RE: I can feel your anger
July 9, 2012 at 11:23 am
(This post was last modified: July 9, 2012 at 11:59 am by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
(July 8, 2012 at 12:11 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Yes, but what justifies that belief? Why should you hold to evidentialism?
Again you are equivocating the shit out of the word "belief". YOU "believe" fairy tales and superstitions based on the authority of snake oil salesmen. We see through these superstitions. We see that the world is not flat, we see that the sun and stars do not revolve around the earth, and we see that your fairy tale monster does not effect the changes in people's lives that you claim it can.
You want to call that a belief system -- a straw man argument -- and challenge that in order to have us adopt YOUR PARTICULAR FAIRY TALES AND SUPERSTITIONS and, for no good reason, NO OTHERS.
If you so want us to discard the what you are calling "evidentialism", then demonstrate the fallacy of this, what you are calling "belief", by loading up a shotgun with Double-Ought Buck, sticking the business end of both barrels in your mouth, pointing it at your brain stem, flicking off the safety and pulling both triggers. Since our confidence in the reliability of evidence -- and THAT is what we are really talking about here, rather than your straw man of a philosophical/metaphysical "-ISM" -- is so badly misplaced, your god-figure will stop the pellets from destroying your head, and you can declare victory of your superstitious beliefs over The Evil Straw Man of Evidentialism.
No cheating.
Oh, and you might as well arrange for CNN to be there while you are at it.
But even if this little scenario were to come true and you could demonstrate your claimed folly of reliance upon evidence, you would still have the problem of why anyone would believe in your particular fairy tale monster over any other known random fairy tale monster, or any that any of us could make up on the spot, like someone long ago made up yours.
(July 9, 2012 at 11:09 am)whateverist Wrote: Geez, I couldn't remember why I had you on ignore .. and then I opened this post and it all came back to me.
I remember why I predicted that you would claim to put me on ignore, and then read my posts.
Quote: Why do you try so hard to pose as already knowing so much? Smug isn't a good look for you.
Strawman much? Please cite me claiming to "know so much".
Quote:Relax. Allow yourself the opportunity to get curious about why people say what they say and what it might mean to them. In short, grow up.
Did I ask your advice about anything? If I have misquoted someone, do point that out. Otherwise grow the fuck up.
Quote:You'd be surprised just how rare it is for people to do what they do just to annoy you or because they are stupid or because they have malicious intent. Very few of us are actually in this world for reasons relating to you at all.Did I say anything at all about "just to annoy me in particular"?
You must be a special kind of stupid.
(July 8, 2012 at 10:01 am)CliveStaples Wrote: Let's just get this straight, so there isn't confusion:
You guys are saying, "For any proposition p, if p lacks evidence then you shouldn't believe p." Call this proposition E (for Evidentialism).
Strawman much?
Who here has said that besides you?
What we are saying is that your outlandish, extraordinary claim of the existence of the x-tard god-figure suffers from an utter lack of any of the extraordinary evidence that confidence in such an outlandish claim would reasonably require.
You seem to go to extraordinary lengths in your flagging attempts to wriggle your way out of your responsibility to the burden of proof, but in the end that is all you are doing.
No. Fucking. Dice.
(July 8, 2012 at 10:42 am)Napoleon Wrote: It's not a belief, no matter how many times you stupidly say it is. Evidentialism as you call it, is the only rational way to look at the world around us. Now you can sit there and philosophise about bullshit you can and can't prove as much as you want. But there's a difference when it comes to using evidence. Evidence is used to discern fact from fiction, and if you want to disregard evidence on philosophical grounds then more fool you.
Evidence does not require belief like you are making out. It is not something you can debate over. There is either evidence supporting a hypothesis or there is not. If there is not then give me one rational reason, to think that such a hypothesis is true.
What he is arguing for is his right to be disingenuous, irrational and unreasonable. He of course has that right, but in exercising it he forfeits any right to be taken seriously or treated courteously.
