As long as fundamentalism exists, coexistence cannot though. Meaning that, for coexistence to happen, you must put an end to the severity of certain peoples beliefs. But if you do that then you arent coexisting fully, you are choosing who you want and dont want to coexist with. Alas, this group has an inevitable flaw and therefore will never work.

It's not impossible...it's just that the necessary groundwork for a peaceful coexistence is essentially brainwashing.

Nothing is impossible.

Unless of course you decide it is so, before experiencing it.

Also.

Nothing is to be feared, unless of course you decide this in the first place. There is nothing to fear but fear itself, there is nothing impossible, but the idea of impossibility itself.

quote:Originally posted by Ali G in da house:

As long as fundamentalism exists, coexistence cannot though. Meaning that, for coexistence to happen, you must put an end to the severity of certain peoples beliefs. But if you do that then you arent coexisting fully, you are choosing who you want and dont want to coexist with. Alas, this group has an inevitable flaw and therefore will never work.

What group are you talking about? I see the "humanist" is just as much exclusive in their views as any other ideology. They teach diversity and tolerance and spew all kinds of good sounding doctrines. When you say diveristy and tolerance though, what you really mean is diversity and tolerance for those who share your same views.

However, the concept of coexistence and globalist socialism still requires adherence and conformity for it to work.

What you are really saying is for secularist socialism to work we all have to agree with the core issues.

You my friend are also a fundamentalist following the secular proggressive 'PC' doctrine. Your stance is just as severe as someone who believes in a God ordained order of society.

Don't think you have the answer to global peace nor the answer on how to achieve it. Conformity requires the destruction of all opposition by cohersion or force. Diplomacy is only another 'PC' word for passification.

We were divided by national borders and languages for a reason and tear down those barriers will reveal all the evils mankind is capable of to achieve the "global village"

Don't think I stand with the religious who force their will on others by force or who threatens your neck with a knife. These people are no different then what you are preaching. What the secularist can't do by "diplomacy" they will eventually do with force.

That is the nature of humanism. The way I see it is no different then the religious zealot who believes in the domination of others.

[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 12-16-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by ate:

Nothing is impossible.

I want you to prove this by spending the next fifteen years of your life not breathing in any air whatsoever. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

I want you to prove this by spending the next fifteen years of your life not breathing in any air whatsoever. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

I want you to prove to me that something's impossible first.



[This message has been edited by ate (edited 12-16-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by ate:

I want you to prove to me that something's impossible first.

It’s impossible for man to fly in the waking world without the aid of machinery because man does not have anything comparable to organic wings.

I didn’t need to do that by the way, since you were the one making the positive claim and therefore the burden of proof is on you.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

[B] It’s impossible for man to fly in the waking world without the aid of machinery because man does not have anything comparable to organic wings.



Yes, but is it impossible for man to perceive and sense themselves being in the air, and experience all the things they would if they were actually physically in the air?

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

[B] It’s impossible for man to fly in the waking world without the aid of machinery because man does not have anything comparable to organic wings.



Yes, but is it impossible for man to perceive and sense themselves being in the air, and experience all the things they would if they were actually physically in the air?

If you can train your brain to identify the difference between perception and perception of reality, then you'll be the first brain to be able to do that.

quote:Originally posted by ate:

Yes, but is it impossible for man to perceive and sense themselves being in the air, and experience all the things they would if they were actually physically in the air?

That's two separate things, and I'm not doing this. I asked you to prove your claim and you're trying to turn it on me. Either prove your claim that all things are possible or remain silent.

quote:If you can train your brain to identify the difference between perception and perception of reality, then you'll be the first brain to be able to do that.

If it’s impossible to tell reality from perception of reality, then it is impossible to tell if everything is really possible or only perceived as being possible, therefore your claim is non-falsifiable and meaningless.

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-16-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

That's two separate things.



In theory, but I'm talking about actual real life experience of the situation. Not about thinking about it, without actually experiencing it.

quote:

and I'm not doing this.

So then you are ready to ask a question, yet not ready to provide such an answer for it, or to even accept that there is such an answer.

quote: I asked you to prove your claim and you're trying to turn it on me.

I'm defining what's being said, you're talking about what's possible to be experienced by a human being.

quote: Either prove your claim that all things are possible

I may have already done so, although you wouldn't know, because you're not paying attention.

If you were paying attention would you say "prove it" while I'm in the process of proving it and awaiting response from you?

No you would respond accordingly putting your desire to prolongue such an experience, and jumble up the truth about it, by then getting (just putting on an act) flabbergasted and breathless and completely emotionally negative.

quote:So then you are ready to ask a question, yet not ready to provide such an answer for it, or to even accept that there is such an answer.

See below for why I'm "not doing this".

quote:I'm defining what's being said, you're talking about what's possible to be experienced by a human being.

No, I asked you to prove that everything is possible, and you answered that with a question that turned it around on to me, asking me to prove to you that there are things which are impossible. But if I accept what you're saying - that it's impossible to tell reality from perception of reality - then we are like madmen who cannot tell if we are really flying or only think we are flying, therefore your claim is non-falsifiable and it's impossible to prove either of us right or wrong.

quote:I may have already done so, although you wouldn't know, because you're not paying attention.

If you were paying attention would you say "prove it" while I'm in the process of proving it and awaiting response from you?

No you would respond accordingly putting your desire to prolongue such an experience, and jumble up the truth about it, by then getting (just putting on an act) flabbergasted and breathless and completely emotionally negative.

I am paying attention to the thread, all that you said is: "Nothing is impossible. Unless of course you decide it is so, before experiencing it. Also. Nothing is to be feared, unless of course you decide this in the first place. There is nothing to fear but fear itself, there is nothing impossible, but the idea of impossibility itself." If you were going to prove this statement, you would have in the post. Once again, you're trying to play mind games to go off topic and now you're claiming I'm doing things I'm not. Stop it.

Ok, you can read...now...for some comprehension....*puts the ball in your court*

By jove, I've got it!

One plus one equals two, and cannot equal anything but two! Therefore, it is impossible for one plus one to equal anything but two.

Proof:

code:<pre>The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural

numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.

P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.

P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.

P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.

P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication

(x in S =&gt; x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:

Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'

(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N

(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:

Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which

replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the

definition of addition to this:

Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.

If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define

a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the

Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:

1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'

Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in

parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.</pre>

SOURCE (http://tinyurl.com/48593)

quote:Originally posted by ate:

Ok, you can read...now...for some comprehension....*puts the ball in your court*

Why did I expect you to do something like that. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-16-2006).]

....Hahah, bravo, although, more bravado to you if you actually created that just now.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Why did I expect you to do something like that. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



Hmm...I know! You thought about it before hand?