Atheists - prove it.

Post Reply New Topic

I tend to think everyone here knows "there is more than one path", so to speak, and the first point of contention comes into the mix when the questions begin ... such as ...

Do all paths ultimately lead to the same place?

Yes, but some people are not going to like that once they have arrived.

So then ...

... and here we are now!

It depends on the variation. Some variations are acceptable, in that they are in some ways different paths going the same direction. They challenge and improve each other. In this, I think of myself and those philosophically intelligent folks who incline more in the direction of logical positivism, as there is a strong disagreement in approach, but we're philosophical rivals in some sense.

However, to just allow any path go means that we've called an end to intellectual challenge, to testing ideas, to working them out, to all of these issues outright. Now, it is true that some variation ought to be accepted, but a lot of the variation that currently exists mostly ought to be curtailed as it will not lead any good direction.


I do listen. I am not really advocating an exact path. The big issue is that I am saying "Some paths just ought not be taken" and I will continue to stand on that, as the only other direction is some outright epistemological anarchism, and without standards, we have the *DEATH* of knowledge. Knowledge only grows if we have a processing system.

In any case, I see no real reason to think that you are further along in some road than I am. If you were... I'd probably find discussing issues with you a bit more profitable, and you'd probably be able to provide more of a guiding perspective. I've been down the "skeptical towards everything road" though, that you seem to promote philologos. It's a dead-end, and I know it is. Maybe if you grow, you'll come to recognize that, and start recognizing the value of the structures.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 09 May 2011, 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Your claim concludes this actually: "God did it"

so, it comes down to this regardless:


The issue is that a conclusion "God did it" pressuposes the existence of God, but if such a being doesn't exist, then he cann't be the one who cured you, as it's logically impossible, so, it begs the question. As well as the problem of which god did that, so what entity cured you? perhaps it was Brahman.


You are appearing to justify God with this. In any case, you are presenting what it looks to be the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

And this isn't the only post that you look to make the claim that God cured you of your alcoholism, "because no one else could", the discussion you are having with AG is based on that, are you going to deny your belief that God cured you of your alcoholism?


"God did it" along with his existence is what is being discussed , no? if so, that is irrelevant.

Last edited by blunnet on 09 May 2011, 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Trends? Trends are sociological and usually derived from statistical evidence.... I think you must have massively failed to understand how my use of "trends" was talking about social scientific data, which is data of a form that you cannot directly experience.


The difference won't be relevant. It still won't be a statistic or anything like an unbiased sample. It won't be analyzed with a psychological depth. It won't be useful.


Not really. All you can do is quote the AA book, and talk about your experience. That's not a sign of expertise, that's a sign of dogmatism. If you were an expert, you'd be able to understand the criticisms, and meaningfully talk about the psychological mechanisms in a manner that answered the problems people continually present you with. You aren't able to do this, and act like a broken-record.


Given how often you post this, no, you aren't doing this to correct bad information. You're looking for an excuse to post this. Even further, helping people like yourself belongs to the Haven, not to PPR. PPR is very much about analysis, as that's the one big common thread that one could get from the topics.


1) Preaching during a debate is a nuisance. If you want to spread a message, spread it where the people who need it would look. Don't spam everywhere.
2) This isn't bullying, you're being an annoyance. If you weren't being an annoyance, you'd just be another arguer.


Right.... yeah, because nobody has read anything you've written. I have no interest in continuing this waste of breath.

I agree with the whiny and overly pedantic socialist.

If I am a socialist, than it is of the Fabian variety.

Well, the question, denial, etc, is really about valid paths, not whether a person can go a certain direction. I mostly see philologos as basically a nihilist, and I see his form of nihilism as pretty much just a form of intellectual immaturity, y'know, kind of like pure relativism. Sure, pure relativism is popular amongst the emerging smart people, and the wannabes, but... most people realize that the conclusions it arrives at, kind of fall to pieces where it fails as a system. The same I think would hold for philologos, but I think he's either a cherrypicker, or as I stated, a nihlist, and either one is just utter crap that needs to be discarded. (Note: He might disagree, but I've continually tried to push on matters of framework and system, and I get nothing back.)

Please note that he doesn't contest being whiny or overly pedantic.

I understand, and I believe you also understand I simply lay all of that out there for other people to then inspect, consider, decide about or whatever all on tier own ... and that is really not much different than if either of us were to ask the other where to take a broken appliance for repair. I might not have ever heard of a particular shop you might have to suggest, but your mention of it does not indicate your having attempted to prove anything to me ...

... but then some people just get all upset when I might happen to mention a specific shop of my own choosing!


Agreed ... and I would there only add a bit of emphasis upon the "if".


I personally doubt that, yet anyone at all who might so desire is certainly encouraged to go take a walk around the block to at least see whether that particular repair shop even actually exists and/or whether it has any kind of impressive track record.


Understood.

HOW DARE YOU, SIR!! !!

Perhaps you, sir, are justified. "Pedant" is in my username and "Pessimist" is in my custome rank. I am a member of a Party that is a member of the Socialist International (though the Socialist International really isn't socialist in any meaningful sense of the term).

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 09 May 2011, 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, it certainly would be a waste of time and/or of breath to try to prove your false accusation against me.

I do not lie.

Oh, come now, sir. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the truth.

In any case, just tell me when the duel begins.

Agreed.

Right, because nobody at all has noticed exactly what you stated in your post.

Master Pedant:

gee whiz golly, if AG had not quoted it I would not have caught that one. You do something else for half an hour, and it passes by.

Obscurantist?

Wow.

It is apparently wrong that I do not see reason to debate.

Of course you suggest that discussion is okay, and I keep putting out probes hooping to get a discussion going. The other day one actually pulled in some discussion, I was ecstatic. But apparently not good enough for you. Nor that I have frequently contributed to anything that looks like it could be discussion.

And it seems it is also bad that I not infrequently point to poor logic, wrong language use, misunderstanding. Not quite clear why.

I am not sure that failing to repeat and expand on data and analyses that have been rejected out of hand as invalid constitutes obscurantism by any normal definition.

Perhaps you will share that insight with us.

I have outlined a sampler of my conclusions in various areas from Linguistics through Canadian politics and homeopathy to theism, and provided some of the data on which those have based.

I guess it is obscurantist not to push data down the throat of the pewrson shouting "you have no evidence".

I have poked no one in the snoot. If I suggest to AG that his debating is off the rails, it is not meant to provoke.

If I suggest to you that this last post reminds me of that night when KF ingested too much of what he was growing on his windowsill, that is not meant to provoke - just a datum.

Yawn PPR has gotten really boring lately. Too much religion and not enough politics or philosophy.