I don't agree with the overall tome of this post, which seems to imply that religion is bad and a trap that cannot be escaped. But the logic used to describe it fits in many respects. However, the finger trap does not work all the way, as if you decide you are done and you pull away, the finger trap in this instance will simply let go. There is a point where God lets you go your own way, he will not force you to stay in the "trap" (your words).[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I had this really great reply in mind but then I reread your post and decided I'll just let you do all the talking.
Religion is bad and a trap that [is very difficult to] escape.
What I'm trying to point out (and I was in a hurry hence all the spelling) is that Religiouse thought has a strategy which makes it so resistent to rational self scrutiny. It isn't different from other forms of world-picture systems in this way. When you think according to a world view you are not thinking with Reason with a capital "R" (which may very well be merely a world-view as well, of course) but are thinking according to the logic of that system.
This second order logic is perhaps why my one paragraph may have seemed confusing.
memetics and memetology are the science (though that word is thrown around loosely by memeticists) of thought contagion.
a meme is a thought form which, like a gene, replicates itself through hosts (or in Catholicism "the Host" ) passing itself through culture, from one person or group (replicators/hosts) like a virus. Just an example: the way a melody can be infectious: one person sings it then next thing you know, you too are humming it.
There are certain attributes to specific memes (cultural thought forms) that make some of them more tenacious in self perpetuation than others: some qualities are: if the thought form has the promise of a reward; if the thought form has the internally defined attribute that states that the host will not be able to live without it, or is in great danger; or, if the meme states that all other thought forms are false and antagonistic in relation to it; and, if the meme states that it is in the interest of the host to spread the meme to others: and, the quality of adversary, meaning that a meme will remain virulent if, when challenged rationally it strives at the next level meaning agression and violence to non-hosts(think Islam here). this latter implies a subquality: the meme defines non-hosts as either in need of infection or as potentially infectious with dangerous thoughts .
In memetics the high frequency of children perpetuating the choice of their parents religion can be seen as a statistic in support of how a meme works . . . other than it supporting any claim to the veracity of any of the religions in question. Memetics, then reveals not the truth content of any religion but merely the strategies of 'truth' which perpetuate different memes: a meme is a mini culture, like a germ culture, which spreads as a result of resistences and contagions.
Grand narrative memes (those that are explaining the whole world) tend to condition the hosts relationship to other thought forms as well as quantifiable and testable "facts". Memes make you see what they want you to.
I sad that EiF was doing sommething different than what NooahJ was doing in that I see his reaction to Noah's proseletizing as one of critique whereas Noah is acting under the cumpulsion of the idea of Christianity:
Noah is reading all he world according to the self replicating demands of the thought form of Christianity
Frivolity is seeing Noah's actions as those of a system trying to extend itself and he is trying to reveal the mechanisisms of that system for what they are
Noah presents a thought form that wants to define all truths
Frivolity wants merely to show that that is all that noah is trying to do: control other's thoughts
one is a meme the other is the meme of how memes work
<strong>What I'm trying to point out (and I was in a hurry hence all the spelling) is that Religiouse thought has a strategy which makes it so resistent to rational self scrutiny. It isn't different from other forms of world-picture systems in this way. When you think according to a world view you are not thinking with Reason with a capital "R" (which may very well be merely a world-view as well, of course) but are thinking according to the logic of that system.
This second order logic is perhaps why my one paragraph may have seemed confusing.
memetics and memetology are the science (though that word is thrown around loosely by memeticists) of thought contagion.
a meme is a thought form which, like a gene, replicates itself through hosts (or in Catholicism "the Host" ) passing itself through culture, from one person or group (replicators/hosts) like a virus. Just an example: the way a melody can be infectious: one person sings it then next thing you know, you too are humming it.
There are certain attributes to specific memes (cultural thought forms) that make some of them more tenacious in self perpetuation than others: some qualities are: if the thought form has the promise of a reward; if the thought form has the internally defined attribute that states that the host will not be able to live without it, or is in great danger; or, if the meme states that all other thought forms are false and antagonistic in relation to it; and, if the meme states that it is in the interest of the host to spread the meme to others: and, the quality of adversary, meaning that a meme will remain virulent if, when challenged rationally it strives at the next level meaning agression and violence to non-hosts(think Islam here). this latter implies a subquality: the meme defines non-hosts as either in need of infection or as potentially infectious with dangerous thoughts .
In memetics the high frequency of children perpetuating the choice of their parents religion can be seen as a statistic in support of how a meme works . . . other than it supporting any claim to the veracity of any of the religions in question. Memetics, then reveals not the truth content of any religion but merely the strategies of 'truth' which perpetuate different memes: a meme is a mini culture, like a germ culture, which spreads as a result of resistences and contagions.
Grand narrative memes (those that are explaining the whole world) tend to condition the hosts relationship to other thought forms as well as quantifiable and testable "facts". Memes make you see what they want you to.
I sad that EiF was doing sommething different than what NooahJ was doing in that I see his reaction to Noah's proseletizing as one of critique whereas Noah is acting under the cumpulsion of the idea of Christianity:
Noah is reading all he world according to the self replicating demands of the thought form of Christianity
Frivolity is seeing Noah's actions as those of a system trying to extend itself and he is trying to reveal the mechanisisms of that system for what they are
Noah presents a thought form that wants to define all truths
Frivolity wants merely to show that that is all that noah is trying to do: control other's thoughts
one is a meme the other is the meme of how memes work</strong><hr></blockquote>
Preach on brotha! Pass around the collection plate! Can I get an amen? AMEN!
You seem to love to say that your opinion on religion is TRUTH yet whenever I say that your religion is not TRUTH, it's just my opinion.
*files Noah under illogical hypocrite*
Ok, now treat it as such and answer the question. Why is your opinion on religion "truth" while mine is simply "just my opinion?" Sounds pretty arrogant to me.
[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
You seem to love to say that your opinion on religion is TRUTH yet whenever I say that your religion is not TRUTH, it's just my opinion.
*files Noah under illogical hypocrite*
Ok, now treat it as such and answer the question. Why is your opinion on religion "truth" while mine is simply "just my opinion?" Sounds pretty arrogant to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but no. That dog won't bark here. Try again.
Its actually quite simple: Religion being the truth is just his opinion.<hr></blockquote>
Duh. That's what he won't admit. He thinks that it's not just an opinion, but that it is actually fact--"fact" that he can't prove. He simply needs to get off his high horse.
I'd still like to see if noah has the balls to answer the question, though.
[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
Duh. That's what he won't admit. He thinks that it's not just an opinion, but that it is actually fact--"fact" that he can't prove. He simply needs to get off his high horse.
I'd still like to see if noah has the balls to answer the question, though.
[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe tha what I have to offer is the truth. However, i do not believe that I know all there is to know about the truth as I have said many time througout this thread. Here are a few instances of times when I have admitted this:
Even if I were there face to face with you I would not force my opinions on you, but I would lay them out as best I could. Let me give my view on predestination Also, and I have nothing specific to back me up on this either so we can put it under Noah's beliefs, I believe that Jesus chose to come to earth. However, when a child is very young, and has no recognition of right or wrong, I don't believe they are held accountable for their actions. Once they are old enough to choose, they become responsible and thus are held accountable. Don't ask me the age line, I could not even guess. That is my opinion on that, I would be intersted to hear anyone elses thoughts on the subject though. As I said, I do not know how God will run it for sure. I do not go around telling everyone, "repent, you are going to hell otherwise!" But if they ask I will tell them the plan for salvation and what I believe will happen if they reject it. I hope you find the truth you seek. I of course believe that to be what I am offering, but it is up to you to decide.
Now, let me sak you a question that you always skirt around.
Why is this so important to you that I be wrong? If what I have to offer is so wrong and so bad, why read it? Why do you even care? If nobody posted here, this thread would have been gone pages ago, and yet it is one of the longest threads on this page. Why is that?
Why is this so important to you that I be wrong? If what I have to offer is so wrong and so bad, why read it? Why do you even care? If nobody posted here, this thread would have been gone pages ago, and yet it is one of the longest threads on this page. Why is that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying you have to be wrong. I'm saying it's ridiculous to think that your religion out of the hundreds if not thousands of other religions is right. I do not like it when people go around claiming they understand the incomprehensible. I do not like it when people go around claiming that they can explain the unexplainable. It would be different if you had a shred of evidence, however, the only evidence you can provide is that of a text that has been translated and retranslated time and time again (not to mention the whole circular argument about why you claim the bible is holy).
It's one of the longest threads because sometimes it's fun to argue with an irrational person.
Speaking of translations...let me show you how easy it can be to distort the entire meaning of a sentence or two simply by translating it a few times. Granted this uses babelfish, however, similar results would occur if humans were doing the translation due each person's individual interpretation. Here we go. My friend on another forum did this originally.
The Great BabelFish Experiment
Posted on 2002/03/23 at 20:19:09 by Chuckman
ORIGINAL TEXT
The cat's name is Bill. He likes to hump rocks. He eats cheese and fish. His friend is a dog. The dog's name is Lester the Molester. Alien space monkeys named Frenobulon like to play chess with Lester the Molester.
FIRST ITERATION- Original Text to Spanish and back to English
Spanish:
El nombre del gato es cuenta. Ã?l tiene gusto a la roca de la chepa. Ã?l come el queso y pescados. Su amigo es un perro. El nombre del perro es Lester el Molester. Los monos extranjeros del espacio nombraron a Frenobulon tienen gusto de jugar a ajedrez con Lester el Molester.
English:
The name of the cat is account. It has taste to the rock of chepa. It eats the cheese and fish. His friend is a dog. The name of the dog is Lester the Molester. The foreign monkeys of the space named to Frenobulon have taste to play chess with Lester the Molester.
SECOND ITERATION: Retranslated text to German and back to English
German:
Der Name der Katze ist Konto. Er hat Geschmack zum Felsen von chepa. Er i�t den Käse und die Fische. Sein Freund ist ein Hund. Der Name des Hundes ist Lester das Molester. Die fremden Fallhammer des Platzes, der zu Frenobulon benannt wird, haben den Geschmack zum Spielen des Schachs mit Lester das Molester.
English:
The name of the cat is account. It has taste to rock of chepa. He eats the cheese and the fish. Its friend is a dog. The name of the dog is Lester mole molester. The other drop hammer of the workstation, which is designated to Frenobulon, to have the taste for playing chess with Lester mole molester.
THIRD ITERATION: English to Italian and Back
Italian:
Il nome del gatto è cliente. Ha gusto alla roccia del chepa. Mangia il formaggio ed i pesci. Il relativo amico è un cane. Il nome del cane è molester della talpa di Lester. L' altro maglio a caduta libera della stazione di lavoro, che è indicata a Frenobulon, per avere il gusto per il gioco degli scacchi con il molester della talpa di Lester.
English:
The name of the cat is customer. It has taste to the cliff of the chepa. It eats the cheese and the fish. The relative friend is a dog. The name of the dog is molester of the mole of Lester. The other mallet to free fall of the station of job, that it is indicated to Frenobulon, for having the taste for the game of chess with the molester of the mole of Lester.
The name of the cat is customer. It has the taste with cliff of the chepa. It eats cheese and fish. The relative friend is a dog. The name of the dog is molester mole To ballast. The other mallet to release the fall of the station of work, that one indicates it to Frenobulon, to have the taste for the play of the failures with the molester of the mole To ballast.
The name of the cat is customer. It has the taste with the cliff of chepa. It eats the cheese and the fish. The relative friend is a dog. The name of the dog is mole of molester to the reactor. The other rammer to liberate the fall of the station of the work, this indicates it it Frenobulon, to have the taste for the game of the feeds with molester of the mole to the reactor.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>
Duh. That's what he won't admit. He thinks that it's not just an opinion, but that it is actually fact--"fact" that he can't prove. He simply needs to get off his high horse.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
NoahJ shouldn´t admit anything. Its the truth and a fact for him. Just like its a fact for me that there is no God. I don´t see that as my opinion but as a fact.
There is no neutral ground from where you can look at the world. From inside NoahJs head God is a fact. From inside mine God is a lie. From outside everyones head there is nothing. So all critic of anything going on in someones head must come from inside someone elses head. There is no neutral ground.
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>Speaking of translations...let me show you how easy it can be to distort the entire meaning of a sentence or two simply by translating it a few times. Granted this uses babelfish, however, similar results would occur if humans were doing the translation due each person's individual interpretation. Here we go. My friend on another forum did this originally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All this proves is that bablefish is not perfect at translating from one language, to another and back. The part you are forgetting to bring up is that we still have access to the origional texts, so if you do not think the translation is right, you can go back and study the origional texts and decide for yourself.
However, some of those sentances were quite humorous in their translation. Good thing you posted the origional sentance so that we could look at it and know what it said in the first place.
NoahJ shouldn´t admit anything. Its the truth and a fact for him. Just like its a fact for me that there is no God. I don´t see that as my opinion but as a fact.
There is no neutral ground from where you can look at the world. From inside NoahJs head God is a fact. From inside mine God is a lie. From outside everyones head there is nothing. So all critic of anything going on in someones head must come from inside someone elses head. There is no neutral ground.
You have to get down with post-modernism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, but if I said the current US president is Barry Bonds and our national currency is the potato and really believed it was a "fact" in my head, it doesn't make it true. I would be labeled a nut. You should be labeled a nut. So should noah. No one can possibly know whether or not there is a god. It's beyond our capabilities to understand such things and its absolutely retarded to think that you are right. Two opposing stances cannot be FACT at the same time. Atheism is just as stupid as theism. It's blind faith either way.
Comments
I don't agree with the overall tome of this post, which seems to imply that religion is bad and a trap that cannot be escaped. But the logic used to describe it fits in many respects. However, the finger trap does not work all the way, as if you decide you are done and you pull away, the finger trap in this instance will simply let go. There is a point where God lets you go your own way, he will not force you to stay in the "trap" (your words).[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I had this really great reply in mind but then I reread your post and decided I'll just let you do all the talking.
Religion is bad and a trap that [is very difficult to] escape.
This second order logic is perhaps why my one paragraph may have seemed confusing.
memetics and memetology are the science (though that word is thrown around loosely by memeticists) of thought contagion.
a meme is a thought form which, like a gene, replicates itself through hosts (or in Catholicism "the Host"
There are certain attributes to specific memes (cultural thought forms) that make some of them more tenacious in self perpetuation than others: some qualities are: if the thought form has the promise of a reward; if the thought form has the internally defined attribute that states that the host will not be able to live without it, or is in great danger; or, if the meme states that all other thought forms are false and antagonistic in relation to it; and, if the meme states that it is in the interest of the host to spread the meme to others: and, the quality of adversary, meaning that a meme will remain virulent if, when challenged rationally it strives at the next level meaning agression and violence to non-hosts(think Islam here). this latter implies a subquality: the meme defines non-hosts as either in need of infection or as potentially infectious with dangerous thoughts .
In memetics the high frequency of children perpetuating the choice of their parents religion can be seen as a statistic in support of how a meme works . . . other than it supporting any claim to the veracity of any of the religions in question. Memetics, then reveals not the truth content of any religion but merely the strategies of 'truth' which perpetuate different memes: a meme is a mini culture, like a germ culture, which spreads as a result of resistences and contagions.
Grand narrative memes (those that are explaining the whole world) tend to condition the hosts relationship to other thought forms as well as quantifiable and testable "facts". Memes make you see what they want you to.
I sad that EiF was doing sommething different than what NooahJ was doing in that I see his reaction to Noah's proseletizing as one of critique whereas Noah is acting under the cumpulsion of the idea of Christianity:
Noah is reading all he world according to the self replicating demands of the thought form of Christianity
Frivolity is seeing Noah's actions as those of a system trying to extend itself and he is trying to reveal the mechanisisms of that system for what they are
Noah presents a thought form that wants to define all truths
Frivolity wants merely to show that that is all that noah is trying to do: control other's thoughts
one is a meme the other is the meme of how memes work
<strong>What I'm trying to point out (and I was in a hurry hence all the spelling) is that Religiouse thought has a strategy which makes it so resistent to rational self scrutiny. It isn't different from other forms of world-picture systems in this way. When you think according to a world view you are not thinking with Reason with a capital "R" (which may very well be merely a world-view as well, of course) but are thinking according to the logic of that system.
This second order logic is perhaps why my one paragraph may have seemed confusing.
memetics and memetology are the science (though that word is thrown around loosely by memeticists) of thought contagion.
a meme is a thought form which, like a gene, replicates itself through hosts (or in Catholicism "the Host"
There are certain attributes to specific memes (cultural thought forms) that make some of them more tenacious in self perpetuation than others: some qualities are: if the thought form has the promise of a reward; if the thought form has the internally defined attribute that states that the host will not be able to live without it, or is in great danger; or, if the meme states that all other thought forms are false and antagonistic in relation to it; and, if the meme states that it is in the interest of the host to spread the meme to others: and, the quality of adversary, meaning that a meme will remain virulent if, when challenged rationally it strives at the next level meaning agression and violence to non-hosts(think Islam here). this latter implies a subquality: the meme defines non-hosts as either in need of infection or as potentially infectious with dangerous thoughts .
In memetics the high frequency of children perpetuating the choice of their parents religion can be seen as a statistic in support of how a meme works . . . other than it supporting any claim to the veracity of any of the religions in question. Memetics, then reveals not the truth content of any religion but merely the strategies of 'truth' which perpetuate different memes: a meme is a mini culture, like a germ culture, which spreads as a result of resistences and contagions.
Grand narrative memes (those that are explaining the whole world) tend to condition the hosts relationship to other thought forms as well as quantifiable and testable "facts". Memes make you see what they want you to.
I sad that EiF was doing sommething different than what NooahJ was doing in that I see his reaction to Noah's proseletizing as one of critique whereas Noah is acting under the cumpulsion of the idea of Christianity:
Noah is reading all he world according to the self replicating demands of the thought form of Christianity
Frivolity is seeing Noah's actions as those of a system trying to extend itself and he is trying to reveal the mechanisisms of that system for what they are
Noah presents a thought form that wants to define all truths
Frivolity wants merely to show that that is all that noah is trying to do: control other's thoughts
one is a meme the other is the meme of how memes work</strong><hr></blockquote>
Preach on brotha! Pass around the collection plate! Can I get an amen? AMEN!
<strong>
I had this really great reply in mind but then I reread your post and decided I'll just let you do all the talking.
Religion is bad and a trap that [is very difficult to] escape.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In your opinion.
<strong>
In your opinion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't hear you form the bottom of that trap you are in. You need to shout.
<strong>
I can't hear you form the bottom of that trap you are in. You need to shout.</strong><hr></blockquote>
IN YOUR OPINION!!! That better?
<strong>
IN YOUR OPINION!!! That better?
You seem to love to say that your opinion on religion is TRUTH yet whenever I say that your religion is not TRUTH, it's just my opinion.
*files Noah under illogical hypocrite*
[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
<strong>
You seem to love to say that your opinion on religion is TRUTH yet whenever I say that your religion is not TRUTH, it's just my opinion.
*files Noah under illogical hypocrite*
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now you're really reaching. Is that the best you can do?
You said:
Religion is bad and a trap that [is very difficult to] escape.
I said that was in your opinion. How you can twist that the way you did is beyond me.
You sound desperate for anything to pin on me now...
<strong>
Now you're really reaching. Is that the best you can do?
You said:
Religion is bad and a trap that [is very difficult to] escape.
I said that was in your opinion. How you can twist that the way you did is beyond me.
You sound desperate for anything to pin on me now...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What, I'm not allowed to have two separate thoughts and make a new unrelated statement?
Let me help you. Everything below this line is the start of a new thought.
__________________________________________________ _
You seem to love to say that your opinion on religion is TRUTH yet whenever I say that your religion is not TRUTH, it's just my opinion.
*files Noah under illogical hypocrite*
Ok, now treat it as such and answer the question. Why is your opinion on religion "truth" while mine is simply "just my opinion?" Sounds pretty arrogant to me.
[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
<strong>
What, I'm not allowed to have two separate thoughts and make a new unrelated statement?
Let me help you. Everything below this line is the start of a new thought.
__________________________________________________ _
You seem to love to say that your opinion on religion is TRUTH yet whenever I say that your religion is not TRUTH, it's just my opinion.
*files Noah under illogical hypocrite*
Ok, now treat it as such and answer the question. Why is your opinion on religion "truth" while mine is simply "just my opinion?" Sounds pretty arrogant to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but no. That dog won't bark here. Try again.
<strong>
Sorry, but no. That dog won't bark here. Try again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It sure sounds like you are dodging the question because you don't have a good answer.
<strong>
Sorry, but no. That dog won't bark here. Try again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a valid question. Why is your opinion on religion TRUTH while mine is simply just my opinion? Answer it.
<strong>
It's a valid question. Why is your opinion on religion TRUTH while mine is simply just my opinion? Answer it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Its actually quite simple: Religion being the truth is just his opinion. Teh rules your statement is put under must apply to his own too.
In a post-modern world truth is relative.
Its actually quite simple: Religion being the truth is just his opinion.<hr></blockquote>
Duh. That's what he won't admit. He thinks that it's not just an opinion, but that it is actually fact--"fact" that he can't prove. He simply needs to get off his high horse.
I'd still like to see if noah has the balls to answer the question, though.
[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
<strong>
Duh. That's what he won't admit. He thinks that it's not just an opinion, but that it is actually fact--"fact" that he can't prove. He simply needs to get off his high horse.
I'd still like to see if noah has the balls to answer the question, though.
[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe tha what I have to offer is the truth. However, i do not believe that I know all there is to know about the truth as I have said many time througout this thread. Here are a few instances of times when I have admitted this:
Even if I were there face to face with you I would not force my opinions on you, but I would lay them out as best I could.
Let me give my view on predestination
Also, and I have nothing specific to back me up on this either so we can put it under Noah's beliefs, I believe that Jesus chose to come to earth.
However, when a child is very young, and has no recognition of right or wrong, I don't believe they are held accountable for their actions. Once they are old enough to choose, they become responsible and thus are held accountable. Don't ask me the age line, I could not even guess.
That is my opinion on that, I would be intersted to hear anyone elses thoughts on the subject though.
As I said, I do not know how God will run it for sure. I do not go around telling everyone, "repent, you are going to hell otherwise!" But if they ask I will tell them the plan for salvation and what I believe will happen if they reject it.
I hope you find the truth you seek. I of course believe that to be what I am offering, but it is up to you to decide.
Now, let me sak you a question that you always skirt around.
Why is this so important to you that I be wrong? If what I have to offer is so wrong and so bad, why read it? Why do you even care? If nobody posted here, this thread would have been gone pages ago, and yet it is one of the longest threads on this page. Why is that?
<strong>
Why is this so important to you that I be wrong? If what I have to offer is so wrong and so bad, why read it? Why do you even care? If nobody posted here, this thread would have been gone pages ago, and yet it is one of the longest threads on this page. Why is that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying you have to be wrong. I'm saying it's ridiculous to think that your religion out of the hundreds if not thousands of other religions is right. I do not like it when people go around claiming they understand the incomprehensible. I do not like it when people go around claiming that they can explain the unexplainable. It would be different if you had a shred of evidence, however, the only evidence you can provide is that of a text that has been translated and retranslated time and time again (not to mention the whole circular argument about why you claim the bible is holy).
It's one of the longest threads because sometimes it's fun to argue with an irrational person.
The Great BabelFish Experiment
Posted on 2002/03/23 at 20:19:09 by Chuckman
ORIGINAL TEXT
The cat's name is Bill. He likes to hump rocks. He eats cheese and fish. His friend is a dog. The dog's name is Lester the Molester. Alien space monkeys named Frenobulon like to play chess with Lester the Molester.
FIRST ITERATION- Original Text to Spanish and back to English
Spanish:
El nombre del gato es cuenta. Ã?l tiene gusto a la roca de la chepa. Ã?l come el queso y pescados. Su amigo es un perro. El nombre del perro es Lester el Molester. Los monos extranjeros del espacio nombraron a Frenobulon tienen gusto de jugar a ajedrez con Lester el Molester.
English:
The name of the cat is account. It has taste to the rock of chepa. It eats the cheese and fish. His friend is a dog. The name of the dog is Lester the Molester. The foreign monkeys of the space named to Frenobulon have taste to play chess with Lester the Molester.
SECOND ITERATION: Retranslated text to German and back to English
German:
Der Name der Katze ist Konto. Er hat Geschmack zum Felsen von chepa. Er i�t den Käse und die Fische. Sein Freund ist ein Hund. Der Name des Hundes ist Lester das Molester. Die fremden Fallhammer des Platzes, der zu Frenobulon benannt wird, haben den Geschmack zum Spielen des Schachs mit Lester das Molester.
English:
The name of the cat is account. It has taste to rock of chepa. He eats the cheese and the fish. Its friend is a dog. The name of the dog is Lester mole molester. The other drop hammer of the workstation, which is designated to Frenobulon, to have the taste for playing chess with Lester mole molester.
THIRD ITERATION: English to Italian and Back
Italian:
Il nome del gatto è cliente. Ha gusto alla roccia del chepa. Mangia il formaggio ed i pesci. Il relativo amico è un cane. Il nome del cane è molester della talpa di Lester. L' altro maglio a caduta libera della stazione di lavoro, che è indicata a Frenobulon, per avere il gusto per il gioco degli scacchi con il molester della talpa di Lester.
English:
The name of the cat is customer. It has taste to the cliff of the chepa. It eats the cheese and the fish. The relative friend is a dog. The name of the dog is molester of the mole of Lester. The other mallet to free fall of the station of job, that it is indicated to Frenobulon, for having the taste for the game of chess with the molester of the mole of Lester.
FOURTH ITERATION: English to French and Back
French:
Le nom du chat est client. Il a le goût Ã* la falaise du chepa. Il mange le fromage et les poissons. L'ami relatif est un chien. Le nom du chien est molester de la taupe de Lester. L'autre maillet pour libérer la chute de la station du travail, celui on l'indique Ã* Frenobulon, pour avoir le goût pour le jeu des échecs avec le molester de la taupe de Lester.
English:
The name of the cat is customer. It has the taste with cliff of the chepa. It eats cheese and fish. The relative friend is a dog. The name of the dog is molester mole To ballast. The other mallet to release the fall of the station of work, that one indicates it to Frenobulon, to have the taste for the play of the failures with the molester of the mole To ballast.
FINAL ITERATION: English to Portugese and Back
Portugese:
O nome do gato é cliente. Tem o gosto com o penhasco do chepa. Come o queijo e os peixes. O amigo relativo é um cão. O nome do cão é toupeira do molester ao reator. O outro malho para liberar a queda da estação do trabalho, esse indica-o a Frenobulon, para ter o gosto para o jogo das falhas com o molester da toupeira ao reator.
English:
The name of the cat is customer. It has the taste with the cliff of chepa. It eats the cheese and the fish. The relative friend is a dog. The name of the dog is mole of molester to the reactor. The other rammer to liberate the fall of the station of the work, this indicates it it Frenobulon, to have the taste for the game of the feeds with molester of the mole to the reactor.
<strong>
Duh. That's what he won't admit. He thinks that it's not just an opinion, but that it is actually fact--"fact" that he can't prove. He simply needs to get off his high horse.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
NoahJ shouldn´t admit anything. Its the truth and a fact for him. Just like its a fact for me that there is no God. I don´t see that as my opinion but as a fact.
There is no neutral ground from where you can look at the world. From inside NoahJs head God is a fact. From inside mine God is a lie. From outside everyones head there is nothing. So all critic of anything going on in someones head must come from inside someone elses head. There is no neutral ground.
You have to get down with post-modernism.
<strong>Speaking of translations...let me show you how easy it can be to distort the entire meaning of a sentence or two simply by translating it a few times. Granted this uses babelfish, however, similar results would occur if humans were doing the translation due each person's individual interpretation. Here we go. My friend on another forum did this originally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All this proves is that bablefish is not perfect at translating from one language, to another and back. The part you are forgetting to bring up is that we still have access to the origional texts, so if you do not think the translation is right, you can go back and study the origional texts and decide for yourself.
However, some of those sentances were quite humorous in their translation. Good thing you posted the origional sentance so that we could look at it and know what it said in the first place.
<strong>
NoahJ shouldn´t admit anything. Its the truth and a fact for him. Just like its a fact for me that there is no God. I don´t see that as my opinion but as a fact.
There is no neutral ground from where you can look at the world. From inside NoahJs head God is a fact. From inside mine God is a lie. From outside everyones head there is nothing. So all critic of anything going on in someones head must come from inside someone elses head. There is no neutral ground.
You have to get down with post-modernism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, but if I said the current US president is Barry Bonds and our national currency is the potato and really believed it was a "fact" in my head, it doesn't make it true. I would be labeled a nut. You should be labeled a nut. So should noah. No one can possibly know whether or not there is a god. It's beyond our capabilities to understand such things and its absolutely retarded to think that you are right. Two opposing stances cannot be FACT at the same time. Atheism is just as stupid as theism. It's blind faith either way.