Conquer Club

I didn't dream no cheet..ah

Had many dreams, and the closest would be that I dreamed little about being at a mall and suddenly came to the realization that there were many of old acquaintances around, like taking a picture in group, and at the same time realized they were not my university friends but from the university that my roommate attended to, with whom I hanged sometimes.

saxitoxin wrote:RDSRDS2120: saw 2dimes, saw Metsfanmax
LaughingCavalier: saw Saxi, saw Esmerelda
GreecePWNS: saw (possibly impregnated, unclear) Esmerelda
Saxi: saw no one
Esmerelda: saw no one
notyou2: saw AoG, saw Serbia's Mom, saw Saxi, saw Esmerelda
Slash: saw Dancing Mustard
DoomYoshi: saw no one
2dimes: saw no one
nietzsche: still asleep

There is no overlap at all. I DECLARE THE EXPERIMENT A FAILURE.

the experiment was a success... it provided evidence against a "dream world" or the idea that dreams exist anywhere else other than the individual's own mind

john9blue wrote:the experiment was a success... it provided evidence against a "dream world" or the idea that dreams exist anywhere else other than the individual's own mind

Don't be silly. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The experiment could have just as likely failed because in my dream I had the dream cheetah strapped in a gynecological chair in my basement.

A rational person can only be purely agnostic about the existence of dream worlds.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:the experiment was a success... it provided evidence against a "dream world" or the idea that dreams exist anywhere else other than the individual's own mind

Don't be silly. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The experiment could have just as likely failed because in my dream I had the dream cheetah strapped in a gynecological chair in my basement.

A rational person can only be purely agnostic about the existence of dream worlds.

if he was strapped in a chair, then how did some other people see him? -1 for your theory.

i don't think you understand what agnosticism means. it means that there's not enough evidence to draw a conclusion one way or the other, not "hurp durp i'm gonna make a retarded straw man to piss off john and pretend all evidence is meaningless because i can think of an unlikely alternative possibility".

this experiment has made me a bit less agnostic about my belief that dreams only exist in the mind, and a bit more agnostic about my belief that you know what you are talking about when it comes to epistemology

john9blue wrote:if he was strapped in a chair, then how did some other people see him? -1 for your theory.

Same way I saw on Off topic member who did not come to my dream.

As you say, one or more Cheetahs existed only in the individual's mind. The transendental cheetah may still have been in one or more of the dreams.

2dimes wrote:

john9blue wrote:if he was strapped in a chair, then how did some other people see him? -1 for your theory.

Same way I saw on Off topic member who did not come to my dream.

As you say, one or more Cheetahs existed only in the individual's mind. The transendental cheetah may still have been in one or more of the dreams.

maybe, but that explanation is less likely due to its complexity

So the most likely explanation is milk?

We might have all dreamed at different times.

Some of us cannot remember our dreams. What about that sample, j9b?

Can we just let the stinking corpse of the dream cheetah rest in peace for crying out loud? It's dead I tell you, DEAD! It was limping from gangrene since the beginning and your efforts to keep it alive were cruel and unusual.

You're not killing this thread too FT.

john9blue wrote:if he was strapped in a chair, then how did some other people see him? -1 for your theory.

Clearly that was just a regular cheetah, if they had really seen the dream cheetah the dreams would have correlated.

john9blue wrote:i don't think you understand what agnosticism means. it means that there's not enough evidence to draw a conclusion one way or the other, not "hurp durp i'm gonna make a retarded straw man to piss off john and pretend all evidence is meaningless because i can think of an unlikely alternative possibility".

this experiment has made me a bit less agnostic about my belief that dreams only exist in the mind, and a bit more agnostic about my belief that you know what you are talking about when it comes to epistemology

Pro-tip: When someone mentions cheetahs strapped to gynecological chairs there's a decent shot the post isn't meant to be taken seriously.

You need to lighten up man. Shouldn't this superiority complex of yours make you feel disengaged from the ramblings of us plebs rather than enraged by them?

If you wanna get serious:
How much evidence towards the non-existence of god is given by the fact that none of the fuckin religions match?
How much is given by the fact that we have observed religions be created in the lab as it were ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult )

john9blue wrote:

2dimes wrote:

john9blue wrote:if he was strapped in a chair, then how did some other people see him? -1 for your theory.

Same way I saw on Off topic member who did not come to my dream.

As you say, one or more Cheetahs existed only in the individual's mind. The transendental cheetah may still have been in one or more of the dreams.

maybe, but that explanation is less likely due to its complexity

Oh, oh, this reminds me of an old discussion with you that we hadn't finished.

Going on the complexity theory, you have to agree that an omnipotent omniscient god is a terrible explanation for how the universe came to be because such a god will necessarily be more complex than the universe, right?

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:

2dimes wrote:

john9blue wrote:if he was strapped in a chair, then how did some other people see him? -1 for your theory.

Same way I saw on Off topic member who did not come to my dream.

As you say, one or more Cheetahs existed only in the individual's mind. The transendental cheetah may still have been in one or more of the dreams.

maybe, but that explanation is less likely due to its complexity

Oh, oh, this reminds me of an old discussion with you that we hadn't finished.

Going on the complexity theory, you have to agree that an omnipotent omniscient god is a terrible explanation for how the universe came to be because such a god will necessarily be more complex than the universe, right?

When it comes to magic there are no rules haggis

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:i don't think you understand what agnosticism means. it means that there's not enough evidence to draw a conclusion one way or the other, not "hurp durp i'm gonna make a retarded straw man to piss off john and pretend all evidence is meaningless because i can think of an unlikely alternative possibility".

this experiment has made me a bit less agnostic about my belief that dreams only exist in the mind, and a bit more agnostic about my belief that you know what you are talking about when it comes to epistemology

Pro-tip: When someone mentions cheetahs strapped to gynecological chairs there's a decent shot the post isn't meant to be taken seriously.

You need to lighten up man. Shouldn't this superiority complex of yours make you feel disengaged from the ramblings of us plebs rather than enraged by them?

If you wanna get serious:
How much evidence towards the non-existence of god is given by the fact that none of the fuckin religions match?
How much is given by the fact that we have observed religions be created in the lab as it were ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult )

- no, that's called a thought experiment

- if i had a superiority complex then i wouldn't be willing to have an honest discussion with you... like some on this forum. in fact, i probably wouldn't even be here because i wouldn't consider you guys worthy of my time.

- the religions almost all match on a few key points.

- i don't think cargo cults qualify as religions. they just adapted unnecessary beliefs into their existing religions.

I dreamed about AOG.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:

2dimes wrote:

john9blue wrote:if he was strapped in a chair, then how did some other people see him? -1 for your theory.

Same way I saw on Off topic member who did not come to my dream.

As you say, one or more Cheetahs existed only in the individual's mind. The transendental cheetah may still have been in one or more of the dreams.

maybe, but that explanation is less likely due to its complexity

Oh, oh, this reminds me of an old discussion with you that we hadn't finished.

Going on the complexity theory, you have to agree that an omnipotent omniscient god is a terrible explanation for how the universe came to be because such a god will necessarily be more complex than the universe, right?

i thought we agreed that god didn't need to be more complex than the universe? can't complexity arise from simplicity?

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:

2dimes wrote:

john9blue wrote:if he was strapped in a chair, then how did some other people see him? -1 for your theory.

Same way I saw on Off topic member who did not come to my dream.

As you say, one or more Cheetahs existed only in the individual's mind. The transendental cheetah may still have been in one or more of the dreams.

maybe, but that explanation is less likely due to its complexity

Oh, oh, this reminds me of an old discussion with you that we hadn't finished.

Going on the complexity theory, you have to agree that an omnipotent omniscient god is a terrible explanation for how the universe came to be because such a god will necessarily be more complex than the universe, right?

i thought we agreed that god didn't need to be more complex than the universe? can't complexity arise from simplicity?

Humans and other advanced animals from single celled creatures are a perfect example.

Metsfanmax wrote:I dreamed about AOG.

Did you ruin your sheets?

notyou2 wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:

2dimes wrote:

john9blue wrote:if he was strapped in a chair, then how did some other people see him? -1 for your theory.

Same way I saw on Off topic member who did not come to my dream.

As you say, one or more Cheetahs existed only in the individual's mind. The transendental cheetah may still have been in one or more of the dreams.

maybe, but that explanation is less likely due to its complexity

Oh, oh, this reminds me of an old discussion with you that we hadn't finished.

Going on the complexity theory, you have to agree that an omnipotent omniscient god is a terrible explanation for how the universe came to be because such a god will necessarily be more complex than the universe, right?

i thought we agreed that god didn't need to be more complex than the universe? can't complexity arise from simplicity?

Humans and other advanced animals from single celled creatures are a perfect example.

'cept the mechanics of biological evolution are vastly different from the big bang and allow for complexity arising from simplicity. Indeed, the formation of stars and subsequent matter heavier than hydrogen are complexity arising from simplicity, but the big bang itself can't be said to follow that same plan. I think.

-TG

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I dreamed about AOG.

Did you ruin your sheets?

This was not the first time.

john9blue wrote:- no, that's called a thought experiment

- if i had a superiority complex then i wouldn't be willing to have an honest discussion with you... like some on this forum. in fact, i probably wouldn't even be here because i wouldn't consider you guys worthy of my time.

You're usually not this serious. Fine I'll stop the joking around.

john9blue wrote:- the religions almost all match on a few key points.

What would those be?

john9blue wrote:- i don't think cargo cults qualify as religions. they just adapted unnecessary beliefs into their existing religions.

How about scientology? mormonism?
Btw, check this out if you haven't heard of it, it's hilarious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement

These things should be pretty good evidence that it isn't exactly hard for a religion to be formed out of complete and utter nonsense.

john9blue wrote:i thought we agreed that god didn't need to be more complex than the universe? can't complexity arise from simplicity?

Yes. That's why i specified an omnipotent omniscient god.
Can he hold all the information in the universe and have absolute power over the universe while being less complex than the universe ?

This argument doesn't apply to deistic interpretations, just to mainstream theistic ones.

i think it's a little ridiculous that this has turned into yet another religion thread... but whatever, guess i'm partially to blame LOL

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:- the religions almost all match on a few key points.

What would those be?

creator of universe, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:- i don't think cargo cults qualify as religions. they just adapted unnecessary beliefs into their existing religions.

How about scientology? mormonism?

sure, those have their own gods and beliefs about ultimate origin, etc.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Yes. That's why i specified an omnipotent omniscient god.
Can he hold all the information in the universe and have absolute power over the universe while being less complex than the universe ?

This argument doesn't apply to deistic interpretations, just to mainstream theistic ones.

not sure. i don't think the universe was very complex in the beginning, though.