Decent science vs. religion essay

[Jeff Corey]

Re: Re: Decent science vs. religion essay

Kindly desist in linking to facile cretinous web pages.

Speaking of cretinous web pages, how's yours coming along?

 

[Interesting Ian]

One day you'll understand that since philosophy can't help us determine fact from fiction it's worthless towards generating facts.

Until then, don't expect us to be impressed with your constant drumbeat. No on here thinks you're an intellectual.

No one.

Oh yes? I trust you able to give abundant evidence for this assertion?

 

[TLN]

Oh yes? I trust you able to give abundant evidence for this assertion?

Wanna see my Ian imitation? Here goes:

You can't refute my position, therefore I'm correct! I win, I win, I win!!!

 

[Interesting Ian]

Okay. I'm going to give this one try.

Ian, you said


That's a whole lot of unsupported accusations there, Ian. Since I don't happen to agree, it seems like it's not a self-evident truth. Why do you say that author is utterly clueless and the essay is unaldulterated stupidity?

What would you call the essay if it simply said the same things you just did?

"Skeptics, what believers think is breathtaking unaldulterated stupidity. They are utterly clueless, and if we don't stop them, the vast majority of children will grow up to be just like that, and trust me, that is seriously bad."


Lets leave the issue of the vast majority of skeptics here being utterly clueless out of this for now (I don't happen to agree with that either, by the way.)

What do you want me to do? To give a step by step analysis of his stupidities?

 

[TLN]

What do you want me to do? To give a step by step analysis of his stupidities?

They're only "stupidities" because they disagree with you. No other reason.

Besides, what criteria would you use, your worthless philosophy?

 

[showme2]

TLN says:-

"Wanna see my Ian imitation? Here goes:
You can't refute my position, therefore I'm correct! I win, I win, I win!!! "

If you cannot refute his position, you have no basis on which to assert that it is invalid.

So he does indeed "win", if you want to reduce the discussion to winning and losing.

 

[TLN]

If you cannot refute his position, you have no basis on which to assert that it is invalid.

Wrong.

It's not my job to prove Ian's pet theories wrong; it's his job to prove them right. Which he admits he can't do, then lords his imaginary victories over us.

Try to keep up; this has all been covered before.

 

[Interesting Ian]

[quoting from essay]
But people do change their views. Not all of them all the time, not easily, not necessarily even when they are confronted with evidence or good arguments. But they do change them sometimes, and it's impossible to know in advance what those times are. People read books, they discuss, they think, and sometimes they do change their views. Sometimes from atheism to theism, alas,

Ummm . . .very dispassionate

Essay
but also sometimes the other way. And as for 'just believing' something, what of that? We can all believe all sorts of things that are not true. We can believe the sun travels around the earth, or that crystals have healing powers, or that it's a good idea to take antibiotics when we have a cold, or that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was an authentic document. What is wrong with someone better-informed disabusing us of our mistaken beliefs?

Obviously nothing whatsoever. A retard such as yourself is scarcely likely to succeed though. What you can do of course is "brainwash" people into unthinking acceptance of what you say. Congratulations!

Darat
But that is beside the point about the lack of requirement for an essay. It was this statement that started this thread of debate:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally by showme2

"Decent" ?
You gotta be kidding !
Not even decently balanced.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It seemed from this statement that showme2 considers a lack of “balance” in the article to mean it is not a “decent” (presumably being used as synonym for “good”) essay.

The essay has no worth whatsoever. The author hasn't got a clue, and neither does anyone who thinks it's reasonable.

 

[TLN]

The essay has no worth whatsoever. The author hasn't got a clue, and neither does anyone who thinks it's reasonable.

More brilliant philosophy! It's wrong because... because... because I say so!!

How nice this silly system of yours is.

 

[AOK Tiger]

TLN,

II Logic… It is marvellous to be always right.. how do I know I am.. ‘cause I say so and I am always right !

 

[showme2]

TLN (quote):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by showme2
If you cannot refute his position, you have no basis on which to assert that it is invalid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
It's not my job to prove Ian's pet theories wrong; it's his job to prove them right. Which he admits he can't do, then lords his imaginary victories over us.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Yes, it certainly IS your job to prove his theories wrong .... if you want to convince others that you know what you are talking about, and to accept your view of things.

Notwithstanding all of this crud about the burden of proof and who it is on, the burden is not actually defined by YOU but by those you seek to convince of the veracity of your arguments.

 

[TLN]

Yes, it certainly IS your job to prove his theories wrong .... if you want to convince others that you know what you are talking about, and to accept your view of things.

Notwithstanding all of this crud about the burden of proof and who it is on, the burden is not actually defined by YOU but by those you seek to convince of the veracity of your arguments.

The burden of proof in on the person making the claim. I make no claim. Ian claims consciousness survives death. He should prove it or quit wasting our time.

Please tell me you're not suggesting that it's my job to prove Ian's theory (not mine mind you) wrong.

Let me show you how wrong you are: Prove to me there's no Santa Claus.

 

[An Infinite Ocean]

Ummm . . .very dispassionate

Since the article was an opinion piece, and not a university level thesis, the author had every right to be emotive.

The essay has no worth whatsoever. The author hasn't got a clue, and neither does anyone who thinks it's reasonable.

Personal attacks do not a rebuttal make.

 

[Folly]

Ian, you said

What do you want me to do? To give a step by step analysis of his stupidities?

Come on, Ian. You can answer that yourself...

Yes, I'd like an answer to those questions, and no I don't really want a line by line analysis, unless you really want to spend the time answering that way. For the first question, which was

Why do you say that author is utterly clueless and the essay is unaldulterated [ed. my bad] stupidity?

just write an overview of why it's so bad. Something like "he claims [X] and [Y], and says therefore [Z.] That's unadulterated stupidity! [X] and [Y], therefore [W]." Or "He claims [P]. That's utterly clueless! Because of [Q] you can see it's definitely [R]" You've made some extraordinarily strong claims, so it should be reasonably easy to come up with something like this. Note that just saying something like "The piece sucks because he claims all this stuff." is useless: you should know by now that the very next question is going to be "what claims?" Don't waste your time leaving a question like that dangling.


As for the second question,

What would you call the essay if it simply said the same things you just did?

eg something like "Skeptics, what believers think is breathtaking unaldulterated stupidity. They are utterly clueless, and if we don't stop them, the vast majority of children will grow up to be just like that, and trust me, that is seriously bad."

What would you say?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Billy..thanks for sharing the article. It was indeed a "decent" article as you described. It was worth reading, and to me that's the definition of "decent."

Ian.. I don't understand why you're so beligerent. I'm new here..I must be missing something.

Couldn't you have simply said, "Billy, I didn't think that article was decent at all" and explained why? If you had done so, we could be discussing the article (point of thread) rather than discussing YOU.

Or maybe that is your point.