Atheism: The Great Nothing!

[Copernicus]

I am suggesting that mankind must consider the one of two possibilities on the origin of the universe:

0) Rocks, energy, molecules or something has always existed in the universe without it being created; regardless if it is complex or simplistic; OR

1) A Creator existed in the beginning without Him being created; and that he must be complex in order to create what mankind have discover in life.

It is simpler to say just "Either physical reality was created or it has always existed".

So my question is which came first: A Zero (0) or The One (1)?

There is no way to know anything for certain, but there is no evidence that physical reality just began to exist. There is evidence that the visible universe had a beginning point, but most scientists believe that there was some physical reality that gave rise to the visible universe. That is, we don't know everything.

How can mankind exclude a Creator as one of the possibilities in the Universe; when:
1) We exist and we are capable of creating things; and
2) We have not visited all four corners of the universe; let alone our solar system.

Nobody excludes the logical possibility of a creator being, but you seem to exclude the possibility that the existence of such a being would also require an explanation. That is, your explanation is a "turtles all the way down" explanation. It really just begs the question of why there is something and not nothing.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Originally Posted by LovePeaceHappiness
However you may classify my argument; the question still remains: In order to explore all possiblities of the origins of the universe, a scientist must consider in his list that there might be an intelligent designer (Creator, if you will). And I have yet to see anyone prove that this kind of argument is bad logic. In fact, it is their reasoning that is bad logic.

So OTHER forumites I have a question. Is manipulating quotes considered a violation of any rules because well I don't appreciate you doing that LovePeaceHappiness. Either way I'm telling you right now. Do NOT do it again ok.

Wow! I don't know what I did to offend you but I was having a friendly conversation. Nevertheless, please, tell me where did I manipulate your quotes because the last thing that I want to do is offend you or violate any rules. If we cannot have an intelligent and respectful dialogue; then I will just refrain from responding to your comments.

1. Please look up what the false dilemma is please. Then you will no why I posted it.

No need: Your first response is enough for me. However, I disagree with your assertion of my statements.

2. Try being more specific. Simply saying..there are physical objects where do they come from, why do they move is not really a question.

For example: Planets, energy, rocks, molecules, atoms, conscience. Something was in the beginning to make these things move and thus collide together. Otherwise, the alternative possibility is that nothing existed in the beginning.

3."Word soup" means when someone jumbles together an incoherent sentence ie it's just bunch of words together not a coherent idea. It's also btw a straw man.

Oh I know what 'soup' means; I just do not agree that my statement fits that definition.

4. Not how the scientific method works. If you want science to take your assertions seriously. Then present a serious hypothesis first then test it. Religion does not do this. More than likely it can't.

I believe I did that; and I cannot be more serious than that. In fact, religion incorporates science.

I am unsympathetic to religions inability to prove itself or that science has risen to be the better, more accurate method to observe and understand the universe.

I believe that religion incorporates science into their thinking; especially when it comes to explaining the origins of the universe. In fact, we use science to justify many questions that mankind proposes about religion.

It's like complaining that phrenology was supplanted by neurology or alchemy by chemistry.

I disagree with your analogy. In regards to the origins of the universe, religion forces scientist to answer the question: Did something or someone always existed in the beginning; or did nothing existed and something came from nothing. I think this is a valid question.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Wow! I don't know what I did to offend you but I was having a friendly conversation. Nevertheless, please, tell me where did I manipulate your quotes because the last thing that I want to do is offend you or violate any rules. If we cannot have an intelligent and respectful dialogue; then I will just refrain from responding to your comments.

Simple solution. Don't quote mine. If you cannot avoid doing so, then I will just refrain from responding to your comments. And you didn't offend em.

No need: Your first response is enough for me. However, I disagree with your assertion of my statements.

That is a non answer. And you still haven't shown you understand what a false dilemma is.

For example: Planets, energy, rocks, molecules, atoms, conscience. Something was in the beginning to make these things move and thus collide together. Otherwise, the alternative possibility is that nothing existed in the beginning.

Considering the laws of thermodynamics and what information we have on the Big Bang. Absolutely nothing suggests that some thing "created" anything from true nothing. That creationists then peddle out an unsupported fantastical supernaturalism is laughable.

Oh I know what 'soup' means; I just do not agree that my statement fits that definition.

You didn't seem to know what that reply meant so I figured I'd give you a heads up.

I believe I did that; and I cannot be more serious than that. In fact, religion incorporates science.

Supernaturalism can incorporate ANYTHING. That is the point. It's a "strong point" of making stuff up.

I believe that religion incorporates science into their thinking; especially when it comes to explaining the origins of the universe. In fact, we use science to justify many questions that mankind proposes about religion.

See above. Religion is pretty much calvin ball.

I disagree with your analogy. In regards to the origins of the universe, religion forces scientist to answer the question: Did something or someone always existed in the beginning; or did nothing existed and something came from nothing. I think this is a valid question.

No it doesn't. Those questions would exist regardless. And the second part of the question is nonsensical.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

It got your attention.

Peace.

it got me to consider putting my head through a window.
you are completely impossible, mickiel. and i cant help but think you will consider that a compliment.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

"Wow! I don't know what I did to offend you but I was having a friendly conversation. Nevertheless, please, tell me where did I manipulate your quotes because the last thing that I want to do is offend you or violate any rules. If we cannot have an intelligent and respectful dialogue; then I will just refrain from responding to your comments." ---- LPH

Simple solution. Don't quote mine. If you cannot avoid doing so, then I will just refrain from responding to your comments. And you didn't offend em.

I have better solution: This will be my last response to you; unless we can agree to communicate equally. You see, you cannot have it both ways: You want to quote me but I cannot quote you? Nope, I do not communicate that way.

"No need: Your first response is enough for me. However, I disagree with your assertion of my statements." ---- LPH

That is a non answer. And you still haven't shown you understand what a false dilemma is.

It is an answer that will have to do for you regardless whether you accept it or not. And I do not need to teach you what a false dilemma is; I will stick to my previous question because it is sufficient for others to respond.

"For example: Planets, energy, rocks, molecules, atoms, conscience. Something was in the beginning to make these things move and thus collide together. Otherwise, the alternative possibility is that nothing existed in the beginning. " ---- LPH

Considering the laws of thermodynamics and what information we have on the Big Bang. Absolutely nothing suggests that some thing "created" anything from true nothing. That creationists then peddle out an unsupported fantastical supernaturalism is laughable.

We cannot prove that there is no creator simply because we have not finished exploring the rest of the universe. And considering that the earth and the universe all full of balance patterns of designs does not prove that there is no creator who have set these balance patterns in motion and still controls them. Let's face it: Scientists simply do not have the necessary tools to prove or disprove the existence of a creator. What's laughable is that some men can make such unsupported claims of no creator without exploring the ends of the universe; as though we have reached a state of all-knowing. Ha ha ha.


"Oh I know what 'soup' means; I just do not agree that my statement fits that definition." ---- LPH

You didn't seem to know what that reply meant so I figured I'd give you a heads up.

A erroneous assumption on your part. No thank you.

"I believe I did that; and I cannot be more serious than that. In fact, religion incorporates science." ---- LPH

Supernaturalism can incorporate ANYTHING. That is the point. It's a "strong point" of making stuff up.

A comment like that coming from someone who was not there to witness any of these supernatual events; I would say that you too are making stuff up. And my point is not regarding supernaturalism but science.

"I believe that religion incorporates science into their thinking; especially when it comes to explaining the origins of the universe. In fact, we use science to justify many questions that mankind proposes about religion." ---- LPH

See above. Religion is pretty much calvin ball.

No need. I pretty much disagree with your unsupported assessment of religion.

"I disagree with your analogy. In regards to the origins of the universe, religion forces scientist to answer the question: Did something or someone always existed in the beginning; or did nothing existed and something came from nothing. I think this is a valid question. " ---- LPH

No it doesn't. Those questions would exist regardless. And the second part of the question is nonsensical.

Then, let's agree to disagree. If a man told me that God did not exist; then I will ask that man: Did you finished searching the ends of the universe? If he said no; then I will have to conclude that he is a liar and a fool to make such a unsupported statement. The question may be nonsensical to you but sensible to many scientists.

But getting back to my earlier point: I sense that my dialogue with you have become confrontational without my intent. Therefore, I will refrain from responding to you further because I only wanted to communicate friendly and without any malice, sarcasm, trolling, etc.

Shalom,

LPH

 

[OneThatGotAway]

There might be one, I guess. But there is no real evidence of any, and if there is a Creator then its own origin is a puzzle - a bigger, more challenging one than the existence of the universe itself.

Could it be equally stated that there is no real evidence to firmly disprove the existence of a Creator? I say this because mankind's scientific tools are limited and we have not finished exploring the rest of the universe. And mankind have not finished explaining the origins and composition of conscience. I agree with you that Creator is a puzzle which is much more challenging than the existence of the universe itself. I think mankind needs to come up with other kinds of scientific tools because the current ones are not sufficient to prove or disprove a creator.

Maybe they have. The evidence that planets are born and eventually die is however quite convincing by this point, so we have no reason to expect immortality or even a perpetuallly extant Earth.

I agree. Also if it is possible that man's conscience has always been around and have immortality; then stands to reason that could be a more superior conscience that has always existed and have immortality.

"When trying to explain the origin of things such as the universe, a man would logically consider these two possibilities as some of his theories. To not consider these two possiblit[ies] would lead other men to conclude that we really did not exhaust ALL possibilities of explaining the origin of things." ---- LPH

Well, did we? That is hardly a modest goal. Who knows what other possibilities there might be?

I don't know; maybe some didn't. I think it is a goal worth achieving; because it will scientifically put to rest that either a creator ordered the universe or that these things in the universe have always been in order or disorder in the beginning.

"It is like a group of scientists got together and came up with 98 theories of considering the origins of the universe. But two more scientist came up with theory 99 and 100 and were excluded because they were told that there is no reason for those two theories (i.e. the ones that I proposed). Why not? And who determines which ones to consider and which ones to ignore?" ---- LPH

That is not at all a good parallel, however. It is not at all like an ever-existing universe or a creator god have never been proposed or considered. It just turns out that the evidence strongly suggests a Big Bang, and the idea of a creator god is ultimately a non-explanation which begs even more difficult questions.

And that is what I find puzzling as to why many scientist currently holds that a creator is a non-explanation begging more difficult questions than the Big Bang Theory. I think the Big Bang Theory equally presents more difficult questions.

For example, do some scientist consider currently non-measurable entities like conscience as part of the Big Bang Theory? That is, did conscience existed in Big Bang system? Or did conscience later on developed in the evolutionary process?

 

[OneThatGotAway]

"I agree with you that this too is a possibility but highly unlikely. Because if you were to collide any 'pre-existing' physical substance and energy together for over a trillion millennia, you still will not be able to create a Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet (for example)." ---- LPH

There is no way to back up this being unlkikely. Also, how about if you take the entire mass-energy content of the universe and compress into the smallest possible volume? OK, it might take you over 13 billion years, but you get the jet eventually...

This too could be true. However, if we take into account that conscience has always existed at the beginning; it is possible that the timeline of this intelligent design could be exponentially shorter; say in a few years or days; depending upon the ability of this conscience being or beings.

They are considered. The Big Bang is essentially a very complicated version of 0. (Though the concept of "objects" does not make sense in those conditions)

OK, just checking. Does the Big Bang consist of objects of matter that collided or exploded from an developed or an always existing energy?

 

[OneThatGotAway]

But if we do not believe that there was a super-intelligent, super-complex being with unlimited powers, then the obvious answer is that physical reality itself was not created by such a being. Rather, it just always existed and was never created by anything or anyone. Under that scenario, life and complexity evolved from the interaction of matter and energy. We came into being because gravity compressed matter inside of stars, and exploding stars spread the heavy elements necessary for more complex physical forms everywhere in the universe. That scenario seems consistent with what we know about the formation of stars and the natural interaction of matter.

If these things (planets, stars, energy, other celestial objects) have always existed; then it is possible that a biological life (man, plant, animal, germ) could have always existed. Or better yet, a conscience entity could have always existed too without creation. I mean we really will not have the scientific tools to determine which came first.

Right. There is no evidence of a creator, and it does appear that the interaction of matter created events that led to the formation of planets and complex beings such as ourselves. Life on this planet evolved without the paradoxical aid of another more complex life form, whose existence would also need to be explained. Rather, conditions on the planet led to the evolution of beings such as ourselves.

However, mankind does possess the necessary scientific tools to disprove the evidence of a creator; because our tools are limited to seeing far enough, measuring far enough, or traveling far enough to make such a claim. For all we know, mankind (as well as other life forms) could have always existed without being created because we do not possess the necessary scientific tools to confirm or deny our origins.

"I agree with you that this too is a possibility but highly unlikely. Because if you were to collide any 'pre-existing' physical substance and energy together for over a trillion millennia, you still will not be able to create a Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet (for example)." ---- LPH

Well, that is essentially what happened. Evolution led to beings such as ourselves, who created the Boeing 747 to serve our needs and wants, just as beavers create dams to serve their needs and ants create complex tunnels to serve their needs. That is how evolution works. Life forms compete for their survival and propagation. Our species has been fairly successful in that competition for survival so far, although it won't last forever.

Well I will agree with you that mankind created the Boeing 747; but just because it could be that mankind has always existed without being created on this earth. But I've yet to see scientist prove a connecting being such as a half-man/half-animal that would link animal and man.

The absence of life is not death. You need life in order to have death. And it turns out that order does evolve out of chaos. We see examples of emergent order everywhere in nature, and we can even simulate that behavior with mindless algorithms. :yes:

Where is the scientific proof that the order of the universe developed out of chaos? I agree that order emerges from order in nature; but I have yet to see order developed out of chaos; especially when it comes to the origins of the universe.

"1) Life - An always existing Creator with order and conscience. :yes:" ---- LPH

Not really. :no: We can see evidence that life did not exist at all in the universe for most of the time it has been in existence. There had to be a lot of exploding stars before life could evolve out of that chaos.

Actually mankind cannot see far enough into the universe because our reach is physically limited. And since we are part of the universe; it is also scientifically possible that life could have began right here and has always existed.

There are lots of cosmological theories other than theistic ones about the origins of matter and the universe. Why don't you look into them? Let me give you a fairly easy one to start with: Primack and Abrams' The View from the Center of the Universe. The book goes into great detail about religious cosmologies and modern day cosmological theories. I suspect that you would find the book a fascinating read, and it might even change some of your ideas about how we came into existence.

True; however, I am suggesting that man limits himself to these two theories; and I know that many others exist. I am just suggesting that one of these two theories opens up the possibility of answering thousands upon thousands of questions.

 

[PolyHedral]

This too could be true. However, if we take into account that conscience has always existed at the beginning; it is possible that the timeline of this intelligent design could be exponentially shorter; say in a few years or days; depending upon the ability of this conscience being or beings.

It could be exponentially shorter, but there is no reason to believe that it was.

OK, just checking. Does the Big Bang consist of objects of matter that collided or exploded from an developed or an always existing energy?

They developed from an energy as old as time itself. However, time itself also has a beginning under Big Bang cosmology.

If these things (planets, stars, energy, other celestial objects) have always existed; then it is possible that a biological life (man, plant, animal, germ) could have always existed. Or better yet, a conscience entity could have always existed too without creation. I mean we really will not have the scientific tools to determine which came first.

Actually we do, because there wasn't such a thing as an "object" for the first few microseconds of the Big Bang, only a sea of homogeneous energy.

Well I will agree with you that mankind created the Boeing 747; but just because it could be that mankind has always existed without being created on this earth. But I've yet to see scientist prove a connecting being such as a half-man/half-animal that would link animal and man.

Homo erectus doesn't count?

Where is the scientific proof that the order of the universe developed out of chaos? I agree that order emerges from order in nature; but I have yet to see order developed out of chaos; especially when it comes to the origins of the universe.

There are books devoted to this subject. Try this article for a starter.

Actually mankind cannot see far enough into the universe because our reach is physically limited. And since we are part of the universe; it is also scientifically possible that life could have began right here and has always existed.

It is not scientifically possible for life to always have existed, unless life can be sustained in a quark-gluon plasma.

True; however, I am suggesting that man limits himself to these two theories; and I know that many others exist. I am just suggesting that one of these two theories opens up the possibility of answering thousands upon thousands of questions.

But the Invisible Pink Unicorn also answers questions. It is rejected because it has no backing.

 

[Copernicus]

If these things (planets, stars, energy, other celestial objects) have always existed; then it is possible that a biological life (man, plant, animal, germ) could have always existed. Or better yet, a conscience entity could have always existed too without creation. I mean we really will not have the scientific tools to determine which came first.

First of all, I strongly urge you to read some introductory materials on science. The planets and stars have not always existed, and nobody claims that they have. As for "what came first", we do not need to posit the existence of a superbeing with unlimited powers to explain reality. There is no evidence to license belief in such a being, and it would be much more difficult to explain the existence of such a being than the existence of physical reality itself, which we experience more or less directly.

However, mankind does possess the necessary scientific tools to disprove the evidence of a creator; because our tools are limited to seeing far enough, measuring far enough, or traveling far enough to make such a claim. For all we know, mankind (as well as other life forms) could have always existed without being created because we do not possess the necessary scientific tools to confirm or deny our origins.

We do not need to prove the nonexistence of every god that humans have ever dreamed up. I'm sure that we can agree on that, because you don't believe in all of them, do you?

"I agree with you that this too is a possibility but highly unlikely. Because if you were to collide any 'pre-existing' physical substance and energy together for over a trillion millennia, you still will not be able to create a Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet (for example)." ---- LPH

You keep bringing up this nonsensical straw man argument by Fred Hoyle, because you are unaware of how thoroughly it has been debunked. First of all, Hoyle, an astronomer, seems to have been appallingly ignorant of the theory of evolution, which is the basis of biological theories. What he didn't understand about it was that natural selection is a crucial part of that theory. Nobody claims that a Boeing 747 would be created by inanimate forces. What is being claimed is that animate forces were created by inanimate ones. Hoyle's argument from incredulity really misses the mark badly, and he should have been ashamed of himself for making such a naive claim.

Well I will agree with you that mankind created the Boeing 747; but just because it could be that mankind has always existed without being created on this earth. But I've yet to see scientist prove a connecting being such as a half-man/half-animal that would link animal and man.

I suspect that your inability to see the proof has more to do with your unwillingness to open your eyes than the lack of such proof. The theory of evolution is not controversial from a scientific perspective, just religious and political perspectives.

Where is the scientific proof that the order of the universe developed out of chaos? I agree that order emerges from order in nature; but I have yet to see order developed out of chaos; especially when it comes to the origins of the universe.

I would invite you to become more familiar with chaos theory, but I doubt that you have a willingness to learn.

Actually mankind cannot see far enough into the universe because our reach is physically limited. And since we are part of the universe; it is also scientifically possible that life could have began right here and has always existed.

Actually, we can see to the edges of the universe. We have detected the background radiation left over from the Big Bang.

True; however, I am suggesting that man limits himself to these two theories; and I know that many others exist. I am just suggesting that one of these two theories opens up the possibility of answering thousands upon thousands of questions.

Your "two theories" are not the only possibilities, but, if you consider the existence of God a "theory", then it is an unproven theory. There is no evidence that gods exist anywhere except in human imagination.

 

[mickiel]

it got me to consider putting my head through a window.
you are completely impossible, mickiel. and i cant help but think you will consider that a compliment.

Well yes I do, thank you.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

The problem with Consciousness I think is the greatest key and evidence of God. How Consciousness emerged even scientist really don't know. Consciousness is entirely new when compared to any theory of evolutiuonary advance of other things. When it emerged it has unique ability that guides the course of events in the brain and has causal efficacy in bodily behavior. Consciousness is the Governor of behavior, such a thing just couldnot have evolved from things far lesser than itself, I am convinced of that. It didnot evolve biologically by simple natural selection, because it itself is not simple. We are not continious with the idiot hierachies of speechless Apes.

The appreciation of this discontinuity between the Apes and speaking ethical intellectual Men has led many scientists back to a metaphysical view. The interiority of Consciousness just couldnot in any sense be evolved by natural selection out of mere assemblages of molecules and cells. There has to be more than evolution than mere matter, chance and survival. Something must be added from outside of this closed system to account for something so different as Consciousness.

And I want to return to that.

Peace.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Well yes I do, thank you.

Peace.

:: puts head through window::
i have really got to learn to quit reading mickiel's threads.

 

[Sententia]

:: puts head through window::
i have really got to learn to quit reading mickiel's threads.

Arguing with Non-Skeptics, Part 1 of 2: Scientific American Podcast

He is not a skeptic when it comes to our lord and savior.

Lord and Savior form Feet and Legs!

Father and Son form Arms and Body.

And Yhwh will form the Head!

On a more serious note... I thought this was a great cast:

Arguing with Non-Skeptics, Part 1 of 2: Scientific American Podcast

 

[Meow Mix]

:: puts head through window::
i have really got to learn to quit reading mickiel's threads.

All I see when some people... not to name names but you know of whom I speak ... is "This user is on your ignore list."

It's a lot more peaceful and makes me a lot less misanthropic.

 

[Meow Mix]

Arguing with Non-Skeptics, Part 1 of 2: Scientific American Podcast

I <3 James Randi.

I'm a cosmology student and it drives me nuts when people talk about certain terrible metaphysical ideas supported or briefly supported by Wigner, Bohm, von Neumann and Wheeler.

People seem to think that physicists are immune to quackery and nonsense and it utterly isn't so. There is a lot of ************ that goes on in physics because physicists, like most human beings, don't know jack **** about proper metaphysics. Wigner and Bohm are great examples, especially Bohm (who often fell victim to pseudoscientific garbage... Bohm was even convinced by that dude that claimed to bend spoons and keys with his mind).

Just because someone does great physics (when they're actually doing physics) doesn't mean that their metaphysical interpretations are informed. With all due respect to Wigner and Bohm, they were complete fools when it came to metaphysics. Von Neumann and Wheeler at least saw the errors of their ways; Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Einstein and Bohr saw the BS for what it was from the beginning. Einstein is in fact to this day still one of the most metaphysically competent physicists there was in that time (Bohr is arguably his equivalent). Even Einstein threw some mysticism into his metaphysics irrationally.

Randi knows what's up. He's said on several occasions that it takes a liar to spot a liar. Some scientists are naive to the world of lying so they're easily suckered by pseudoscience and nonsense like David Bohm was [in]famous for.

When there are studies for extraordinary things like OBE's, NDE's, ESP, UFO's, ghosts, souls, and other such things there most definitely should be someone like Randi around. Hell, even Martin Gardner -- a theist, rather a fideist -- agrees that scientists are often metaphysically incompetent enough to require the presence of a magician/illusionist to catch the tricks of hoaxers red-handed or even to identify when someone legitimately believes a process (say, ESP) but they're really just doing the age-old trick of cold reading regardless of whether they're cognizant of that fact or not.

May James Randi live long, and especially may he convince scientists that they need people like him if they aren't going to bother catching up on their metaphysics.

 

[Copernicus]

Thanks for the metaphysics perspective, Meow Mix. I'm no physicist (i.e. I'm a professional linguist), so it is great to get your take on the subject of metaphysics. I especially enjoy your comments on Einstein's views. I do not feel a lot of sympathy for the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum phenomena, which some have characterized as "good physics, bad philosophy". Anyway, I'm nothing more than a dilettante when it comes to either physics or philosophy. So I appreciate your views on these matters.

 

[mickiel]

:: puts head through window::
i have really got to learn to quit reading mickiel's threads.

If it helps you any, I don't read yours either, not at all. Or meow mixes, I hold no intrest in either of them.

So quiting is not hard to do.

Peace.

 

[dogsgod]

Thanks for the metaphysics perspective, Meow Mix. I'm no physicist (i.e. I'm a professional linguist), so it is great to get your take on the subject of metaphysics. I especially enjoy your comments on Einstein's views. I do not feel a lot of sympathy for the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum phenomena, which some have characterized as "good physics, bad philosophy". Anyway, I'm nothing more than a dilettante when it comes to either physics or philosophy. So I appreciate your views on these matters.

I used to read about quantum physics. I think the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum phenomena served well to demonstrated how our logic does not apply as it does within classical physics. I think some people read too much into the thought experiments regarding particle physics, they were designed to deal with specific problems.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

All I see when some people... not to name names but you know of whom I speak ... is "This user is on your ignore list."

It's a lot more peaceful and makes me a lot less misanthropic.

=) i have an awful secret.
dont tell anybody else, but i'm exactly who i was talking about when i wrote:

numbers, in this case, seriously do not suggest interest. more than likely it suggests rhetorical masochism.

so i could never bring myself to use the ignore feature.
i'm the kind of guy who will overhear an argument from across a noisy sports bar, finish my drink, and find a way to get involved simply to hear rhetorical garbage. i should probably see a shrink about my desperate need to hear bad arguments, but i'd probably just end up arguing with hir and it would cost me too much.