Dawkins vs. Haggard

delphi_ote said:
... Are we supposed to believe you replied about his post mentioning a "category error" to introduce a new topic?
Click to expand...
We have a winner.

Unless making a joke, many of my posts attempt to expand topics into the gestalt of reality (whatever the heck Reality might actually be).


RandFan: I know you know that science deals with the epistemological questions, not the ontological question.
 
hammegk said:
We have a winner.

Unless making a joke, many of my posts attempt to expand topics into the gestalt of reality (whatever the heck Reality might actually be).


RandFan: I know you know that science deals with the epistemological questions, not the ontological question.
Click to expand...

Category error. Reality and posts in this thread. Have I figured out the game?
 
hammegk said:
Unless making a joke, many of my posts attempt to expand topics into the gestalt of reality (whatever the heck Reality might actually be).
Click to expand...
Before you "expand topics into its gestalt," try spending some time living in it first. It's transparent that you wanted to criticise RandFan's post by implying he'd made a "category error" in identifying intolerance of atheists with that of other groups. Since you don't actually know what a "category error" is and you don't want to admit that it's irrelevant, you've responded to RandFan's questions using bigger words whose meaning you grasp even more poorly. Now you're trying to duck and dodge away from the conversation by implying you weren't talking about the very subject of the conversation.

When you're in a hole, stop digging. :dig:
 
Just out of curiosity, hammegk, why the unrelieved hostility? There's the one post with a point on-topic, then instant, explanation-free attack. When people question your arguments, you seem to default to attempting to flood them with all sorts of impressive vocabulary, rather than simply explaining your arguments. Most of the definitions of "epistemological" and "ontological" and suchlike are coming from other posters. Since you're apparently fairly knowledgeable, why not just explain it without the sarcasm and personal attacks?

(Self righteousness, while possibly unavoidable in a post of this nature, was not my intent. Just suggestions.)
 
I mentioned the gestalt consideration, and I have a tendency to allow many of my posts to carry in personal enmities raised elsewhere/elsewhen. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

On a deeper level, I have no interest in discussing things with people who do not understand the basics of concepts like epistemology and ontology. Google works for the interested but uninformed.


RandFan: We can agree wrt discrimination the distinction I raised is not relevant. The topic of this thread wasn't discrimination imnsho, even if you care to add evangelicals to your discriminated-against list.
 
hammegk said:
On a deeper level, I have no interest in discussing things with people who do not understand the basics of concepts like epistemology and ontology. Google works for the interested but uninformed.
Click to expand...
This is just ad hominem. I've posted the relevant definitions. It's possible for a person to not see the forest for the trees. I'm not perfect and I'm more than willing to learn and correct any errors. However I know the difference between epistemology and ontology having taken philosophy in college. I have re-looked up category error and the definitions and I don't see how they apply. I have asked you direct questions which you refuse to answer. I can only make assumptions why you choose to be obtuse. It's not my fault you won't make the effort to correct me if I am indeed wrong.

RandFan: We can agree wrt discrimination the distinction I raised is not relevant. The topic of this thread wasn't discrimination imnsho, even if you care to add evangelicals to your discriminated-against list.
Click to expand...
You miss the point. You suggested that Dawkins was likely to cause a backlash resulting in people moving toward religion. I agreed however I noted that group consciousness needs to be shook up from time to time. Spurious notions about people often times can only be changed by actively facing up to those spurious notions even if in the short term they are counter productive.

I believe very strongly that we must first confront the bigotry and ignorance head on even if it does mean short term losses. Those who fought for civil rights during that era also knew they would face short term losses but that they would succeed in the long term.

This is the crux of what I'm saying. We will lose short term battles but we will win the long term war because we are a democracy and people will see that atheists are not the demons that the religious paints us out to be. Truth is a powerful weapon but we have to get it out for it to be effective. Again, I point to the civil rights era. It's a great template for what can and likely will happen.
 
RandFan said:
This is just ad hominem.
Click to expand...
Yup, although by my specific remarks to you, I was attemping to not have them taken personally by you, a poster I respect.

I've posted the relevant definitions. It's possible for a person to not see the forest for the trees. I'm not perfect and I'm more than willing to learn and correct any errors. However I know the difference between epistemology and ontology having taken philosophy in college. I have re-looked up category error and the definitions and I don't see how they apply. I have asked you direct questions which you refuse to answer. I can only make assumptions why you choose to be obtuse. It's not my fault you won't make the effort to correct me if I am indeed wrong.
Click to expand...
Right? Wrong? Who will ever know? :)

My continuing thrust in my posting carries all the baggage of the Stimpy-UCE-BillHoyt wars, Franko, etc in discussions both epistemological (i.e. "science") and ontological (philosophical). If you are not near my wavelength as I sit today, I really have no idea how to explain myself to you.

For this specific thread, I again note you are discussing discrimination as it applies to a single category -- those RandFan identifies as being discriminated against -- and I'm not.

You miss the point. You suggested that Dawkins was likely to cause a backlash resulting in people moving toward religion. I agreed however I noted that group consciousness needs to be shook up from time to time. Spurious notions about people often times can only be changed by actively facing up to those spurious notions even if in the short term they are counter productive.
Click to expand...
I didn't miss it, but I am not attempting to discuss it.

I believe very strongly that we must first confront the bigotry and ignorance head on even if it does mean short term losses. Those who fought for civil rights during that era also knew they would face short term losses but that they would succeed in the long term.
Click to expand...
I understand your point and concern, but will only mention I'm not willing to discuss it, here and now.

This is the crux of what I'm saying. We will lose short term battles but we will win the long term war because we are a democracy and people will see that atheists are not the demons that the religious paints us out to be. Truth is a powerful weapon but we have to get it out for it to be effective. Again, I point to the civil rights era. It's a great template for what can and likely will happen.
Click to expand...
And all that comment brings to my mind is the crisis the West actually faces vis-a-vis radical Islam, and I suggest atheists and atheistic societies will be higher on their hit/hate list than are other religious societies.


However, the fringe which imo includes Dawkins as prime-mover who wish to Europeanify US society is tangentially a topic of this thread.


Finally, please accept my apologies for any offense I've given you. :)
 
hammegk said:
Yup, although by my specific remarks to you, I was attemping to not have them taken personally by you, a poster I respect.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I appreciate that.

Right? Wrong? Who will ever know? :)
Click to expand...

My continuing thrust in my posting carries all the baggage of the Stimpy-UCE-BillHoyt wars, Franko, etc in discussions both epistemological (i.e. "science") and ontological (philosophical). If you are not near my wavelength as I sit today, I really have no idea how to explain myself to you.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you can't explain it. However your post brings back fond memories. Like I said, sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees. The question is, who is who?

And all that comment brings to my mind is the crisis the West actually faces vis-a-vis radical Islam, and I suggest atheists and atheistic societies will be higher on their hit/hate list than are other religious societies.
Click to expand...
Perhaps but that is hardly a reason not to act.

Finally, please accept my apologies for any offense I've given you. :)
Click to expand...
I assure you none was ever taken.

RandFan
 
hammegk said:
I mentioned the gestalt consideration, and I have a tendency to allow many of my posts to carry in personal enmities raised elsewhere/elsewhen. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Click to expand...

Eh, fair 'nuf :D. Google it is.
 
RandFan said:
I'm sorry you can't explain it. However your post brings back fond memories.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Hammegk, you left out Win and his tireless efforts to convince us dumb materialists (yourself excluded of course, as I know you aren't a materialist) that the hard problem of consciousness was a problem.

The forum has never been as fascinating to me as it was in those heady days. Those discussions were great. I'm embarrassed to see much of the relative fluff I post now in comparison to what some of us discussed four or five years ago.

AS
 
Yeah, this board has reached the same point in history the movie was at when the old man said "It ain't like it used to be .... but it'll do! :D :D :D "

And I never could get Win to take a shot at convincing me 'his' dualism made sense ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom