Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[LastPoet]

Its a cop-out summer, simple as that. Its easier to feel outraged than to address an argument.

[Love]

I was expecting an attempt to explain the odd terminology and a fixed four year PhD program. Instead I get an attempt to deflect the discussion away from the issues. That is more than enough to call bullshit on all your claims.

Running with the attempted deflection however I made no such claim. I have noted most everyone here has disagreed with your ideas about philosophy and what philosophy is and is about. You have adamantly stuck to your positions. You have "invoked" an imaginary REAL philosophy student to contradict a post.

Yet the entire foundation of your posts and positions is hobby knowledge which NO ONE has in any form certified is even close to correct. Perhaps you should tell us all upon what basis you have lead yourself to assume your views are correct. Again, full disclosure.

I was not interested in the tech part and the quick response on PET scan indicates the kind of knowledge such tech claims would encompass suggests no reason to question them.

However the primary issue regarding you views of philosophy has been answered. You are on one side against many people who more or less agree with each other that you are wrong about philosophy based upon common knowledge about philosophy that they share. And the answer is you know nothing more about philosophy than your hobby interests have taken you.

This is not an issue of majority rule of course. It is the entire group against a hobbyist of one.

Full time PhDs from are usually three or four years where I live. What "odd terminology are you talking about"? Again, I could not care less whether or not you trust me.

Why don't you just admit that your latest reply is designed to try and discredit me? It is blatantly obvious that this is your real motive. Furthermore, it is rather arrogant of you to speak for all the members, that "EVERYBODY" disagrees with me. Let people speak for themselves.

Philosophy is a subject in which I am very interested, much like I have a keen interest in many fields of science. It is absolutely none of your business to judge whether or not I am qualified to discuss ANY topic (philosophy or otherwise), regardless of whether or not I am academically qualified on the subject. I do not claim to be omniscient in any field; however, I have been interested in this topic for several years, so I have picked up a decent amount of knowledge along the way.

To reiterate, instead of making extremely general sweeping statements and wasting your time endeavouring to discredit me, why not find something you disagree with and we can have a meaningful discussion? To claim that somebody cannot discuss a topic because he or she is not academically qualified on the subject is absolutely preposterous. It's called critical thinking, a practice in which all of us should engage.

[Creed of Heresy]

Why don't you just admit that your latest reply is designed to try and discredit me? It is blatantly obvious that this is your real motive. Furthermore, it is rather arrogant of you to speak for all the members, that "EVERYBODY" disagrees with me. Let people speak for themselves.

Not to step in for ANM, because he's actually displaying some terrific debating skills and can clearly handle himself/outdo me, but I just want to address the point about discrediting, namely that this is a very ironic statement, given that you were trying to discredit Summer for her mentioning that she doesn't care for philosophy, as if her apathy for philosophy renders her arguments invalid [protip; it doesn't], and are now complaining about others trying to discredit you. This is the double-standard kind of thing I just mentioned. "I can discredit you, but heaven forbid you discredit me" sort of thing.

[Love]

I'm going to give you the very basic reason why I am so aggressive:

Because I hate religion, I hate intellectual dishonesty, and I hate people who pick and choose things in their various religious texts. I hate people who make unfounded assertions and assumptions. I hate people who salute double standards and worst of all I hate people who try to act as if they are authorities on a subject when they have no formal education in it. I don't try to pretend like I am some great debater, in fact a large part of why I am here specifically is to learn through experience (the rest is just to be around other atheists in some nominal sense, since where I live ((Wisconsin)), evangelists comprise 80+% of the population and as you can imagine atheists around here are extremely rare), and to consider multiple viewpoints. In person, I generally do not debate; I have trouble just formulating my words. I am not much of a conversationalist, I usually am just a guy who just bullshits around about trivial shit when I do talk, and I much prefer to just let others talk instead. But when it comes to written debates, I can parse things much easier. And the problem is, when you start dissecting an argument put forth by a theist, you start seeing their argument come apart at the seams and they don't even know it. And when you point it out, they reject it, and I know EXACTLY why they reject it. Because if they admit they're wrong in one place, then they're wrong in another. It's a cascade effect. The dominoes come toppling down in sequence, and ultimately they lead to the domino of the core of their faith.

Greater than any hell imagined by the feeble minds who slapped the bible together, religious fear the loss of comfort faith brings them. I lived that life. I went to church with people who felt and acted that way, and I was one of them. But I try to be modest. I try to be humble. I don't have much in the way of pride, so humility is all I've got, so when I started considering other points of view, I started realizing where I was wrong (and in the present this still happens at least once a day; if I'm on this forum, I'll realize I'm wrong about three times out of every ten times I make a point). My faith collapsed brick by brick. Was it such a bad thing, though? Not really. So when I see others terrified of letting the bricks start tumbling, I get frustrated. No, scratch that, I get infuriated. "If I can do it, why can't you" sort of thing. Ultimately it comes down to how much courage you have to admit you are wrong. If you cannot admit you are wrong, you're lost, and you will never gain anything.

The problem is, here, you are outright rejecting rationality. "The rationalists," you keep saying in a disparaging "tone," as if being grounded in reality is somehow a bad thing. Thing is, I've never seen anyone who could be considered "too realistic," and the ones who are very realistic are the ones who know their shit far better than anyone around them, and are usually the ones to identify the problems and oftentimes the ones who correct them, too. You make arguments for "what ifs" but I don't think you even grasp the "what ifs" you are trying to argue for, because if you did you would probably change your tack in a hurry.

So yes. My post probably sounded quite hostile and aggressive, but I was merely stating what others have all pointed out to be pretty much accurate.

Truth hurts, but it sets ya free, to use a really tired but still quite accurate platitude.

Seriously though you should probably list those universities if you want anyone to actually believe you. Everyone here is actually pretty harmless and all we're really interested in is knowledge and discussion. Hell, it's a forum, that's what fora are for. Nobody on here is really taken with the idea of making claims and then not asserting them.

Take for example my thing about cherry picking. I went and pulled a bunch of quotes I remembered from my time reading the bible up to show that the bible is openly hostile towards philosophy and philosophers, and those were just the ones I could remember off the top of my head. If I dug any deeper, I could find dozens more, and I am not exaggerating. My point was made, though; I cited my sources, and showed why the idea of Christians claiming to philosophy is an absurd and outright contradictory concept. Which is also why I am so contemptuous of you (if this seems hostile, consider for a moment that I actually respect you enough as a person to be honest with you and not bullshit you); you're actually going against numerous biblical key points, some of which are actually very, VERY fundamentally required basics to Christianity. See, I despise people who just claim to be Christians, and then start going "but not in this way, this way, or this way, all of which are ways that define Christianity" because then I am left asking "then what the fuck are you, actually?? Because you're clearly not a Christian!" When people can't even get their basic shit straight, I start bristling very quickly.

Okay, well I apologise that I completely misjudged your character.

I think most people would interpret your initial post as rather unsavory, but I understand that this is the way that you express yourself. You're obviously a decent guy if you do all that charitable work, so I feel rather guilty for judging you as a narcissist. I will learn from this mistake of judging people so quickly.

Also, I do not mind people swearing at me, but it is difficult to focus on an argument when the tone of a message comes across to be seemingly ferocious.

I can understand if I come across as intellectually dishonest or even pretentious, but as I have already mentioned, I basically spend my entire life on my PC reading and watching watching documentaries about the topics that are being discussed on this thread. It is nothing to do with my ego or trying to come across as superior in any way. I just like to discuss these kinds of topics in great detail.

[LastPoet]

Also, I do not mind people swearing at me, but it is difficult to focus on an argument when the tone of a message comes across to be seemingly ferocious.

I would be doubly suspicious if someone approached me with sweet words. Isn't there a christian adage that says the 'devil' has a beautifull face? I prefer that people get honest and hard on me than to pat me on the back with a lie and sweet wording.

But that is just me.

[Creed of Heresy]

Well, as others have said, you'll need a thicker skin than the one you currently have to endure this site. There's a lot of highly intelligent individuals here to discuss things with, but a great many of the atheists on this site have little patience for theists in general....not because theists are invading our private sanctum or some shit but just because many of us have long since torn apart the arguments constantly brought before us and we have grown tired of repeating ourselves or pointing out the obvious to individuals who claim to be reasonable while refusing to see reason. But as I pointed out; if you value philosophy so much, I truly wonder why in god's name [my wit, it knows no bounds] you chose Christianity of all things. That'd be like me, the guy who loves bacon, partying, drinking, smoking, and making love going and becoming a fundamentalist muslim...and still doing all those things.

---

Also, I do not mind people swearing at me, but it is difficult to focus on an argument when the tone of a message comes across to be seemingly ferocious.

I would be doubly suspicious if someone approached me with sweet words. Isn't there a christian adage that says the 'devil' has a beautifull face? I prefer that people get honest and hard on me than to pat me on the back with a lie and sweet wording.

But that is just me.

You and me both. Nothing makes me more suspicious than someone who is way too damn friendly at the very onset of interaction. Used car salesmen, con-men, and rapists come to mind in that category...

The bigger your grin when you approach me, the less I am going to believe anything you say.

[Love]

PS, Love, while I might be ignorant of the finer points of philosophy, having absolutely no interest in it isn't “lazy." It's just that I consider it less useful than even knitting, which I also have no interest in. Careful how you bandy “ignorant and lazy" around when you dislike the fact that someone doesn't hold your pet hobby in high enough regard.

I was just being honest about how your complete disregard for philosophy came across to me. The way it seemed to me is that you were trying to have a philosophical debate without having any real knowledge about the primary subject, i.e. rationalism and competing philosophical ideas, such as empircism or relativism, for example. That's the point I was trying to make.

Also, it is not a "pet hobby". To me, I feel it is an area in which all human beings should engage, primarily because it can have a profound impact on the way we see things; I believe it enriches our capacity to engage in critical thinking.

---

Well, as others have said, you'll need a thicker skin than the one you currently have to endure this site. There's a lot of highly intelligent individuals here to discuss things with, but a great many of the atheists on this site have little patience for theists in general....not because theists are invading our private sanctum or some shit but just because many of us have long since torn apart the arguments constantly brought before us and we have grown tired of repeating ourselves or pointing out the obvious to individuals who claim to be reasonable while refusing to see reason. But as I pointed out; if you value philosophy so much, I truly wonder why in god's name [my wit, it knows no bounds] you chose Christianity of all things. That'd be like me, the guy who loves bacon, partying, drinking, smoking, and making love going and becoming a fundamentalist muslim...and still doing all those things.

Indeed, I understand what you're saying. I would like to respectfully disagree with you because I do actually have a very strong character. Without going into detail (and I do not want any sympathy), my life, like many others, has been exceptionally difficult, and I have gained a great deal of strength and wisdom from some of the things I have had to deal with; what does not kill you, makes you stronger as they say. Therefore, I actually believe that people have also midjudged my character. I was simply trying to be assertive at the start by insisting that I will not tolerate bullying. It is not anything to do with not being able to tolerate personal attacks or aggressiveness, but more to do with my wish to focus on having, dare I say it, "rational" and civilised conversations as opposed to wasting time on what I perceive to be futile and petty "oneupmanship" exchanges. This was my primary reason for "ignoring" members whom I felt were only interested in bullying rather than a real debate. Well, today has been a learning experience. It has made me think about concetrating on the argument instead of the tone, which is quite difficult for me.

I will answer the question about "Why Christianity?" shortly.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

I'm going to give you the very basic reason why I am so aggressive:

Because I hate religion, I hate intellectual dishonesty, and I hate people who pick and choose things in their various religious texts. I hate people who make unfounded assertions and assumptions. I hate people who salute double standards and worst of all I hate people who try to act as if they are authorities on a subject when they have no formal education in it.
...

Myself I just hate stupid.

---

I was expecting an attempt to explain the odd terminology and a fixed four year PhD program. Instead I get an attempt to deflect the discussion away from the issues. That is more than enough to call bullshit on all your claims.

Running with the attempted deflection however I made no such claim. I have noted most everyone here has disagreed with your ideas about philosophy and what philosophy is and is about. You have adamantly stuck to your positions. You have "invoked" an imaginary REAL philosophy student to contradict a post.

Yet the entire foundation of your posts and positions is hobby knowledge which NO ONE has in any form certified is even close to correct. Perhaps you should tell us all upon what basis you have lead yourself to assume your views are correct. Again, full disclosure.

I was not interested in the tech part and the quick response on PET scan indicates the kind of knowledge such tech claims would encompass suggests no reason to question them.

However the primary issue regarding you views of philosophy has been answered. You are on one side against many people who more or less agree with each other that you are wrong about philosophy based upon common knowledge about philosophy that they share. And the answer is you know nothing more about philosophy than your hobby interests have taken you.

This is not an issue of majority rule of course. It is the entire group against a hobbyist of one.

Full time PhDs from are usually three or four years where I live. What "odd terminology are you talking about"? Again, I could not care less whether or not you trust me.

How long it might take on average is quite different from giving specific years and this being your first year. If that is an honest reply I then suspect English is not your native language and the simplest explanation for your posts.

Why don't you just admit that your latest reply is designed to try and discredit me? It is blatantly obvious that this is your real motive. Furthermore, it is rather arrogant of you to speak for all the members, that "EVERYBODY" disagrees with me. Let people speak for themselves.

You have already discredited yourself. I was merely pointing that out to you. It is not a matter of try rather of been there and you done that.

Can you name a participant who does agree with you?

Thought not.

Yes I am arrogant. It is my only redeeming social value as a horrible example.

Philosophy is a subject in which I am very interested, much like I have a keen interest in many fields of science. It is absolutely none of your business to judge whether or not I am qualified to discuss ANY topic (philosophy or otherwise), regardless of whether or not I am academically qualified on the subject. I do not claim to be omniscient in any field; however, I have been interested in this topic for several years, so I have picked up a decent amount of knowledge along the way.

I was pointing out that NO ONE HERE considers you qualified. All posted as to the same fundamental errors. None of them suggested they copied each other.

That said it is absolutely my prerogative to judge as in evaluate the people with whom I exchange posts. Everyone does. I am more wordy than others, perhaps. One person simply pronounced you full of shit. Succinct and to the point.

As to your knowledge of the subject you have no feedback as to being correct and as everyone disagrees with you one has to ask upon what do you base your conviction of being correct?

For example, almost no one agrees with me on Made in Alexandria: The Origin of the Yahweh Cult. I stick with it as about three years ago my theory became robust enough that I was able to make correct predictions as to what I would find if I kept reading ancient sources.

To reiterate, instead of making extremely general sweeping statements and wasting your time endeavouring to discredit me, why not find something you disagree with and we can have a meaningful discussion? To claim that somebody cannot discuss a topic because he or she is not academically qualified on the subject is absolutely preposterous. It's called critical thinking, a practice in which all of us should engage.

As to what we might discuss, philosophy is not a possible topic of discussion as you have so many misconceptions and flat out nonsense about it.

PS, hit a sore spot didn't I

[Love]

How long it might take on average is quite different from giving specific years and this being your first year. If that is an honest reply I then suspect English is not your native language and the simplest explanation for your posts.

You have already discredited yourself. I was merely pointing that out to you. It is not a matter of try rather of been there and you done that.

Can you name a participant who does agree with you? Thought not.

Yes I am arrogant. It is my only redeeming social value as a horrible example.

I was pointing out that NO ONE HERE considers you qualified. All posted as to the same fundamental errors. None of them suggested they copied each other.

That said it is absolutely my prerogative to judge as in evaluate the people with whom I exchange posts. Everyone does. I am more wordy than others, perhaps. One person simply pronounced you full of shit. Succinct and to the point.

As to your knowledge of the subject you have no feedback as to being correct and as everyone disagrees with you one has to ask upon what do you base your conviction of being correct?

As to what we might discuss, philosophy is not a possible topic of discussion as you have so many misconceptions and flat out nonsense about it.

PS, hit a sore spot didn't I

Much of what you write does not make any sense.

I honestly do not care if (whom I suspect to be imaginary) members believe that I am not qualified. I am confident in my abilities and do not require the approval of others' to justify my self belief. I am sorry if this disappoints you.

As you refuse to discuss any subject remotely related to philosophy, it is quite clear that you have no intention of engaging in any kind of intelligent discussion/debate on the subject, but rather your main objective is to try and influence the perceptions of other users. If I am wrong about this, simply prove this by asking a relevant question related to my posts or philosophy. Otherwise, you're wasting my time and you will be ignored.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

It is not anything to do with not being able to tolerate personal attacks or aggressiveness, but more to do with my wish to focus on having, dare I say it, "rational" and civilised conversations as opposed to wasting time on what I perceive to be futile and petty "oneupmanship" exchanges.

Again, in the interests of full disclosure, how do you expect to have a rational and civilized discussion when your only response has been to say PHILOSOPHY to anyone who disagrees with you? You do not discuss your side at all. You declare is it is correct because of PHILOSOPHY.

Why do you consider that rational much less civilized?

If there were instead of discussion of computers and you contributed something that made no sense and your response were solely I AM A COMPUTER SCIENTIST that would be an exact analogy to you have been doing.

At this point your claims to anonymity can no longer be attributed to mere paranoia.

BTW I googled matt giwer bs physics 1967 who is me which is no secret at all and got http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.ph...0-p-3.html as the first hit. If you ctrl-f on physics you find my verifiable credentials. You can also search groups.google.com in general and soc.history.ancient in particular and find the evolution of my ideas bibleland since 1995. (To all readers -- all very boring stuff.)

What conceivably is your secret?