trouble

[Seth]

Ah, well, please excuse me for making an assumption that your ethos included dedication to reason, logic and the scientific method. I see that perhaps I have overreached in that assumption. My apology.

You are forgiven. That being said, my original statement remains undisputed.

Not at all. My original reply stands and your statement is non sequitur. The fact that you have no reason, logic, or scientific ethos doesn't change the fact that neither you, nor anyone else, has met the burden of scientifically disproving the proof requested by Gawdzilla and provided by me regarding the existence of God. All you've done is assert a claim of your own as to being the author of the miracle. You may be the author. You may indeed be God. But you've not disproven the proof of the existence of God provided by the observation of phenomena by tens of thousands of people at Fatima according to the scientific method.

That was the challenge, you see (or evidently do not see...which makes one wonder about your implied Godhood), not simply identifying the author of the miracle.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.

[Seth]

The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.

You should quite trying to talk to yourself then, Mr. Pot.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

See? I told you he'd say something like that.

[Audley Strange]

The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.

No it's no trouble at all. It would only be trouble if you engaged in earnest. Considering Seth's rationale I'm amazed people keep getting into it with him, all the time. We know in advance what he's going to say and in many cases it is hilarious, often at someone else's self inflicted expense but not always. It's not a debate, it's a preposterous polemic, a strawman erected to fight against other strawmen. The point is not to win, but to frustrate.

At least that's my take on it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.

No it's no trouble at all. It would only be trouble if you engaged in earnest. Considering Seth's rationale I'm amazed people keep getting into it with him, all the time. We know in advance what he's going to say and in many cases it is hilarious, often at someone else's self inflicted expense but not always. It's not a debate, it's a preposterous polemic, a strawman erected to fight against other strawmen. The point is not to win, but to frustrate.

At least that's my take on it.

The issue I have is lack of respect. Seth has none for his position.

[Seth]

The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.

No it's no trouble at all. It would only be trouble if you engaged in earnest. Considering Seth's rationale I'm amazed people keep getting into it with him, all the time. We know in advance what he's going to say and in many cases it is hilarious, often at someone else's self inflicted expense but not always. It's not a debate, it's a preposterous polemic, a strawman erected to fight against other strawmen. The point is not to win, but to frustrate.

At least that's my take on it.

One good polemic deserves another, don't you think?

But you might be surprised at what happens if you actually engage in earnest.

[Seth]

The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.

No it's no trouble at all. It would only be trouble if you engaged in earnest. Considering Seth's rationale I'm amazed people keep getting into it with him, all the time. We know in advance what he's going to say and in many cases it is hilarious, often at someone else's self inflicted expense but not always. It's not a debate, it's a preposterous polemic, a strawman erected to fight against other strawmen. The point is not to win, but to frustrate.

At least that's my take on it.

The issue I have is lack of respect. Seth has none for his position.

No, Gawdzilla, you misunderstand yet again. It's not my position that I lack respect for, it's YOU I lack respect for, very specifically, because you have never demonstrated that you're worthy of respect or my intellectual effort. You've never once that I can recall engaged in a reasonable, rational adult debate with me (or anyone else for that matter). All you've ever done is fling poo at the plexi. I seriously doubt you have a rational argument in you. So, I just poke you with a stick and watch you shriek with impotent fury because it's fun.

[FBM]

The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.

No it's no trouble at all. It would only be trouble if you engaged in earnest. Considering Seth's rationale I'm amazed people keep getting into it with him, all the time. We know in advance what he's going to say and in many cases it is hilarious, often at someone else's self inflicted expense but not always. It's not a debate, it's a preposterous polemic, a strawman erected to fight against other strawmen. The point is not to win, but to frustrate.

At least that's my take on it.

That's often the case in playing the role of devil's advocate, I think. Obviously, Seth isn't really convinced that a supernatural deity dicked around with the sun that day. AFAICT, his goal is to shake up our illusion of certainty and the resulting dogmatism about whether or not the scientific method/approach results in absolute, incontrovertible, eternal Truth, which, if you study it closely, it doesn't. In a previous post, I mentioned Hume's problem of induction. I'm not saying that Seth is another Hume, or even that he knows of Hume's work; I'm only pointing out that quite a few people who served as gadflies to those in dogmatic slumbers wound up being highly regarded and respected for their efforts. Gödel's incompleteness theorems made a lot of people unhappy at first, but he stuck to his guns despite the criticism and now...

Again, I'm not saying Seth is comparable to either Hume nor Gödel in intellectual sophistication, only that we might do well to recognize a game of devil's advocate for what it is: a challenge to critically self-examine.

[Audley Strange]

The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.

No it's no trouble at all. It would only be trouble if you engaged in earnest. Considering Seth's rationale I'm amazed people keep getting into it with him, all the time. We know in advance what he's going to say and in many cases it is hilarious, often at someone else's self inflicted expense but not always. It's not a debate, it's a preposterous polemic, a strawman erected to fight against other strawmen. The point is not to win, but to frustrate.

At least that's my take on it.

One good polemic deserves another, don't you think?

But you might be surprised at what happens if you actually engage in earnest.

Indeed I do Seth though sometimes you are wasting your time. I think I know your game and while it's entertaining to me, I'm not going to bite when you start. It works both ways.

[Seth]

The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.

No it's no trouble at all. It would only be trouble if you engaged in earnest. Considering Seth's rationale I'm amazed people keep getting into it with him, all the time. We know in advance what he's going to say and in many cases it is hilarious, often at someone else's self inflicted expense but not always. It's not a debate, it's a preposterous polemic, a strawman erected to fight against other strawmen. The point is not to win, but to frustrate.

At least that's my take on it.

That's often the case in playing the role of devil's advocate, I think. Obviously, Seth isn't really convinced that a supernatural deity dicked around with the sun that day. AFAICT, his goal is to shake up our illusion of certainty and the resulting dogmatism about whether or not the scientific method/approach results in absolute, incontrovertible, eternal Truth, which, if you study it closely, it doesn't. In a previous post, I mentioned Hume's problem of induction. I'm not saying that Seth is another Hume, or even that he knows of Hume's work; I'm only pointing out that quite a few people who served as gadflies to those in dogmatic slumbers wound up being highly regarded and respected for their efforts. Gödel's incompleteness theorems made a lot of people unhappy at first, but he stuck to his guns despite the criticism and now...

Again, I'm not saying Seth is comparable to either Hume nor Gödel in intellectual sophistication, only that we might do well to recognize a game of devil's advocate for what it is: a challenge to critically self-examine.

Well, thanks...I guess. But the problem with being a highbrow philosopher in today's world is that outside of academia, one is forced to wade through the swill produced by Internet Netwits to find the occasional pearl of wisdom, and it's difficult to have a deep philosophical discussion when the monkeys in the peanut gallery are allowed to hurl poo through the bars with impunity.

I imagine Hume would tear his hair out at the prospect of trying to "debate" most of the jackasses found in discussion fora like this.

That's why philosophers tend to keep to themselves and only associate with each other.

The fact is that this is but low amusement for me, much like Mozart like to consort with gamblers and prostitutes for a little steam-letting-off and fun.

My true intellectualism is reserved for a much different audience entirely. That's why I use a pseudonym.

But you're right, my intent in this thread in particular is to poke fun at the pomposity of Atheists who like to think that they have all the answers and that their reasoning is unassailable merely because they think it is.

Sloppy reasoning and faulty logic are things that I find disappointing and nettlesome, particularly when displayed by otherwise respectable and intelligent people who should know better, so I choose on occasion to challenge that unreason in hopes of stimulating more rational thought.

[Seth]

The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.

No it's no trouble at all. It would only be trouble if you engaged in earnest. Considering Seth's rationale I'm amazed people keep getting into it with him, all the time. We know in advance what he's going to say and in many cases it is hilarious, often at someone else's self inflicted expense but not always. It's not a debate, it's a preposterous polemic, a strawman erected to fight against other strawmen. The point is not to win, but to frustrate.

At least that's my take on it.

One good polemic deserves another, don't you think?

But you might be surprised at what happens if you actually engage in earnest.

Indeed I do Seth though sometimes you are wasting your time. I think I know your game and while it's entertaining to me, I'm not going to bite when you start. It works both ways.

Fair enough.

[FBM]

The trouble here is trying to talk to someone who isn't honestly engaged in the debate.

No it's no trouble at all. It would only be trouble if you engaged in earnest. Considering Seth's rationale I'm amazed people keep getting into it with him, all the time. We know in advance what he's going to say and in many cases it is hilarious, often at someone else's self inflicted expense but not always. It's not a debate, it's a preposterous polemic, a strawman erected to fight against other strawmen. The point is not to win, but to frustrate.

At least that's my take on it.

That's often the case in playing the role of devil's advocate, I think. Obviously, Seth isn't really convinced that a supernatural deity dicked around with the sun that day. AFAICT, his goal is to shake up our illusion of certainty and the resulting dogmatism about whether or not the scientific method/approach results in absolute, incontrovertible, eternal Truth, which, if you study it closely, it doesn't. In a previous post, I mentioned Hume's problem of induction. I'm not saying that Seth is another Hume, or even that he knows of Hume's work; I'm only pointing out that quite a few people who served as gadflies to those in dogmatic slumbers wound up being highly regarded and respected for their efforts. Gödel's incompleteness theorems made a lot of people unhappy at first, but he stuck to his guns despite the criticism and now...

Again, I'm not saying Seth is comparable to either Hume nor Gödel in intellectual sophistication, only that we might do well to recognize a game of devil's advocate for what it is: a challenge to critically self-examine.

Well, thanks...I guess. But the problem with being a highbrow philosopher in today's world is that outside of academia, one is forced to wade through the swill produced by Internet Netwits to find the occasional pearl of wisdom, and it's difficult to have a deep philosophical discussion when the monkeys in the peanut gallery are allowed to hurl poo through the bars with impunity.

I imagine Hume would tear his hair out at the prospect of trying to "debate" most of the jackasses found in discussion fora like this.

That's why philosophers tend to keep to themselves and only associate with each other.

The fact is that this is but low amusement for me, much like Mozart like to consort with gamblers and prostitutes for a little steam-letting-off and fun.

My true intellectualism is reserved for a much different audience entirely. That's why I use a pseudonym.

But you're right, my intent in this thread in particular is to poke fun at the pomposity of Atheists who like to think that they have all the answers and that their reasoning is unassailable merely because they think it is.

Sloppy reasoning and faulty logic are things that I find disappointing and nettlesome, particularly when displayed by otherwise respectable and intelligent people who should know better, so I choose on occasion to challenge that unreason in hopes of stimulating more rational thought.

What's wrong with gamblers and prostitutes?

[Pappa]

But thanks for acknowledging that there is a non-zero probability that God exists.

There's a non-zero probability that Santa exists, that I have a dragon in my basement or that fairies take the teeth of children... there is even evidence for their existence in the form of empirical knowledge (like in the minds of children).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But thanks for acknowledging that there is a non-zero probability that God exists.

There's a non-zero probability that Santa exists, that I have a dragon in my basement or that fairies take the teeth of children... there is even evidence for their existence in the form of empirical knowledge (like in the minds of children).

"Santa has been picked up on radar more than Jesus."