Ask a Radical Atheist

[Limbo]

Doesn't sound very "grey" to me, Mr GreyICE. Sounds sort of black & white.

 

[GreyICE]

Doesn't sound very "grey" to me, Mr GreyICE. Sounds sort of black & white.

Yeah, call me odd like that, Mr Limbo. I don't think there's degrees of fiction.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Piggy,

You clearly don't want to entertain the idea that you could be wrong.

Agreed. He is too evasive and glib.

When unable to convince someone of one's ideas, use the defense of last result.... rationalize that they just don't want to see it your way.

Now this poses a logical dilemma. Who is really in denial and who is really not in denial but rather, correct in not being convinced by the other's arguments?

 

[Jimbo07]

Yeah, call me odd like that, Mr Limbo. I don't think there's degrees of fiction.

True Story
Based on a True Story
Inspired by a True Story
Sitting on a porch, next to a True Story
Fiction
Fox News

 

[GreyICE]

True Story
Based on a True Story
Inspired by a True Story
Sitting on a porch, next to a True Story
Fiction
Fox News

You're right, I probably need some sort of super-fiction category for Fox

 

[articulett]

Don't you think that if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts?

Most excellent response.

 

[articulett]

Why is losing radicalism something to be desired?

Indeed... should we soften Piggy's disbelief in astrology? How about his radical disbelief in the supernatural? Must he leave room in case "demons" are real? Why is it not logical to disbelieve in invisible forms of consciousness given the utter and complete lack of evidence that such a "thing" can even exist?

We don't run around playing definition games with those other things... we just don't believe in them. Period. The "god game" gets old.

 

[CFLarsen]

When unable to convince someone of one's ideas, use the defense of last result.... rationalize that they just don't want to see it your way.

Now this poses a logical dilemma. Who is really in denial and who is really not in denial but rather, correct in not being convinced by the other's arguments?

What, in Piggy's responses in this thread, tells you that he is prepared to admit he could be wrong?

 

[articulett]

Yes well that's no fun at all is it? You should try alkyne (triple) bonds. With those you're really at the mercy of the next carbon nucleus.

You give me a holler anytime you want this explained my dear. There is much I can show you . . .

Zowie... reading this I wonder if I'm been clinging to my radically to my radicalism. I had bought into the whole "only radicals can be truly free" thing in my own organic chemistry years... we must have skimmed the chapter on triple bondage.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What, in Piggy's responses in this thread, tells you that he is prepared to admit he could be wrong?

Why should there be evidence he was willing to admit to being wrong when there was no convincing evidence presented that he was wrong?

 

[articulett]

Oh? Is Lord of the Flies fictional? Is Piggy fictional? Are you "concerned" with him? Obviously you are, since he is your avatar.

You obviously identify with the character of Piggy to some degree. Or is it coincidence that Piggy is scientific and skeptical?

Not that I expect an honest, thoughtful, and straightforward answer from you. I expect a glib evasion.

Wow. I think Piggy is one of our most honest, straightforward, and thoughtful forum members.

Opinions sure can differ. I'm curious as to whether anyone share's Limbo's opinion(s)? To me he/she sounds like one of those people who feel "enlightened" and here to preach their "higher truths". New Age Woo.

 

[GreyICE]

Do you care to propose that such a thing can meaningfully be said to possibly exist?

If we're agreed on a working definition, I will offer hypotheticals, yes. If you won't agree on a working definition, I think this discussion is pretty much over - we can't play with hypotheticals when someone reserves the right to change the rules at will.

 

[articulett]

Why should there be evidence he was willing to admit to being wrong when there was no convincing evidence presented that he was wrong?

How willing is Claus to ever admit he was wrong? What evidence would it take to convince him he was wrong for not believing in Santa? (Self important people say such inane things.)

 

[CFLarsen]

Why should there be evidence he was willing to admit to being wrong when there was no convincing evidence presented that he was wrong?

It isn't a question of whether the evidence presented was convincing or not.

It's a question of whether Piggy is prepared to admit that he could be wrong or not.

So, answer the question, please:

What, in Piggy's responses in this thread, tells you that he is prepared to admit he could be wrong?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How willing is Claus to ever admit he was wrong? What evidence would it take to convince him he was wrong for not believing in Santa? (Self important people say such inane things.)

I figured pointing out the irony in Claus' post about Piggy wasn't needed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It isn't a question of whether the evidence presented was convincing or not.

It's a question of whether Piggy is prepared to admit that he could be wrong or not.

So, answer the question, please:

What, in Piggy's responses in this thread, tells you that he is prepared to admit he could be wrong?

You are as close to posting to a brick wall as they come.

Tell me how such a willingness is (in your opinion) supposed to be expressed? Because I find your proposal preposterous.

Person X: I am convinced that the evidence supports A.
Person Y: Here is evidence to the contrary.
Person X: I do not find your evidence convincing for the following reasons....
Person Y: You are unwilling to consider my evidence.

Tell me Claus, do you see the problem yet?

 

[CFLarsen]

You are as close to posting to a brick wall as they come.

Tell me how such a willingness is (in your opinion) supposed to be expressed? Because I find your proposal preposterous.

Person X: I am convinced that the evidence supports A.
Person Y: Here is evidence to the contrary.
Person X: I do not find your evidence convincing for the following reasons....
Person Y: You are unwilling to consider my evidence.

Tell me Claus, do you see the problem yet?

Again:

It isn't a question of whether the evidence presented was convincing or not.

It's a question of whether Piggy is prepared to admit that he could be wrong or not.

Do you understand this? Just yes or no.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are as close to posting to a brick wall as they come.

Tell me how such a willingness is (in your opinion) supposed to be expressed? Because I find your proposal preposterous.

Person X: I am convinced that the evidence supports A.
Person Y: Here is evidence to the contrary.
Person X: I do not find your evidence convincing for the following reasons....
Person Y: You are unwilling to consider my evidence.

Tell me Claus, do you see the problem yet?

You seemed to have missed that key question.

 

[CFLarsen]

You seemed to have missed that key question.

Do not presume to tell me what my argument is. Please.

I know what I was arguing: That Piggy isn't prepared to admit that he could be wrong.

Do you find anything in his responses in this thread that indicates that he is prepared to admit that he could be wrong?

Yes or no?

Do you understand that it isn't a question of whether the evidence presented was convincing or not, but a question of whether Piggy is prepared to admit that he could be wrong or not?

Yes or no?

 

[Piscivore]

Oh? Is Lord of the Flies fictional? Is Piggy fictional? Are you "concerned" with him? Obviously you are, since he is your avatar.

I don't suspect "our" Piggy would concern himself with the possibility Golding's Piggy was potentially real.

You are playing a bit loose with the word "concern" here.