4th July 2011

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”

Stephen Hawking

27 Responses to “4th July 2011”

  1. solomon Says:

    Illusion is a form of knowledge too. Ever heard of optical illusions or other illusions? So illusion of knowledge is not the enemy of knowledge but is the friend of knowledge. The enemy of knowledge are ones shutting their minds of reasoning and truth. Stephen Hawkings must have been a fool.

  2. RJ Says:

    sol……………………Bo Peep is calling……..all lost sheep

    better check in !!!!!!!

  3. RJ Says:

    oh yeah…………….one more thing, sol………..

    apparently you are not familiar with stephen hawking .

    why dont you take a little time and look him up
    on WIKIPEDIA………..you know…kinda get an understanding
    of what hawking is all about…………

    and then maybe………..and i do mean MAYBE………….

    you might have some idea of what the man is talking
    about.

    your response to the quote today indicates (( once again ))
    that you’re totally clueless.

  4. solomon Says:

    Dan, RJ,

    Your ‘clueless’ is even more clueless.
    Whaaa….ka…ka…ka….

  5. archaeopteryx Says:

    Stephen Hawking is still alive. Unless that’s an illusion too.

  6. solomon Says:

    Who’s claiming he’s dead?
    Are you alive & well archaeopteryx?

  7. archaeopteryx Says:

    You said he must have been a fool. Past tense. You could have meant that he was a fool in the past but is now sensible, but that wasn’t how I read it, particularly in the context of your previous contributions to this thread.

  8. Dan Says:

    Illusion is a form of knowledge too. Ever heard of optical illusions or other illusions? So illusion of knowledge is not the enemy of knowledge but is the friend of knowledge.

    Trickery is a form of knowledge? I guess that makes sense to someone who’s fooled by claims of miracles and such, which can be better explained as placebos, etc., but it doesn’t make sense to someone who’s not completely gullible.

  9. Atheist MC Says:

    Well, I guess Sollie could have a deeper philosophical point (it would be a first I know) in that a lot of what we claim to know could be construed as illusory. We don’t know for example that quarks and gluons actually exist, we just know the world works as if they did.
    In case Solomon wants to stretch this idea too far, the world also works as if god doesn’t exist. One of the strongest reasons not to entertain the possibility that she might.

  10. R J Says:

    i found sol’s remarks so compelling that i composed a little ditty in his
    honor !!!!!!!

    sung to the tune of ” my bonnie lies over the ocean ”

    your clueless is even more clueless

    your ig….nor…ance as….ton….ish….ing

    youy re….son….ing is pret….ty sha…key

    oh ( ! ) where is my de….vine be….ing ???????

    bring back…..

    bring back…..

    bring back my de….vine be….ing ( be….ing )

    bring back…..

    bring back…..

    it’s time for the sec….ond com….ming !!!!!!!

    fondly, R J

  11. solomon Says:

    When the atheists have no arguments or fail to refute certain religious doctrines, then they will resort to an intoxicated kind of behavior to counter their frustrations or just to shut of their minds from truth….
    Anyway I kinda like that song.It reminds me of some fond memories.

  12. Atheist MC Says:

    When the atheists have no arguments or fail to refute certain religious doctrines,

    Is this an example of illusory knowledge? How could you possible know this as there is no empirical data to support the assertion, mainly because there has never been an occasion when atheists have failed to refute religious doctorine.

  13. Atheist MC Says:

    doctrine 🙂

  14. Dan Says:

    When the atheists have no arguments or fail to refute certain religious doctrines…

    When is that?

    Also, Solly, let’s be honest here: you very very rarely even attempt to make arguments. Usually it’s just baseless assertions, half-thought out items that don’t make much sense and which you don’t have the temerity to explain properly, or taunts befitting of a 9-year-old brat. Like this one:

  15. Dan Says:

    Sorry, forget the “Like this one:” ending. Examples of that are too abundant anyway.

  16. archaeopteryx Says:

    No-one needs to refute assertions (doctrines) that have no evidence base.

  17. solomon Says:

    archaeopteryx,

    You and the atheists lots idiotly just rely on your silly evidence base ranting.
    You can’t deny that the chair you sit on is not without someone who built it even though you did’nt see who built it don’t you? The same concept it must be to other creations. You can’t deny that someone must have created it.

  18. Dan Says:

    You’re absolutely right Sol, we cannot refute that for things that were built. Where were you built though? Oh, that’s right, you weren’t created, built, or assembled, were you?

    You were conceived through sexual reproduction you idiot.

  19. solomon Says:

    Sexual reproduction is only a process…you triple idiot!!

  20. Dan Says:

    Sexual reproduction is only a process…you triple idiot!!

    I’m wrong? Then when and how were you manufactured?

  21. solomon Says:

    I’am glad you admit.
    Humans as well as other beings are manufactured thru various processes outlined by God and these process is repeated over and over again. Its a very simple process to God.

  22. Dan Says:

    Right, but how?
    And I’m assuming that your manufacturer only built one of your model. Assuming that you’re not a defective model – that is, assuming you were a well-functioning model – why did your manufacturer then only build one of you? Car manufacturers for instance build millions of each model.

  23. Dan Says:

    Anyway, I wasn’t built. I have photographs of me as a baby and I’m pretty certain that I was born by normal sexual reproduction, grew, and developed with no assembly required.

  24. solomon Says:

    Dan,

    God is very intelligent. If God make only one model, you won’t be able to differentiate between your mother or your wife. However God did show some imperfections in his models. Handicapped for examples.
    Of course you are not assembled. Manufactured is just a figure of speech.

  25. Dan Says:

    If God make only one model, you won’t be able to differentiate between your mother or your wife.

    So? If you’re built instead of born via regular sexual reproduction, you won’t have a mother and no need of a wife, now will you?

    Of course you are not assembled. Manufactured is just a figure of speech.

    Wait a second, so the whole bit about you being built/created/etc. and thus also is just a figure of speech? Well yes, as an atheist I’d agree completely that creation and creator gods are, at best, mere figures of speech.

  26. solomon Says:

    Dan,
    Don’t comment on bits & pieces of words to make an issue. You as well as I knew those little issues is not worth debating.

  27. Dan Says:

    Don’t comment on bits & pieces of words to make an issue. You as well as I knew those little issues is not worth debating.

    What’s the matter Solly, suddenly realizing that it makes no sense AT ALL to say that you were built/created?