Science and scientific method is two different things, just as are religion and religious methods.
Whatever.
Truth.What would you be calling them, laws?
Sounds profound, but means nothing.It's just reason that's based on ego, laziness, wishful thinking and impatience. I could just shout out a number and say it's the answer and that I am just waiting for the question, which is what the god answer does. You don't even know the question yet you still have the answer.
Yeah, never mind the theists scientists who formed the theory base on which you're all too happy to jump. How about the fact that people in general are not inclined to think critically once they reach a comfort zone?By default theists lack the ability to think critically. It's shown time and again in the leadership of theists in debates and in the general every day goings on in the world.
No, it's not. It's set up to test hypotheses. All that jargon you use about falsifiability and evidence comes from the scientific method, which only works after someone forms hypotheses to test. You need assertions to challenge first. Discoveries aren't scientific initially; they have to be tested with scientific methods before they can become part of generally accepted beliefs.Science is a method of discovery. Do you think discoveries of an accidental nature in science are about justifying beliefs? If not, did science fail? You seem to have spent more time discussing philosophy than science, which is odd because what we know in science we once discussed in philosophy, yet you somehow think science is overrated.
Sure, if you were trying to argue that there weren't people who eat feces.There are people who eat their own feces. Can we use those as an example?
Science and scientific method is two different things, just as are religion and religious methods.
So in conclusion, Chinook, you were merely lashing out against atheism when you said intellectuals are atheists because it makes them feel better, as if it's a fad. I see deism as a fad that young people don't really even understand. I see your theism claim to be ragged at best since you've also claimed you don't necessarily believe a god exists, but that one might. That's not theism or even deism. Even still, the fact that you can form such a conclusion and call it the correct default position indicates your religious upbringing and your age, and that though you have taken many of the necessary steps mentally to recover from the brainwashing of religion, you haven't quite shaken it yet, but it's hanging by a thread. All it takes is for your god to suddenly be replaced by another fantasy and poof, gone.
Could have at least tagged me instead of just dropping this here unannounced. It seems you want to wind down this discussion, and I'm fine with that. You could have just said that directly, however. This attempt at a parting shot is really weak, and it comes from you giving up on every contention you had after they met only a little resistance. Man up and admit you didn't have a very good debate this time. You're a smart person, and you'll do better next time. You've definitely done better before.
Actually each attempt was pretty weak.
I am afraid you owned him every time, but he will never admit it.
It has to do with huge egos and small minds, kind of like another couple of small minded idiots who follow me around this forum.
One, or both, will probably be posting right after this, just watch.
We? off, hippy, you only get to speak for yourself. What we call something is independent of what something actually is. There is not a shred of evidence of platonic forms or ideals although you like to pretend that your rational constructs.
I have been talking about the whole of reality that are governed by natural laws as that was what your theistic argument is about. I haven't allowed myself to get mired in your ty categories and semantics. I mock you for them repeatedly but you seem oblivious to the point I am making.
You are describing the imperative and you are not addressing the categorical process by which the imperative is derived.
It is right there in the phrase itself. An imperative based on categorization. He uses dualistic coupling of categories and draws conclusions based on them. Kant and other 19th century germans had a field day using the same logic you are using here making categorical imperatives of all manner of virtue. And again Nietzsche ridicules quite extensively such methodology in thus spakt and directly in beyond good and evil. Rawls rejected the dualistic construct formally as did Russell.
You are using the same baseless self assuming nonsense. You think that because you call everyone one of two things that it somehow becomes inherently true. It's hubris of the tallest order, frankly. No wonder you are dropping 'we.' Your arguments were refuted thoroughly 150 years ago.
And you can sit there and say that I don't understand logic but you continue to dodge my argument about logical proofs of a negation and open ended sets. You keep on claiming that I am misusing terms but outside of finally defining categorical imperative on an entry level basis, you have done nothing whatsoever to prove that. Well excuse me you have also made dubious claims as to SAT scores and Ivy League education.
And on a final note. Your position of god not being able to be proven empirically -assertion of a negation again- is one of the more cowardly positions I have ever seen.
Bro, you haven't said anything, you've just regurgitated what other people said out of context and while demonstrating no ability to put the arguments into your own words. You sound like a guy who looked up "atheist arguments" on Google and copy-pasted them here.
You seriously just need to stop posting, really research the arguments you're trying to use, then try again.
For your benefit, here is a non-exhaustive list of things you should look up. Consider it your homework:
-Categorical imperative
-Begging the question
-Open sets
-Intensionality/extensionality
-Dualism
-Atheism
-Formal Logic
-Fallacies
Let me know when you've done those things, and I'll be willing to hear you. Until then, you should take your cue from DMC and just bow out. You've done nothing but undercut atheists with your posts.
Assertions without basis and then bluster, the way of the coward. DMC got bored. So have I.
Your prima causa and natural law arguments have been refuted and you have abandoned them completely. It's not bowing out when you win, coward.
No way you're done with you're homework yet, bro. You seem like the guy who needs to read things a few times to understand them.
I could have warned you about him and his ignorant debate style, or others could have.
Honestly he has no style and resorts to cussing and invectives as if that strengthened his argument in some bizarre way.
This is why when he debated me he earned the reputation of "pseudo intellectual" which I labeled him a long time ago, and now I know better than to debate him.
It is very similar to chump and anahka in that they have nothing relevant to say or rarely do, chump does on a blue moon, but that is rare, so they have to resort to misquoting, quoting out of context, misrepresenting, and countless false statements that they attribute to people, it is where their distortions and twisting of the truth comes from.
If someone engages in a debate, they have to be man enough to admit when they are wrong and go from there, but such is not the case with flakes on here who have huge egos and very small minds.
Thus their competency is called into question since they have no conception of "truth", humor, sarcasm, irony, or dramatic suspenseful presentation i.e. creativity.
And left without any other recourse to competently argue a point, they resort to ridicule and lying to give themselves a fic ious sense of credibility.ons to him to help him get a better grasp
In fuzzybumpkins case I finally resorted to quoting dictionary definitions to him in order to help him get a better grasp of what I was telling him.
It is what it is.
Now I awiat their usual followups to my post with their usual derivel.
old man rant
long-winded post about posters he supposedly ignores
more butthurt than his made-up ass-bleeding wife
Fuzzy just posted a whole lot of and basically said nothing. Amazing.
Are you ever going to stay on any thread topic or you going to keep rambling on in every thread on about the people you are ignoring?
This is what he always does, it is his MO, very similar to the two headcases that follow me everywhere like the poster above you!
I don't know.
What do you think?
Tell me what you do "constructively" on here except whine and and moan about other people?
single old man making up an ass-bleeding wife for pity points and failing miserably
Incarnate Word dropout faking a Dartmouth education to impress an Internet forum and failing miserably
humiliated old man faking his death and threatening lawsuits to keep from getting on and failing miserably
I don't really do anything constructive here.
I do think you're mental.
You delude yourself to have the gall to "think" anything, it is your weakest quality.
You troll, in your own words, so I am your Troll God.
If you are guilty, then you have no room to cast stones at anyone.
By the way, did anyone notice who "followed" my post with more ignorance, BS, and irrelevance?
Speak of the devil, I called it.
Deflect all you want, old man. Your made up is going to follow you around non-stop.
Also it is con uously obvious that you play sides when you have that criticism of me yet you turn a blind eye to the constant derailments by anagloser and the years of such by chumpuss.
Talk about hypocrisy, I could derail threads for months and never get close to their derailing!
Come back and talk to us when you have something "valid" to say and when you can be fair minded!
So to sum up
Xmas1997 is dramatically looking for Chinook's attention... kinda cute tbh
Chinook not giving him any attention
Chinook point of view is called... truth ... damn...
Bible is a book that teaches morality (dat one is good)
lol "us"
Nah. It's just if I believe my view is the most rational view, then by default I must also think dissenting views are less rational. Otherwise, I wouldn't have my view in the first place. It wasn't supposed to be a dig at atheists, who are en led to their views and with whom I tend to agree on almost everything else.
was just messing a bit with you... I just read in diagonal and saw you were calling what you were saying truth... I imagined it was not litteral. Only xmas would call his dumb pov truth
but then I learned in that thread that bible teaches morality so it was worth the quick reading
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)