of god and god at the same time.” I’m pretty sure this is a semantical misunderstanding as well..
“Ice is both ice and water at the same time.”
“(Son of god) is both (son of god) and (god) at the same time.”
I would suspect that you find no problem with the first sentence, why then the second would you “necessarily” need to find one? “Son of God” can suggest, like the first, both a “state” (human-son of god) and a “definitive quality” (“god”-god). Ice suggests “state” (solid-ice) and “definitive quality” (H2O-water).
Would it be more “agreeable” if it was structured as “Jub is both Jub and God at the same time.”
Tuesday July 10th, 2007 @ 11:47pm
Oh, by the way, I’m not trying to be completely argumentative here.. I just believe that there can be a little more understanding between people of different belief systems– specifically between atheist/theist.
They do not have to exist as belief systems which utterly discount the rationality of the other.
Wednesday July 11th, 2007 @ 8:51am
â€œIce is both ice and water at the same time.â€
Water does not describe it’s state. People associate ‘water’ with ‘liquid’ despite the fact that water is simply H20, which has no association with it’s state at all.
Ice however is a term reserved for frozen water, ‘frozen’ however has no association with water since any element can be liquid, frozen or gaseous.
â€œ(Son of god) is both (son of god) and (god) at the same time.â€
This sentence makes no logical sense.
â€œ(X) is both (X) and (X + Y) at the same time.â€
it’s like saying X = X and X = X + Y
Mathematically, the only solution to this equation is X and Y both equal 0 or Infinity.
I’m sure any god loving person would love to hop on board and say “clearly, god is the infinity then!”
I wrote about the idea of god being omnipotent and omnipresent here:
It simply cannot be, so god is the 0, not the infinity.
Tuesday November 9th, 2010 @ 4:05pm
Wednesday July 11th, 2007 @ 2:00pm
“Water does not describe its state.”
I never said that it did.. in fact, my argument was based on the idea that it did, in fact, not describe a state. My argument was that “ice” was describing a state plus a definitive characteristic, and water was merely defining the definitive characteristic. (Although, as you correctly point out, most people connect the “liquid state” with water automatically.. when this is not how the word is necessarily used.)
“Ice however is a term reserved for frozen water, “frozen” however has no association with water since any element can be liquid, frozen or gaseous.”
If by frozen you mean “frozen/solid” then yes.. but otherwise, no, “frozen” applies to only those things which must be cooled (relative to room temperature) in order to be placed into a solid state. In anycase.. I digress, let’s say I agree. Yes, you have merely rephrased my point.
Ice = frozen state + water(H20). (At least when used in it’s most general way.)
Water = H20.
As for your contention with the “logical sense” of the statement..
(X) is both (X) and (X+Y) at the same time.
As you correctly point out, 0 and infinity are both “numbers” which would make the equation correct.
But the equation I am propisitioning is different then you have stated.. mine would be more accurately representated as:
(X) is both (Z+Y) and (Y)
(ICE) is both (Description of State+Defining Characteristic) and (Defining Characteristic)
Ice is water.
Ice, however, can also be correctly said to be “frozen water”.
Son of God is God.
Son of God, however, can also be correctly said to be “Particular state of God”.
The phrase does not.. as you imply.. necessarily denote that statement:
Son of God is God.
Son of God is Son of God and God.
The same as one would that the concept surrounding ice implies:
Ice is water.
Ice is Ice and Water.
This would just be redundant– as well as would lead people, perhaps, to make incorrect inferences.. such as.. that “water” in the second sentence implies “liquid state”– which it does not.
“Son of God” (definitive quality/Jesus) is “God” (definitive quality)
“Son of God” (definitive quality/Jesus) is “Son of God” (descriptive quality/Human) and “God” (definitive quality).
“Ice” (definitive quality/ice) is “water” (definitive quality)
“Ice” (definitive quality/ice) is “frozen” (descriptive quality/solid) and “water” (definitive quality)
The problem, I believe, if I’m write about how I understand this concept is that many christians use “son of god” as a reference to jesus without also infering that it denotes a “state of God” and merely repeat, over and over again, that “son of god” is “god”.
What happens.. due to this lack of clarification is that many people believe what they are saying is that “son of god” is both “god in its entirity” as well as “partially”.
This would be logically inconsistent– I think. Something can not be “entirely something” as well as “partially that SAME something” at the same time.
however, I digress..
Thinking in purely mathematical terms you correctly point out that 0 and infinity are both numbers which would make the equation correct. You, however, incorrectly assume that “god” is the word that must be equivalent to zero.
Ignoring the argument that affixing number values to words is subjective.. I could still affix the value 0 to “son of god” instead.
Now, what does me doing this mean? Nothing. To say that the phrase “son of god” is equivalent to zero implies nothing about the existence of the entity or “state” it relates to, nor the relevance of phrase.
Zero, in mathematical terms, may be a signifier for an “absence of quantity”– but when I say “son of god” is equivalent to zero.. do I mean respective of “quantity”, “descriptive significance respective of that which it describes”, etc etc.
Monday July 16th, 2007 @ 3:18pm
At-one-ment with the Ground of all Donut-ness.
He was Donut wholly holely in His Being.
At once true Man and true Donut.
Glazed and without flaw.
Monday July 16th, 2007 @ 7:55pm
r/e sorry, but you’re an idiot. try taking a logic class sometime and stop trying to impress everyone
Monday July 16th, 2007 @ 10:24pm
All this is saying is that donuts are a sin. And we already knew that: sugar? Glaze? Cream filling??? SINFUL.
Everybody atone, come on now.
*munches some Dunkin*
Monday July 23rd, 2007 @ 4:52pm
Danno: Heh… I’m just making an argument– I’m not trying to impress anyone. :)
As for your counter-argument, it fails. In fact.. it doesn’t really address anything. You may say.. “Your argument doesn’t warrant a counter-argument.” Maybe true.. yet, I still fail to see where the invalid inference is or the invalid analogy.
So.. stop being so patronizing. ;)
Sunday August 5th, 2007 @ 11:28pm
This picture, although old, still makes me lol.
Monday August 6th, 2007 @ 8:25am
You guys could suck the fun out of everything.
Sunday August 12th, 2007 @ 9:12pm
An old picture, but still funny.
Tuesday November 27th, 2007 @ 7:42pm
ITS A FUCKING PICTURE
GET OVER YOURSELVES
Wednesday February 13th, 2008 @ 5:23pm
Yeah, the pic’s cool, but it’s totally bogus; the idea that christ died for donuts, even if he did exist, nobody would take that in their religion.
Friday April 18th, 2008 @ 10:57am
Why are you arguing about what people believe and what you don’t? It’s pointless. You either believe in God and convinced He exists, or you don’t and nothing will convince you. If the way you live is working for you, I say go for it and quit worrying about what other people believe. But, if you have to nit-pick someone to death every time they mention God, maybe the problem isn’t their belief, maybe it’s your lack of belief.
To put it another way, say I get into a discussion with someone who insists that something is green when I say it is yellow. To him, it IS green and nothing I can say will “prove” to him otherwise. It’s pointless to get into a debate about it because it can’t be proved that it’s one way or the other because the color of anything you see relies on your individual brain’s interpretation of the data it is receiving from your eyes. And even that relies on the light that is being shone upon the object in question. The point is, a specific color can’t be proven. Furthermore, it doesn’t change MY life one way or the other if someone else thinks that something is a different color than I perceive it to be, so why should I waste my time trying to make him see things my way?
Friday April 18th, 2008 @ 12:08pm
>You either believe in God and convinced He exists, or you donâ€™t and nothing will convince you.
What makes you think an atheist cannot be convinced that god(s) exist? I’d LOVE to be shown that god(s) actually exist, that would be great. But reality has a way of proving god(s) don’t exist.
>a specific color canâ€™t be proven
Of course it can be easily proven. Green is not a perceptual thing, green isn’t some ambiguous concept, it’s quite definable. Light having a spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of roughly 520â€“570-nm is “green”, if you see light traveling at that wavelength and you call it “yellow”, you’d be incorrect, it’s “green”.
Tuesday July 29th, 2008 @ 3:23pm
ok. you guys seriously. its a picture, there is NO need to argue that this picture is rude or w.e. to your religion. IF YOU DONT LIKE IT WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT IT?! so stop arguing about a god damn picture, there is no point.
Saturday November 28th, 2009 @ 1:18am
Jesus was a prick anyway. I microwave my doughnuts.