Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
The Truth is:
Both God and Semiotics exist. 15%
God exists, but Semiotics does not. 10%
Semiotics exists, but God does not. 5%
Neither God nor Semiotics exist. 5%
I am hungry. Give me bread. 63%

Votes: 19

 Circus Roboticus

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 14, 2002
 Comments:
You will now engage in vicious written combat for my amusement.

Here is your arena:

diaries

More diaries by RobotSlave
How much Xanax will be adequate?
I am speechless.
How to Smash Global Industrial Capitalism Without Leaving Your Bar-Stool
Down Time
Irresponsible Meat Judge
A Formal reminder.
Excerpt
Ice Cores
Prepare the Huskies
Idle Amusements
Helpful Tip
Why "Hacker?"
Bloody Mary
Declaration of War
Report from the War Department.
Confidential to Karel Jenczek
Dear Mr. Script Kiddie, Sir:
Deletion Notice
Semiotics tells us that abstractions such as "God" and "semiotics" exist only in the human mind. Therefore, God does not have an independent existence. We can now say that God does not exist.

However, by the same token, semiotics does not exist. Since semiotics does not exist, our proof of the nonexistence of God is invalidated.

Now, by the same token, our proof of the nonexistence of semiotics is invalidated. Thus, our original proof of the nonexistence of God, though weakened, stands.

 

You will begin combat at my command. Your nominal weapons are Semiotics and Theology, but as with all bloodsport, you may improvise. The last combatant standing shall be declared a free man or put to death, according to my whim.

 

BEGIN!



       
Tweet

Karl Marx wins! (none / 0) (#1)
by zikzak on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 08:20:08 PM PST
"Philosophy is to the real world as..."

I'll abstain, thanks.

 
Sometimes nothin' can be a real Cool Hand. (none / 0) (#2)
by elenchos on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 09:02:04 PM PST
(nt)


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

 
NO (none / 0) (#3)
by jvance on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 09:39:52 PM PST
Said the sadist to the masochist.


--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
We'll See (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Orinoco on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 09:45:48 PM PST
OK Roland, cut the iconico-plastic bullshit. I'll see your sisyphian semiotics and I'm all in with Pascal's wager.

Let's see what you got, bucko.


 
You think you know better than the Pope? (none / 0) (#5)
by osm on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 10:36:41 PM PST
Let's see. The universe, after billions of years, produces a means to be aware of itself (us). What is that? An accident? LOL!

yea an accident. (none / 0) (#8)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 03:05:31 AM PST
If by an acident you mean that it might not of happened then yes. In fact the chances that we, humans would exist must have been miniscule.

Then again, with a universe so large it was very probable that intelligent life would crop up somewhere and here we are.

Your argument is like saying "this week someone won the lottery jackpot..the chances of that happening to them are so remote that it cant have been an accident"
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

You appear to be t****ing (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 03:13:14 AM PST
In fact the chances that we, humans would exist must have been miniscule.

Retrospectively, the chances of things happening the way they did are miniscule. But looking forward, saying that things will happen however they're going to happen is guaranteed.

We exist (even if we don't philosophically). Deal with it.

wait (none / 0) (#13)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 03:28:21 AM PST
Funny, I agree with everything you said.

yes its obvious that "things are going to happen". I also agree that we exist.
I also agree that the chances of things happening how they did are very low.
So where am I contradicting you?


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
A Naughty is You (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:16:39 AM PST
Your first proposition:
Semiotics tells us that abstractions such as "God" and "semiotics" exist only in the human mind
is a roundabout way of asserting:
{a & {not a}}
and basic logic tells us that anything can be proved from contradiction.

Therefore everything and nothing follow logically from your first proposition.

Therefore you are just fucking around with us.

Therefore you are a t**ll.

You are lucky someone hasn't deleted this diary of yours, you ill-behaved automaton.

 
I have a question (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 02:46:39 AM PST
How can I vote for both the correct answers in the poll?

Come on. It's quite simple, really. (none / 0) (#9)
by RobotSlave on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 03:08:31 AM PST
You must state which options are true in a comment. Furthermore, you must provide adequate justification for your assertions.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
In other news, black is white. (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 03:18:49 AM PST
In terms of perception, a piece of white cloth appears white, because it is reflecting the full visible spectrum of light into your eyes. As that full spectrum is reflected, none of it is absorbed, and so we must conclude that the actual surface of the cloth is black.

Conversely, what appears to be a black cloth is, in fact, absorbing the full visible spectrum of light, and therefore itself must be white.


 
the topic is logically flawed (none / 0) (#12)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 03:24:14 AM PST
Using propositional calculus:

a = semiotics
b = god

a->(`b) :if semiotics exists, god doesnt exist

a->(`a) :if semiotics exists, semiotics doesnt exist

Both of these statements are valid.

But from these two statements you cant calculate that:

(`a)->b :If semiotics doesnt exist, god does exist.

That statement is logically invalid - just because semiotics doesnt exist doesnt prove that god does.

As the truth table shows:

a b | a->b
0 0 | 1
0 1 | 1
1 0 | 0
1 1 | 1

that if b is false it doesnt mean that a must be true.

(a->b mean if a is true then b is true)
(`a means inverse a)

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
I Am Displeased (none / 0) (#14)
by RobotSlave on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 04:10:42 AM PST
If you miserable, craven wretches don't start fighting each other soon, I will fetch your loved ones, and have them bound to you, there in the dust, and then loose the lions upon the lot of you.

I don't care what you think of my arena. Sure, it needs some paint, but why are you standing there pointing at cracks in the dirt when everything you cherish might be destroyed at any moment? The only thing that matters at the end of the day is which one of you worms is still on your worthless feet.

Do you believe in God? Empiricism? Determinism? Chaoticism? Yes? No? Don't just stand there shuffling your feet, damn you. Show me you've got an ounce of conviction. Let flow the blood of any around you who doubt your Truth.

 

FIGHT, COWARDS!

 

Oh, and take the poll, please.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

guh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 05:50:39 AM PST
Wouldn't you rather go have yourself a nice cold beer?


--
Peace and much love...

 
Sorry, 'slave... (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 06:35:44 AM PST
If you want a diary entry overflowing with comments on religion, the best way to do that is to write an entry that only subtly mentions it...

Sorry, idiot (none / 0) (#19)
by RobotSlave on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 04:13:04 PM PST
You have missed the point of this diary entry. But you amuse me, at least. Thank you for that.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Did I do that? (n/t) (none / 0) (#20)
by jvance on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 04:31:06 PM PST

--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
You could have (none / 0) (#16)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 06:32:39 AM PST
at least cleaned the place before having company.

C'mon, everyone. This diary sucks--let's go to another one.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
Okay (1.66 / 3) (#18)
by jvance on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 07:51:42 AM PST
The first person to mention Quatloos gets kickbanned.

D'oh!

--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
I am hungy... (none / 0) (#21)
by Wiener on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 12:03:45 AM PST
...give me bread.

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.