quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: "I choose to believe in God" is asserting a personal preference.
No, it's a claim of fact. "I believe that a god exists" is a claim that a god exists. "I believe that life has value", on the other hand, is just asserting a preference for life over non-life.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or to make it clearer, let me rephrase : "I choose to believe in god" is a statement of personal preference about facts, which is not legitimate. "I prefer life to non-life" is a statement of personal preference about how you would like things arranged, which is.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both make non-provable claims. One about the existence of God, one about the value of life. I notice that you have changed my statement from "I believe that life has value" to "I prefer life to non-life". While they both have the same result, they are not completely equivalent. To alter the God statement the way you have altered the value of life statement, it would say "I prefer God to no God." This is also a preference of how you like to arrange things, albeit mentally. Whether the preference lies in an irrational belief in a value or an irrational belief in a greater being, they are both irrational.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are playing word games, here. When you say "I believe that life has value", you would not usually expect people to hear "Some value exists" in the same sense that they hear "Some god exists" when you assert your belief in a god. I agree that if you do the same kind of transformation to "I prefer God to No-god", then that's a preference, and perfectly acceptable - indeed, many atheists do have such a preference. But this is not what the sentence "I believe in god" means in common speech. Conversely, that is what you would understand someone talking about the value of life to mean. If he were claiming some kind of objective value that exists independent of his appreciation of it, then that's an irrational claim of fact, true. But that's not what the sentence usually means; and it's certainly not what you were referring to when you talked about getting out of bed in the morning.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is a word game. I could be wrong, and kmboots please correct me if I am, but I get the impression that she would agree with the statement "I prefer God to no God." JennaDean has also said something similar in the past. While I think that you are correct in saying the statement "I believe in God" usually means more than just a preference, I think that "I choose to believe in God" is asserting that fundamentally it is a preference.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could be wrong, and kmboots please correct me if I am, but I get the impression that she would agree with the statement "I prefer God to no God."
I'm almost certain that's true, but it's not relevant, because it is not the strongest statement she would accept as true. (Hell, for that matter, with the god kmb believes in, I would agree with that one.) I believe she would also agree with the statement "God exists".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but then we come back to my point again : A preference is not a sufficient reason to make claims about facts.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While re-reading how this tangent started, I see that you stated:
quote:There are two ways to convince someone of the truth of some factual claim : One is by offering evidence, the other is by appeal to the irrational. "I choose to believe" is exactly as irrational as "Bang, you're dead, so I was right all along."
I suppose you are correct. You can not convince somebody of an irrational preference.
I think the point where we disagree is that I see "I prefer God" to be something equally irrational to act on as "I prefer life." Both are arbitrary. You seem to see one statement as being far more irrational to act upon.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not say anything about acting on; that's your innovation. I was talking about what's rational to believe. But even with that caveat, I do not see how you would act on a preference for god, if you didn't also believe in the god. Would you try to create a god where none existed? (Well, actually, that's not very irrational; I just don't see how you'd start.) Would you try to be good and kind to people? A fine thing, to be sure, but completely orthogonal to the preference for a god. Or do you claim that only kmb's feelings about how she would like the Universe to be, prevent her from going around kicking puppies? Let's hope she doesn't change her mind, then.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that in the cases I'm talking about, belief is the result of acting upon the preference. "I choose to believe" says I believe because I prefer it. You think the belief is completely irrational. I'm saying that yes, it is irrational but so are almost all of the underlying preferences that we choose to act upon. When it comes down to just being a matter of irrational preferences, it is rational to choose one. The only other option is inaction. In the case of God, this is the choice that I make (agnosticism). However I would not want to make that choice in all areas of my life and I can understand why people feel uncomfortable making that choice in regards to God. It feels better to have a preference.
So in other words, kmb's belief in God is as rational as my belief that it's worth waking up in the morning.
quote:Would you try to create a god where none existed?
If you did not believe in God, this would certainly lack integrity. However if you were raised with a belief in God and were trying to decide whether to continue believing in God (when you had experiences that led you to believe as well as other possible explanations for the events),making the choice based on preference seems perfectly rational.
quote:Would you try to be good and kind to people? A fine thing, to be sure, but completely orthogonal to the preference for a god. Or do you claim that only kmb's feelings about how she would like the Universe to be, prevent her from going around kicking puppies? Let's hope she doesn't change her mind, then.
This has nothing to do with what I was saying so I'm assuming it was said because you were unsure of my meaning. Hopefully I've clarified.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I choose to believe" says I believe because I prefer it. You think the belief is completely irrational. I'm saying that yes, it is irrational but so are almost all of the underlying preferences that we choose to act upon.
To act to ensure that you will have food is rational, although the preference for food over no-food is not. But to believe that there will be food because you prefer that to another belief is just stupid. This situation does not change if you substitute 'god' for 'food'.
You are attempting to argue that belief is an act; this is just a word game. If you insist on this, then I shall insist that there are two different kinds of 'action', one which is rational when based on irrational premises, and one which isn't; and we'll be right back where we started, except for having muddied up the language.
quote:If you did not believe in God, this would certainly lack integrity.
I think you must have misunderstood; by 'create a god', I meant literally that, ie work towards the existence of an all-powerful, all-good being. I don't think that's lacking in integrity.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I apologize if my use of your name and inferred beliefs is in any way offensive. This tangent started from something KOM said in regards to you, and I've been continuing to use your name. To avoid any potential offense, I'll now try and use the name "Sue" to represent the holder of the beliefs that I've (possibly falsely) ascribed to you.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But to believe that there will be food because you prefer that to another belief is just stupid
I somewhat disagree with that. I prefer food over no-food. If I was on the verge of starvation and had no idea where I would acquire food, I would still believe that there will be food for me, because that belief is better than the alternative belief, that I would die from starvation. Perhaps that might more accurately be called hope, but often times in life the two expressions have a bearing on one another. So, is it stupid to hope in things? Sometimes perhaps, but sometimes it's necessary, and acting on a hope is not always irrational.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: To act to ensure that you will have food is rational, although the preference for food over no-food is not. But to believe that there will be food because you prefer that to another belief is just stupid. This situation does not change if you substitute 'god' for 'food'.
"To act to ensure that you will have belief in God is rational, although the preference for God over no God is not." I agree that this works. As for the statement "But to believe that there will be God because you prefer that is stupid", I think it's important to remember the modifiers I placed earlier. If you just conjure your belief from nothing, that is stupid. If you have experiences that you have interpreted as belief in God but recognize that there are other other rational explanations, choosing based on preference is not stupid but rational.
You seem to be implying that God's existence is something that people have control over. It's not. His existence and belief in Him may overlap in certain ways, but the two are not dependent on each other. He could exist and have no one believe. Or He could not exist and have believers. I don't think that God's existence is nearly as relevent to the rationality of the belief as is the person's reasons for believing. This is why religious people do not take the IPU seriously. There is absolutely no reason for anybody, anywhere to believe in it. To believe it would be truly irrational. For God, billions of people are raised to interpret the world in a way that helps them perceive the existence of God. To analyze the rationality of the belief, you must take this background into consideration. An argument on the rationality of the existence of God is different than an argument on the rationality of belief in God.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You want to eat food because it feels satisfying and you know that it is required for your survival.
You want to survive because you have a preference for continuing to life (for whatever reasons - you are successful, you have good friends, etc. etc.), you are afraid of death, and your brain is generally rigged to encourage survival.
A pregnant woman wants to eat strange things like cucumber on ice cream because of the imbalance of hormones and other chemicals in her body at the time.
A person with OCD might want to avoid stepping on the seams between concrete paving because of the unusual way in which his/her mind works.
There is a rational reason for every preference, though in many cases we can't pinpoint it (sometimes we hire psychologists to help). KoM is saying that a preference and the rational reasons for it have no bearing on whether the object of desire exists or not. I would love to have an omnipotent omnipresent all-forgiving entity watching over me. But there isn't one.
So if anyone wants to convince KoM or myself that we should believe there is such an entity (which, Amanecer, I know you are not trying to do here), they can't start off by talking about faith and belief.
quote:There is absolutely no reason for anybody, anywhere to believe in it. To believe it would be truly irrational. For God, billions of people are raised to interpret the world in a way that helps them perceive the existence of God.
The purpose of the IPU is to point out that if you substituted a cultural bias towards an IPU for a cultural bias towards God, that the two beliefs are functionally identical -- i.e. to observe that many things people believe to be true of a given God would be true of any hypothetical fiction elevated to that same position within society.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
RULE 1: Presume the existence of God. More specifically, presume the existence of your particular God. Don't say things like "I believe that God does this...", simply say, "God does this..." After all, everybody knows that God exists. Atheists are just wrong, and deep down inside they realize that. Yes, it's OK to pity them (just not yet--see RULE 5).
RULE 2: Never actually define what it is you mean by "God" or "Heaven," etc. If you define it, then it can be refuted. After all, you've already established that He exists (see RULE 1). Also, if challenged, you can always say, "That's not what I meant," or "I never said that He could do that..."
RULE 3: Once your opponent starts using observation and logic in his foolish attempt to refute what everybody already knows to be true, you can deny that both observation and logic are valid approaches to understanding. Typical responses are, "How can we ever really know anything," and "God does not operate under the rules of logic and rationality--He is beyond them." Never, under any circumstances, attempt to explain just what the hell any of that means, because it really doesn't mean anything (that's the beauty of it). More importantly, do not try and understand it yourself, as your head may actually explode. Your opponent may respond to your first statement by asking, "then how do you know if anything is true?" To which you simply respond, "I just know."
Some other good responses under RULE 3 include "But is there really any difference between the earth and the concept of the earth?" and "If I have no way of knowing if there are monsters under my bed (short of looking) but if I genuinely believe they are there, the fear of them is no different than if they really are there."
One of the other advantages of invoking RULE 3 is that you are no longer constrained to actually have to make sense in what you say or write. By discrediting logic and reason, you are no longer bound by them yourself. If you can keep this up, many times your opponent will just walk away, shaking his head, thereby handing you the "win."
RULE 4: As things start to go downhill, you may have to use the old reliable notion that "God exists because people believe that He exists." There are deep theological problems with this approach, especially if other religions have more believers in their God than yours (except you know, of course, that they're totally wrong, anyhow). But still, it keeps you away from RULE 5.
RULE 5: If all else fails, you may just have to reveal your opponent for what he really is. An idiot. A Godless, liberal, democrat, communist, baby-eating, tree-hugging idiot.
To which I guess I should add #6: You know that thing we were discussing that was so important. It's not really that important after all. Why are you so hung up on it? It's like you're obsessing, or something.
These are the rules for theists. I guess should also work on a series of rules for atheists (including, of course, the necessary references to condescension)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes, I just wonder where the heck theists come up with some of these ideas. In my head, it's something like this.
Atheist: So, if God created the universe, what created God? Theist: God just IS. A: How is that different from the Universe just IS. T: Um... because God is outside time. A: What does that mean? T: Nobody understands, so you can't disprove it. Ha! A: O.K. You got me there. T: Did you also know that it's impossible for you to experience God without already believing God exists, and that nothing you can do will ever make me say anything that makes logical sense? A: I get it. T: Let me tell you about how there are 3 Gods, but there's also only 1. A: I'm going to get dinner now.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:*sigh* For one thing, I'm almost certain Resh is a completely self-contained troll. For another thing, I'm absolutely certain that you've already made up your own mind on the topic and are familiar with most of the arguments I would make, and am completely certain that this conversation would devolve, as anything philosophical with you devolves, into semantics.
If you don't want to discuss something with someone, don't call their opinion on the issue demonstrably wrong.
quote:I strongly suspect, for example, that your definition of "religion" is going to come into play very quickly.
Yes, that is likely - because the concept of religion is at the crux of the issue. Is it not? Note that the discussion has already gotten into a disagreement on the meaning of morality - without any instigation from me, I might add.
I'm not sure why you'd prefer not to discuss these things. As of now, the discussion just amounts to two sides calling eachother condescending, and throwing out unsupported claims that the other is wrong. I don't find that very productive. I think it would be more productive to delve into the actual reasons supporting our opinions, and unfortunately that is almost always going to end up entailing some major semantic issues. Do you really prefer the back-and-forth ad hominems instead? Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Have we disagreed as to the "meaning" of morality, or do we disagree as to its source?
What is the meaning of morality if all it is is an edict handed down from God? Morality is because God says it is (or, more realistically, because a number of ancient, self-proclaimed priests of this supposed God said it was)? What's the value in that?
There are plenty of religions that claim a morality directly opposed to what the majority of us consider moral (marry many underage wives, for instance; or mutilate female genitalia...)
quote:"To act to ensure that you will have belief in God is rational, although the preference for God over no God is not." I agree that this works.
I don't think 'agree' is the word you want, since I never said any such thing, nor do I see where you get it from what I said, nor do I agree with it.
quote:If you just conjure your belief from nothing, that is stupid. If you have experiences that you have interpreted as belief in God but recognize that there are other other rational explanations, choosing based on preference is not stupid but rational.
It's not, actually; in such a case you should suspecnd judgement, or better still get someone else who doesn't have a preference in the matter judge for you. The reason being, are you really sure the explanations are eqaully good? But in any case, this is not the scenario we were discussing; rather we were talking about kmb's assertion of a choice to believe, without any other evidence offered.
quote:You seem to be implying that God's existence is something that people have control over. It's not.
I absolutely did not imply any such thing. People have control over whether they believe in a god or not.
quote:I don't think that God's existence is nearly as relevent to the rationality of the belief as is the person's reasons for believing.
I'm not sure I agree with this, but even if I did, "I want to believe" is a really bad reason.
quote:There is absolutely no reason for anybody, anywhere to believe in it. To believe it would be truly irrational. For God, billions of people are raised to interpret the world in a way that helps them perceive the existence of God.
"Daddy told me it's so" isn't a good reason either, but anyway kmb is much too smart to offer any such argument. I agree with your first two sentences.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Have we disagreed as to the "meaning" of morality, or do we disagree as to its source?
What is the meaning of morality if all it is is an edict handed down from God? Morality is because God says it is (or, more realistically, because a number of ancient, self-proclaimed priests of this supposed God said it was)? What's the value in that?
Well, I think there has been a disagreement over whether the meaning of morality is such that its source cannot be man.
However, I agree with you. I don't think it solves anything to say that God decided morality. After all, would the genocide be okay if God decided it should be okay? I don't believe this is the case.
Furthermore, I think basing morality on God marginalizes the far more important idea that "God is good." If good is arbitrarily determined by God, then "God is good" is circular, and virtually meaningless. I think it is clear, at least, to most Christians that God is good in more than simply an circular sense. Thus, I have to conclude that when some Christians say that morality is determined by God, they are mistaken.
My belief is that morality is objective, but also that it isn't decided by anyone. It simply is true, in the same way that math simply is true.
quote:"Daddy told me it's so" isn't a good reason either, but anyway kmb is much too smart to offer any such argument.
That can often be a good reason to believe things. It was for precisely that reason that I believed I shouldn't run across busy roads when I was four years old - which in turn probably kept me a whole lot safer than if my four-year-old self tried to reason out the best option every time I got the urge to run across that street by myself.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ye gods, Tres actually made a cogent post on a philosophical issue, without getting dragged into semantics. Wonders will never cease.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If morality is objective, then (if I understant "objectivity" correctly) it must have a source outside of that which it addresses. In otherwords, morality for humans must have a source outside of humans, much as an objective morality for praying mantids must have a morality outside of praying mantids.
Does morality then, somehow come into things at the same philosophical level as (let's say) gravity, or the coriolis effect?
How does one determine what this objective morality is? Clearly, the Bible is not a valid source, since we now realize that the Boble supports actions (slave-owning) that all of us here have agreed are immoral. Morality must come from some other source.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me rephrase: If you don't want to discuss something on this forum, don't go on this forum and declare one opinion on the issue demonstrably wrong. If you make bold, unsupported statements like that here, and claim that you can prove them, then you should expect people like me to ask you to give your proof.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't want to discuss something on this forum, don't go on this forum and declare one opinion on the issue demonstrably wrong.
*sigh* Tres, heck, if anyone else expressed an interest in this topic, I would discuss it with them. Specifically, I will not discuss it with you. The fact that I currently consider you incapable of having a constructive conversation about philosophy will not prevent me from having conversations on philosophy with other people while I wait for you to come around.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I want to see if I can go further than the typical 10 or so posts between Treso and myself before we get to the inevitable train wreck.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you don't want to discuss something with someone, don't call their opinion on the issue demonstrably wrong.
I have offered to discuss this with Resh. I have not offered to discuss this with you.
Somehow I get the feeling that if I expressed any desire to discuss the issue you with you any further, Tom, I would eventually end up at the bottom of your list of "people I show respect for," tied with Tresopax, guilty of the sin of not being convinced by the brilliance of your words.
Now THAT'S condescension.
In case you guys haven't noticed, I'm now a jeering spectator.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't want to discuss something on this forum, don't go on this forum and declare one opinion on the issue demonstrably wrong.
*sigh* Tres, heck, if anyone else expressed an interest in this topic, I would discuss it with them. Specifically, I will not discuss it with you. The fact that I currently consider you incapable of having a constructive conversation about philosophy will not prevent me from having conversations on philosophy with other people while I wait for you to come around.
I think the thing preventing you from having a conversation with someone about philosophy is the pesky way that people seem to keep disagreeing with you. What's up with that?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, let me reiterate that I'm perfectly willing to discuss this with you, pending your expression of interest. But this is not an offer that will be good forever; I have so far held out hope that you are more than just a random troll, but that hope is dwindling rather fast.
Permit me to observe that I have never had a problem with disagreement; if I did, I can't imagine how I would have survived even my first year at Hatrack. And years ago, I was a more patient person; even in the face of repeated, stubborn insistence and/or dishonest debate, I tended to persist beyond the point of tiresomeness. But I wear out faster nowadays, I'm afraid, and have less time to post, and in some cases -- as with Tres -- remember vividly the ruts dug by previous conversations on similar topics. So I choose to spend my time in more productive pursuits.
If you want to spend YOUR time convincing me that discussion with you is unproductive, that's your own affair. But I think it's a shame, since I'm one of the few people here willing to discuss anything with you at all.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, Resh...people here really don't "diss" TomDavidson or Chris Bridges. There are good reasons for that. They're two of the most accurate mirrors you can look into on this site.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I was the one who squandered the chance. You did it many posts ago. To you, I am just a random Troll. To Libbie: I guess all your sarcasm was lost in your reasoned arguments, and that's why I still think you're a swell guy. You too, Amanecer. Assuming you guys are guys, of course.
Not tonight, by the way. I'm a little too inebriated to carry on a meaningful convo. I'm just gonna look for opportunities to take jabs at the supergeniuses and their unassailable logic tonight. At least til it get's me banned. I hope that doesn't happen cuz it's all in good fun, right?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Um, Resh...people here really don't "diss" TomDavidson or Chris Bridges. There are good reasons for that. They're two of the most accurate mirrors you can look into on this site.
Mirrors? I hope not. Maybe Chris Bridges, but Tom has just been an arrogant jerk.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I'm gonna go away now. I'll probably delete my last few posts tomorrow morning. Good night!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, it's unfortunate that your single minded focus on finding some insult or condescension in people's posts is blinding you to some pretty good points that are being made.
As an aside, I'm not sure how you can have been a member here for almost a full year and not realize that many of the people that you insist are incapable of honest discussion have in fact been a major part of many of the very productive discussions that have taken place here. Refusing to recognize this only manages to make you seem dishonest in attempting to have an honest discussion.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: Resh, it's unfortunate that your single minded focus on finding some insult or condescension in people's posts is blinding you to some pretty good points that are being made.
As an aside, I'm not sure how you can have been a member here for almost a full year and not realize that many of the people that you insist are incapable of honest discussion have in fact been a major part of many of the very productive discussions that have taken place here. Refusing to recognize this only manages to make you seem dishonest in attempting to have an honest discussion.
Eh. I've just been an occasional until the last few days. Not the most pleasant of experiences, and I think my frustration with a few of these guys is coming out, since I've been trying really hard to keep it in. I'm sure an objective observer can see that I was really trying to be intellectually honest and was not trying to allow personality to affect my arguments. But I don't think there are very many objective observers here, and so who am I trying to impress? You guys have fun with each other, I think I learned a lot, and I hope I never talk to any of you again.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say, as trolls go, comrade Resh is a remarkably ineffective one. He is highly dis-invited to be joining the guild. What kind of troll is it that can only get a few tired "Eh, go away"-type posts, in his first week of existence? It's one thing to get that response after a year or two, when people are used to you. But the first few weeks of a troll's existence should be a glorious blazing comet of responses and flames. Maybe in a few years he'll grow up and be a big, serious-type troll worthy to carry a club; but right now, meh, a goblin at the absolute most.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You did it many posts ago. To you, I am just a random Troll.
Well, no. To me, you're potentially a random troll.
Let's put it this way:
You have walked into a random bar in South Boston. After buying your first beer. you walk up to a group of people in the corner and yell "Sox fans suck!"
As a group, they all raise an eyebrow or two. A few of the guys ask you what you mean by that. One of them takes you aside and explains that maybe you ought to consider your audience. Another asks you for proof.
You revise your statement: "Sox fans suck! Except the ugly ones!"
You pretend not to understand why some of the people in the group find this unreasonable or insulting. When two of them offer to discuss this opinion with you, you say "Sure. Unless you're Sox fans, because then you suck. All the Sox fans I know think I'm a jerk."
The guys in the group now have to decide whether you're deliberately winding them up or are already so drunk that you don't realize what a mistake you're making. Most of them are now ignoring you. Another guy at the bar, overhearing one of the group say "Look, the Sox are one of the best teams in baseball," says "Oh, yeah? Prove it." And when the guy in the group replies, "Can it, Ralphie. I'm not getting into it with you again," you say something like "What's the matter? Can't back up your opinion?"
So here's the deal: you don't know your way around. You don't know the underpinnings of the arguments you're making, or understand why they are or are not compelling. You've said up front that you aren't willing to consider alternative viewpoints. And you haven't bothered to get the lay of the land or the history of the bar before putting your two cents in about the regulars.
What I'm telling you, as somebody who has been here a long time and does know how this place works, is that people will give you a fair shake if you take the cotton wads out of your ears and participate in honest discussion. You may not realize it, but what you've been doing so far is not honest discussion. I am willing to explain why if you're willing to listen. But you make it less and less likely that I'll bother making the effort by continuing to attempt to insult me based on your own ill-formed misunderstandings of the local social dynamics.
I know quite a lot about philosophy. So, to be frank, does Tres. Heck, if he weren't in one of his "I oppose everything because I'm contrary" moods, he'd probably be glad to explain to you where you've gone wrong -- and even where you started off wrong. I feel relatively safe in saying that you do not know much about philosophy.
I am willing to share what I know about philosophy and human nature with you. I don't require that you agree with me, but I require that you suspend your automatic hostility to the "atheist point of view" long enough for you to consider some additional perspectives.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, sorry. I didn't realize this was a social club where one shows deference to the other more established members. I've been an observer for quite a while, and I decided to test the waters. I mean, lok at my older posts, if you feel like it. I was talking about Aeon Flux and boom mikes. I guess my mistake was jumping in rather than wading. Maybe I'm not a Made Man yet because Card hasn't addressed me personally yet. I don't know, but I'm soured. I may come back some time from now and re-read all of this. I've done it several times and I don't know what it is that I did wrong aside from disagreeing with the "cool guys." Maybe I'll see something new later. But I will say that some of you are the most obnoxious and presumptious people I've ever encountered online, and that's saying something. I love Mr. Cards writings and I have to wonder what it is about them that attracts people like you.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I know quite a lot about philosophy... I feel relatively safe in saying that you do not know much about philosophy."
"I require that you suspend your automatic hostility to the "atheist point of view" long enough for you to consider some additional perspectives."
King of Men's entire last post.
Seriously, look at yourselves. Where do you get off? Who do you think you are? God's gift to the internet? No, wait... Darwin's gift to the internet?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
