I seriously need your help----Fear Of Dying.

Cory_The_Ration...
Posts: 49
Joined: 2009-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I seriously need your help----Fear Of Dying.

It's 4:40 in the morning over here and I need some sleep, so I'll type this shit up real quick.

My fear of dying or any of my family members(parents especially) dying,  has been getting real real serious lately. To the point of crying sometimes(which I consider real pathetic btw). I've had severe depression/anxiety since I can remember and I probably have thantophobia even since I was a believer.

My eyes are closing on me, so I will type more tomorrow.

 

I'm just wondering how you guys deal with the thoughts of dying or your family members dying and never getting to see them again.

 


Cory_The_Ration...
Posts: 49
Joined: 2009-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin

Ciarin wrote:

Cory_The_Rational_Dude wrote:

I don't want input from theists, sorry.

 

Tough. That's what you get when you post in a forum called Atheist Vs Theist.

I didn't know where to post it lol. I was directing it at the other theist though, not you.

I could never talk like that to a chick with pretty eyes...


Cory_The_Ration...
Posts: 49
Joined: 2009-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

Cory_The_Rational_Dude wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Faith is letting go of fear.

I don't want input from theists, sorry.

Sorry, but you were the one who decided to post on the "Atheist vs. Theist" forum. Therefore, I will be giving my input as I see fit.

And I will be ignoring it weirdo


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cory_The_Rational_Dude

Cory_The_Rational_Dude wrote:

And I will be ignoring it weirdo

Hahaha, this is a funny thread.

Fear of death is natural, it encourages us survive and produce the next generation. Of course, we're sentient, so we have the capability to move beyond what our instincts tell us.

All I can say is: eat some, sleep some, work some, play some, be curious, be nice to others, take responsibility for your actions, be happy, enjoy every moment.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Cory_The_Rational_Dude

Cory_The_Rational_Dude wrote:

It's 4:40 in the morning over here and I need some sleep, so I'll type this shit up real quick.

My fear of dying or any of my family members(parents especially) dying,  has been getting real real serious lately. To the point of crying sometimes(which I consider real pathetic btw). I've had severe depression/anxiety since I can remember and I probably have thantophobia even since I was a believer.

My eyes are closing on me, so I will type more tomorrow.

I'm just wondering how you guys deal with the thoughts of dying or your family members dying and never getting to see them again.


You mentioned you "have had" severe depression/anxiety...are you seeing a professional or taking medicine for it? I would suggest speaking to a doctor.

Now as for how I personally deal with the thought of death. It has been years since I have spent sleepless nights obsessing about family, friends and even myself dying.

All I can recall is telling myself that everyone dies, nobody comes back and worrying wont change that. Soon after telling myself this I stopped obsessing over it.

My adult life approaches death the same way and with this outlook I have created this -drive- to get as much out of life as I deem satisfying. Each interaction with those around me I make the most out of as deep down I know they could be gone in an instant...as could I.
 

Hope this helps in some way.

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:
Quote:

Evidently, your interpretation of life is not winning in the marketplace. So, actually, you're the one with the evidence problem.

That's ridiculous (more precisely, it is ad populum). Since when did we judge the evidential merits of a statement on the basis of the number of people who accepted it?

It happens everyday in a court of law. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Cory_The_Rational_Dude

Cory_The_Rational_Dude wrote:
You can be "skeptical" and "rational" and have faith, hope, and love in your life.

 

Based on your OP, it doesn't appear that your so-called skeptical rationalism is leading you to a life of peace.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:deludedgod

Paisley wrote:

deludedgod wrote:
Quote:

Evidently, your interpretation of life is not winning in the marketplace. So, actually, you're the one with the evidence problem.

That's ridiculous (more precisely, it is ad populum). Since when did we judge the evidential merits of a statement on the basis of the number of people who accepted it?

It happens everyday in a court of law. 

 

LOL no it doesn't. If the court doesn't have a jury, the decision is with the judge. If the court has a jury, it's not decided by majority. The decision has to be unanimous, or else it's a hung jury(in which case the case is retried). I wouldn't consider 12 people to be "the popular stance" since everyone else that is paying attention to the trial outumbers them. Plus the jury isn't there to decide the evidential merits of a statement, the judge decides this. The jury simply decide if the prosecutor made their case, or if there's reasonable doubt.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

Cory_The_Rational_Dude wrote:
You can be "skeptical" and "rational" and have faith, hope, and love in your life.

 

Based on your OP, it doesn't appear that your so-called skeptical rationalism is leading you to a life of peace.

 

Based on the suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks in the middle east, it doesn't appear that faith is leading them to a life of peace either.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Paisley

Ciarin wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Based on your OP, it doesn't appear that your so-called skeptical rationalism is leading you to a life of peace.

 

Based on the suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks in the middle east, it doesn't appear that faith is leading them to a life of peace either.

I don't consider all philosophical and religious beliefs to be equally valid. I trust that you do not either. However, that everyone has beliefs and exercises some element of faith in life is really indisputable.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Ciarin

Paisley wrote:

Ciarin wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Based on your OP, it doesn't appear that your so-called skeptical rationalism is leading you to a life of peace.

 

Based on the suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks in the middle east, it doesn't appear that faith is leading them to a life of peace either.

I don't consider all philosophical and religious beliefs to be equally valid. I trust that you do not either. However, that everyone has beliefs and exercises some element of faith in life is really indisputable.

 

I'm religiously plural.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Paisley, you are not

Paisley, you are not qualified to judge how much or how little contentment specific individuals derive from their philosophy, just as I couldn't even begin to judge you in relation to how much you derive from your faith, however delusional it might be. So stop acting like the typical christian bigot and try emulating the flower-power bit of your chosen creed. It would do you a world of good, I think, and it would definitely improve the odour of future interventions by you here.

 

As regards the claim that courts of law use majority decisions as the basis of deciding validity - this is not true, as said above, and is especially not true in relation to the validity of evidence, which after all was the context in which you made such a stupid claim. A hundred eye-witnesses could be in accord with what they think they saw, but if one piece of irrefutable objective evidence contradicts their subjective opinion it renders that opinion inadmissable. Even more to the point, even if their opinion cannot be disproven there and then, if no corroborative objective evidence can support their claim then it renders it questionable, and therefore reason for doubt. This is a fundamental feature of an intelligent and unbiased justice system and it is exactly the criteria by which your chosen delusion is rejected as valid by many atheists here. Tough if you don't like it, but that's how it is with fantasy. If it can't be backed up with evidence it doesn't matter how many people buy into it. It's still fantasy.

 

And it's a good thing too that it is so. Otherwise people like you on juries would stupidly condemn innocent people based on a concept of justice which is odious in the extreme. Religious adherence encourages such stupidity, so it's not entirely your fault you are the way you are. But the rest of us need protection from you - as your claim above amply demonstrates.

 

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Cory_The_Ration...
Posts: 49
Joined: 2009-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Renee Obsidianwords

Renee Obsidianwords wrote:

Cory_The_Rational_Dude wrote:

It's 4:40 in the morning over here and I need some sleep, so I'll type this shit up real quick.

My fear of dying or any of my family members(parents especially) dying,  has been getting real real serious lately. To the point of crying sometimes(which I consider real pathetic btw). I've had severe depression/anxiety since I can remember and I probably have thantophobia even since I was a believer.

My eyes are closing on me, so I will type more tomorrow.

I'm just wondering how you guys deal with the thoughts of dying or your family members dying and never getting to see them again.


You mentioned you "have had" severe depression/anxiety...are you seeing a professional or taking medicine for it? I would suggest speaking to a doctor.

Now as for how I personally deal with the thought of death. It has been years since I have spent sleepless nights obsessing about family, friends and even myself dying.

All I can recall is telling myself that everyone dies, nobody comes back and worrying wont change that. Soon after telling myself this I stopped obsessing over it.

My adult life approaches death the same way and with this outlook I have created this -drive- to get as much out of life as I deem satisfying. Each interaction with those around me I make the most out of as deep down I know they could be gone in an instant...as could I.
 

Hope this helps in some way.

I took Zoloft and Xanax. Xanax got me addicted to the point I took more than I was supposed to, so I've stopped with taking medicine. Haven't tried therapy.

Thank You Smiling

 


Cory_The_Ration...
Posts: 49
Joined: 2009-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

Cory_The_Rational_Dude wrote:
You can be "skeptical" and "rational" and have faith, hope, and love in your life.

 

Based on your OP, it doesn't appear that your so-called skeptical rationalism is leading you to a life of peace.

I wish I could nail you to a cross right now, Seriously.

If you could fucking read, you would have seen where I said it was just as bad(if not worse) when I had belief.

I'm not taking the pussy "faith" route when there is no evidence for a psychopathic God that I wouldn't want to spend eternity with anyways.

Seeing his backside like Moses did would be tight as fuck though

 


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Cory_The_Rational_Dude

Cory_The_Rational_Dude wrote:
Seeing his backside like Moses did would be tight as fuck though

Assuming he worked out, yeah.

...What am I saying- of  course god hits the gym!

Quote:
I took Zoloft and Xanax. Xanax got me addicted to the point I took more than I was supposed to, so I've stopped with taking medicine. Haven't tried therapy.

I was on Lexapro for about a year. I was getting addicted too- though the addiction to Lexapro is puny compared to those two. Therapy is *definitely* a must if you're trying to survive without medication. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy will help immensely- I know it did with me.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:That's

deludedgod wrote:

That's ridiculous (more precisely, it is ad populum). Since when did we judge the evidential merits of a statement on the basis of the number of people who accepted it?

Paisley wrote:
It happens everyday in a court of law. 

The strength of the prosecutor's case is determined by the amount and the reliability of the evidence presented. In order for the prosecution to win the case, the jury must unanimously vote that the defendant's guiltiness has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. Thus, in this scenario, the jury is the "we," so the set-up implied by your statement is incorrect. Likewise, if you're not in the jury, you have no obligation to conclude that the defendant is guilty based on the decision of the jury, for the jury only represents the decision of the court. So, an ad populum is not continuously being committed in court. 

And, furthermore, why does it even matter? Just because court systems commit ad populum, you can too? You're using an appeal to authority to defend an appeal to popularity. That's just pathetic.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You're using an

Quote:

 You're using an appeal to authority to defend an appeal to popularity.

Oh, snap. A meta-fallacy. Goddamn, you suck Paisley.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cory_The_Ration...
Posts: 49
Joined: 2009-02-12
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie

crazymonkie wrote:

Cory_The_Rational_Dude wrote:
Seeing his backside like Moses did would be tight as fuck though

Assuming he worked out, yeah.

...What am I saying- of  course god hits the gym!

Quote:
I took Zoloft and Xanax. Xanax got me addicted to the point I took more than I was supposed to, so I've stopped with taking medicine. Haven't tried therapy.

I was on Lexapro for about a year. I was getting addicted too- though the addiction to Lexapro is puny compared to those two. Therapy is *definitely* a must if you're trying to survive without medication. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy will help immensely- I know it did with me.

 

hahahhahahhaha @ if he worked out

Is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy expensive?


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Cory_The_Rational_Dude

Cory_The_Rational_Dude wrote:

I don't want input from theists, sorry.

For future reference there is a place in the forums called Freethinking Anonymous for exactly that reason.

 

Edit:

I really gotta start reading all of the posts before I reply...

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

 You're using an appeal to authority to defend an appeal to popularity.

Oh, snap. A meta-fallacy. Goddamn, you suck Paisley.

LOLOLOLOLOL

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:I'm religiously

Ciarin wrote:
I'm religiously plural.

I'm too. But I still don't hold all philosophical and relgious beliefs to equally valid.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Ciarin

Paisley wrote:

Ciarin wrote:
I'm religiously plural.

I'm too. But I still don't hold all philosophical and relgious beliefs to equally valid.

Good for you... but here's a hint

 

NO ONE ELSE DOES, EITHER

What Would Kharn Do?


theacrobat (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Fear of death

Nordmann wrote:

Fear of death is natural. Those who boast its absence in the belief that it makes them sound brave are, in my opinion, missing an essential characteristic without which their ability to truly empathise is severely restricted, or of course are simply lying to themselves or expressing their immaturity. Whatever their motivation they are departing from what is a completely natural and logical trepidation without which we as a sentient life form would be seriously disadvantaged with a view to our collective and individual chances of survival.

You don't need a fear of death to truly empathize with others. You can be saddened when others die or when they suffer without  a fear of these things. i for when have never had a fear of death, and I'm not exactly too sure why, and it has nothing to do with my theistic faith, since I never really had that fear when I didn't believe much either. 

And I don't say this casually, but rather I say this when I've been in the face of dying a number times. I remember a incident when i was younger, and someone stuck a gun at me, and I shrugged my shoulders, telling him if he wanted to shoot he could go ahead, but I'm gonna go home and eat my dinner. I'm not exactly sure why I'm so indifferent to the idea of dying, but it's never been a point of fear even in my youth, but this hasn't affected my ability to empathize with others, I'm still saddened by the loss of friends, even the loses of strangers, I feel for their pain, even if i don't fear for it for myself. 

 

 


theacrobat (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Cali_Athiest2 wrote: Not

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

 

Not really, without fear of punishment or hope of reward in some unknown afterlife this life becomes more real and meaningful[...]when people learn to rely more on each other for salvation than some invisible sky daddy we'll become a better society.

 

 

Trading in one faith for the peddling of another huh?

"Yes dear brothers, life is magically more meaningful, all we have to do is believe that there is no afterlife, because life has this inherent meaning that we're missing, and once we abandon the religious myth, we can accept the secular myths about how leaving God will lead to Disney Land, of cotton candy and gum drops, as they have in Sweden. Yes, salvation is here folks, just get it by relying on the Brian Sapients, Richard Dawkins, and the homies at the RRS."

Here's alternative piece of advice, "this is the only life you got, f*&^, cheat and steal to your hearts content, don't bother living it for others, in this silly dependence on this notion of lasting memories after death. Who gives a crap about what's left behind after you die, it's not like you're going to remember any of it. Seek out pleasure, in whatever form you may find it. Live everyday like it was your last one, spend it in a brothel. Don't buy the bullshit about salvation from street peddlers of faith like Cali-Atheist, or her post-christian delusions. Allow that indifference to be that guiding light."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


theacrobat (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Person B:

deludedgod wrote:

 

Person B: You're a fucking idiot, therefore your argument is bullshit.

This is an ad hominem. Has your tiny brain noticed the pattern yet?

Has your tiny brain noticed this pattern yet.

When you claim someone is an idiot in the course of an argument, the intention is to imply that his argument is idiotic. Or in other words: "You're a fucking idiot, therefore your whole argument is idiotic."

Which is an ad hominem.

Learn you fallacies buddy, and I'd suggest you abstain from referring to people as "tiny brained" when we can see who is not so intelligent himself. 

 

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:When you claim someone

Quote:

When you claim someone is an idiot in the course of an argument, the intention is to imply that his argument is idiotic. Or in other words: "You're a fucking idiot, therefore your whole argument is idiotic."

Not necessarily. If someone says "You're a fucking idiot" after their interlocutor delivers an argument, it is not necessarily an antecedent to an implied conclusion that their argument is false. Usually it is a conclusion where a premise is that the argument that was delivered was ridiculous. In other words, you seem to think that an insult is a premise in a syllogism of the following form:

Premise: You are an idiot

Premise 2: Your idiocy indicates that your argument is ridiculous

Conclusion: Your argument is ridiculous

When in fact, it is usually stated as a conclusion for a syllogism of the following form, where it is taken as a premise that the argument in question is ridiculous. This is why, in general, insults should follow rebuttals to avoid confusion between these two.

P1: Your argument is ridiculous

P2: The ridiculous nature of your argument indicates that you are an idiot

C: Therefore, you are an idiot.

The latter is far more common.

Quote:

Learn you fallacies buddy

As I have already demonstrated, I am perfectly familiar with this fallacy (and the rest of the standard formal and informal fallacies). I hardly need a lecture on logic from you.

Quote:

I'd suggest you abstain from referring to people as "tiny brained" when we can see who is not so intelligent himself.

You seriously want to get into a competition on who is more intelligent here? Have you read my work on this site? If you wish to get into a competition over intelligence, be my guest.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Vastet

Paisley wrote:

Vastet wrote:

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Faith is letting go of logic.

 

Fixed

 

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Faith is letting go of fear.

................. and reason.

I second the motions.

It would appear that a life based on "skeptical rationalism" ultimately leads to crippling fear, as made evident in the OP of this thread. Such is a life without faith, hope and love.

You got it backwards. We both have love, fear, and hope. But your fear is a supernatural fear. Ours is perfectly rational and reasonable, and therefore much easier to conquer.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie wrote:Paisley

crazymonkie wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The believer doesn't subscribe to the atheist's definition of faith. Indeed, the atheist is not really qualified to speak on the subject of religious faith since he is, by definition, without it!

Oh bullmotherfuckingshit. I can't talk about religious faith if I don't have religious faith?!? Then why are you wasting bandwidth trying to talk to us about religious faith?

Agreed. Religious faith is actually a faculty not unlike sight. You either see or you don't. And it is pointless for those with vision to discuss the experience of seeing with those who have been born blind and are convinced that no one can see.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Nordmann

Paisley wrote:

Nordmann wrote:
Paisley wrote:
There is no hope without faith

Bullshit. And arrogant.

Sorry, but simply spouting off profanity and ad hominem attacks will not invalidate my argument.

Your making a statement does not credit that statement as being an argument, it is still just a statement. Until you back it up with evidence, you're as guilty of making statements that don't invalidate a position as anyone else is.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Being eaten

Ciarin wrote:

Being eaten alive over 1000 yrs by a sarlaac would suck royally.

You don't actually live through that for a thousand years. It only takes a couple of days before you're dead and beyond feeling it. Though it is indeed a very painful time.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:crazymonkie

Paisley wrote:

crazymonkie wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The believer doesn't subscribe to the atheist's definition of faith. Indeed, the atheist is not really qualified to speak on the subject of religious faith since he is, by definition, without it!

Oh bullmotherfuckingshit. I can't talk about religious faith if I don't have religious faith?!? Then why are you wasting bandwidth trying to talk to us about religious faith?

Agreed. Religious faith is actually a faculty not unlike sight. You either see or you don't. And it is pointless for those with vision to discuss the experience of seeing with those who have been born blind and are convinced that no one can see.

 

Not really. Faith isn't a faculty. Btw, atheism doesn't mean "without faith", it means "without god", meaning a lack of a god belief. There are many atheists who have faith in other things. Faith in themselves, faith in humanity, faith in their family, faith in their sportsteam, etc. Not all faith has to be for supernatural things.

 

You are not qualified to accurately say who may or may not discuss religious faith or theology.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:crazymonkie

Paisley wrote:

crazymonkie wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The believer doesn't subscribe to the atheist's definition of faith. Indeed, the atheist is not really qualified to speak on the subject of religious faith since he is, by definition, without it!

Oh bullmotherfuckingshit. I can't talk about religious faith if I don't have religious faith?!? Then why are you wasting bandwidth trying to talk to us about religious faith?

Agreed. Religious faith is actually a faculty not unlike sight. You either see or you don't. And it is pointless for those with vision to discuss the experience of seeing with those who have been born blind and are convinced that no one can see.

Oh really? Can you, um, link a scientific article demonstrating how faith is perceived? So yeah, uuuhh, we perceive light with our eyes. What do you perceive faith with? 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Oh, snap. A

 

Quote:
Oh, snap. A meta-fallacy. Goddamn, you suck Paisley.

Oh, fucking hell... my nose still hurts because I somehow forced gin into my nasal passages while trying to swallow while trying not to spit gin on my monitor while laughing histerically with a closed mouth.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Paisley, you

Nordmann wrote:
Paisley, you are not qualified to judge how much or how little contentment specific individuals derive from their philosophy, just as I couldn't even begin to judge you in relation to how much you derive from your faith, however delusional it might be. So stop acting like the typical christian bigot and try emulating the flower-power bit of your chosen creed. It would do you a world of good, I think, and it would definitely improve the odour of future interventions by you here.

If an individual explicitly states that he is suffering from depression/anxiety and thanatophobia (crippling fear of death), then I think I am qaulified to make an evaulation of the individual's belief-system - especially when that statement is made in the context of an "Atheist vs. Theist" forum. 

Nordmann wrote:
As regards the claim that courts of law use majority decisions as the basis of deciding validity - this is not true, as said above, and is especially not true in relation to the validity of evidence, which after all was the context in which you made such a stupid claim.

The claim that I originally made is that evidence is subject to personal interpretation. I suggest you go back and do your homework before you comment.

Nordmann wrote:
A hundred eye-witnesses could be in accord with what they think they saw, but if one piece of irrefutable objective evidence contradicts their subjective opinion it renders that opinion inadmissable. Even more to the point, even if their opinion cannot be disproven there and then, if no corroborative objective evidence can support their claim then it renders it questionable, and therefore reason for doubt.

What constitutes "irrefutable and objective evidence" is subject to personal interpretation. In this particular case, I suspect it is the personal interpretation of the judge!

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In this particular

Quote:

In this particular case, I suspect it is the personal interpretation of the judge!

The judge hands out the sentence. It is the jury who decide whether the evidence is sufficient to uphold a conviction.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Cory_The_Rational_Dude

Cory_The_Rational_Dude wrote:
Is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy expensive?

It's therapy, with a fancy name that basically means "tiered desensitization." Basically, CBT teaches you to be less ill at ease with situations that would trigger physical reactions by introducing the uncomfortable situations a bit at a time. Like for me, at least for a while, CBT helped me to be able to speak to people in public- random people- far more often than I did before.

So you're paying for therapy, and that's it. Though therapy IS expensive- especially *good* therapy.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:crazymonkie

Paisley wrote:

crazymonkie wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The believer doesn't subscribe to the atheist's definition of faith. Indeed, the atheist is not really qualified to speak on the subject of religious faith since he is, by definition, without it!

Oh bullmotherfuckingshit. I can't talk about religious faith if I don't have religious faith?!? Then why are you wasting bandwidth trying to talk to us about religious faith?

Agreed. Religious faith is actually a faculty not unlike sight. You either see or you don't. And it is pointless for those with vision to discuss the experience of seeing with those who have been born blind and are convinced that no one can see.

So you admit that you're wasting our time then.

Cool. Now GTFO.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


theacrobat (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Not

deludedgod wrote:

Not necessarily. If someone says "You're a fucking idiot" after their interlocutor delivers an argument, it is not necessarily an antecedent to an implied conclusion that their argument is false. Usually it is a conclusion where a premise is that the argument that was delivered was ridiculous. In other words, you seem to think that an insult is a premise in a syllogism of the following form.

Well, typically in the course of an argument labeling someone as an idiot, is extending beyond the reach of the argument into ad hominem territory. Being that the bases, most of the time at least, is not necessarily to point out the fault in a person's argument but rather an emotional appeal to turn individuals off from taking that person seriously. The intention is not for others to see that the persons claims are wrong based on an assessment of his argument but rather based of the volatility of the term "idiot". 

If i were to say all atheist are idiots, to those who engage with them in debates, I'm more than likely implying that all their arguments are idiotic and not to be take seriously, even if I don't explicitly say this. But you're right, merely claiming someone is an idiot is not an ad hominem attack, though it's an insult. It is just that it's rarely in usage "merely", but a term used with implications that render it an ad hominem attack.

A simple example can be, imagine if you as a mod decided to edit each theist post on this forum, with the disclaimer above each one that says: "remember, all theist are idiots", though you don't have to explicitly mention the second part we could all see what's clearly being implied "remember, all theist are idiots, therefore all their arguments are more than likely idiotic." Which would by implication alone would be an ad hominem attack in the course of a debate. 

Quote:
You seriously want to get into a competition on who is more intelligent here? Have you read my work on this site? If you wish to get into a competition over intelligence, be my guest.

 

Forgive me, if I'm skeptical in believing that a high level donor to the RRS, who has a poster of the twin towers attached with motto of a John Lennon song, is my intellectual superior. But tout your horn if you so wish, the choir over here might like to suck your dick, but don't think so highly of yourself because of it. 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well, typically in the

Quote:

Well, typically in the course of an argument labeling someone as an idiot, is extending beyond the reach of the argument into ad hominem territory.

No it isn't. By itself, it's merely an insult. Insults and ad hominem are not the same thing. It only becomes an ad hominem when an implication is directly attached: You're an idiot, therefore your argument is wrong. Conversely, "your argument is wrong, therefore you are an idiot" while not very nice, or compelling, is not an ad hominem. There are plenty of insults that fly on the message board. I myself am guilty of it. We all are. I'm not sure of the other members, but I personally try to have insults follow arguments. This would not be an ad hominem. Actually, when insults stand in lieu of counterarguments, it is usually not to discredit the other person's argument by discrediting them and thus commit an ad hominem. Rather, it is because the argument is so FI (facepalm-inducing) that it becomes an appropriate response. I've seen that happen a few times. The point is, it isn't fair to say that insults are always present to indirectly discredit a person's argument. This isn't the pattern I've observed, at least. When an argument is really facepalm-inducing, like the umpteenth Creationist using thermodynamics, then they'll usually be insulted fairly heavily. This isn't ad hominem. It wouldn't make sense to attempt to discredit those arguments by laughing at the people who post them, since they in turn usually copied and pasted them from somewhere else.

Quote:

high level donor to the RRS,

I'm not a donor. I've never donated anything to this site.

At any rate, "intelligence" is the ability to analyze, synthesize and understand complex ideas, an ability which I have demonstrated here numerous times. You need only look around to confirm that fact. I've demonstrated on this site a high level understanding of a very large array of topics. To pick a few from my post tracker:

Astrophysics:

Physics nuts

(Posts 9 and 10)

Electrodynamics:

Relative Motion in Electrodynamics

Relativity (OP):

Interstellar Travel

Molecular Biology:

The Third Revolution

Chemical Evolution:

Chemical Evolution

Modern History (interspersed posts):

The Nazis

Modern History again:

German Court Rules Against Holocaust-Denier Bishop

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
paisley wrote:If an

paisley wrote:

If an individual explicitly states that he is suffering from depression/anxiety and thanatophobia (crippling fear of death), then I think I am qaulified to make an evaulation of the individual's belief-system - especially when that statement is made in the context of an "Atheist vs. Theist" forum. 

 

You might think so, but you'd be wrong. What you are doing there of course is what all religious people do - confuse their own presumption with logic.

 

There is no logic to the claim you make above on your own behalf. You could just as readily extrapolate from the OP's statement regarding his anxieties concerning death which type of cereal he eats for breakfast. He gave as much indication in his post regarding that topic as his religious belief, and any extrapolation you make about either is informed by your own desire to impose your presumptions and not by the data you were given.

 

Quote:

The claim that I originally made is that evidence is subject to personal interpretation. I suggest you go back and do your homework before you comment.

 

More wishful thinking on your part and again completely wrong. Evidence, by its nature, removes the requirement for subjective personal interpretation. It does not of course remove the tendency for stupid or bigoted people to apply subjective personal interpretation to the evidence (you know yourself) but that is one area where the justice system - as long as it isn't corrupted from within by such prejudiced people - seeks always to establish that essential principle in the minds of adjudicators, be they jury or judge.

 

Quote:

What constitutes "irrefutable and objective evidence" is subject to personal interpretation. In this particular case, I suspect it is the personal interpretation of the judge!

 

And this stupid claim is inevitably where your previous stupidity brings you. If what you said was universally true then there is no justice system anywhere worth speaking of. Nor could there be science. And in fact whole swathes of intellectual activity in which logic, reason or experiment play a role would be expunged from the human experience.

 

But of course it isn't true. Fortunately for humanity, it is only in the fevered imagination of the deluded religionist that such a ridiculous claim even makes sense. Your failure to distinguish between the central component in the make-up of a corrupt or incompetent judge and the act of judging itself speaks volumes about your own psychiatric problems, but thankfully bears no relation to how civilized society comports itself nor to how humanity applies itself to intelligent progress.

 

I realise of course you have as much chance of realising your error (and it's a fundamental one in every sense) as a dung-beetle has of defining Euler's totient function, but then that disability too is a feature of the same illness which forces you to come out with such unmitigated crap in the mistaken belief that you are advertising your intellect.

 

You do succeed admirably in advertising the opposite however, for which I do express some little gratitude since it serves as a salutary reminder, should one be needed, of the intellectual atrophy induced by bigotry, and bigotry expressed as religion in particular. Even dung-beetles show a superiority over you in that respect, and that IS something worth thinking about!

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


theacrobat (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:No it

deludedgod wrote:

No it isn't. By itself, it's merely an insult. Insults and ad hominem are not the same thing.

For someone who touts his superior intelligence, you sure have some difficulty reading, particularly when you pretty much parroted what I said in the second paragraph of my previous response:

"But you're right, merely claiming someone is an idiot is not an ad hominem attack, though it's an insult. It is just that it's rarely in usage "merely", but a term used with implications that render it an ad hominem attack."

Quote:
It only becomes an ad hominem when an implication is directly attached: You're an idiot, therefore your argument is wrong.

It might behoove you to read my previous response a bit more carefully, but I'll assume your "directly attached" is the equivalent on my usage of "explicitly said". 

As i argued in my previous post an individual does not have to explicitly claim: "You're an idiot, therefore your argument is wrong.", in order for his use of idiot to be an ad hominem attack. Nothing in the definition of Ad hominem fallacy suggest that the ad hominem needs to be explicitly claimed. An individual can just claim "You're an idiot." and it can be indirectly concluded that he is implying "therefore his argument is wrong".

Quote:
The point is, it isn't fair to say that insults are always present to indirectly discredit a person's argument. This isn't the pattern I've observed, at least.

Well, i wasn't talking about all insults, but rather one particular insult, "idiot". I might call you ugly in the course of an argument, and it's not likely to be an ad hominem. 

The reason why a term like idiot is rarely if ever merely an insult in an argument, is that as I said previously the term has implications that extend beyond the persons argument. 

Now, I'm sure you wouldn't consider yourself an idiot, in fact you asses yourself as the opposite, as a highly intelligent individual, that you attempted to support with those linked posts of yours. If I claim you're an idiot, any argument you make doesn't negate that. So you can't be a highly intelligent individual and an idiot. You can be a highly intelligent individual, and hold certain idiotic beliefs, but that doesn't mean your an idiot. 

If I call you an idiot, then anyone reading your post should keep your idiocracy in mind, rather than in a limited sense applying only to a certain point, or instance.  Claiming that someone's an idiot, means that whatever he says even after is idiotic as well. 

Quote:

I'm not a donor. I've never donated anything to this site.

My bad, I mistakenly read "high level mod" for "high level donor". 

Quote:
At any rate, "intelligence" is the ability to analyze, synthesize and understand complex ideas, an ability which I have demonstrated here numerous times. You need only look around to confirm that fact. I've demonstrated on this site a high level understanding of a very large array of topics. To pick a few from my post tracker.

Well, according to the logic you seem to advocate for labeling someone an idiot, you're an idiot. An individual who has a picture of the twin towers, with the words "imagine no religion", implying that religion is to blame for 9/11, and if it weren't for religion this would have never happened, is as stupid to me, as the individual who claims that if it weren't for the teaching of the Theory of Evolution the Columbine Massacre would not have happened. 

It surely doesn't demonstrate your ability to analyze, synthesize and understand complex ideas competently, but rather like an idiot. 

When an argument is really facepalm-inducing, like the umpteenth Atheist blaming religion for 9/11, then they'll usually be insulted fairly heavily


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quite frankly, while not

Quite frankly, while not soley responsible for it, the suggestion that religion had nothing to do with the events on 9/11 is at least as ludicrous as the suggestion that it was wholy responsible for them. Religion is the binding power that allowed Al Qaeda to organize to such a degree of efficiency that allowed the attack to succeed, pathetic and miniscule as the attack itself ended up being.

Besides, when roughly 90% of the people who argue for theism in places like this do so from an emotional standpoint, it is especially effective to return the favour. You mention that you think it is ludicrous that evolution could spawn Columbine. Take into consideration that a significant majority of the theists we encounter disagree with you.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:It surely doesn't

 

Quote:
It surely doesn't demonstrate your ability to analyze, synthesize and understand complex ideas competently, but rather like an idiot.

Oh my.  I'm guessing you probably don't have advanced degrees in biology, chemistry, and physics, do you?  I don't think they give those out to people who can't synthesize ideas.

Oh yeah... and DG wasn't engaging in ad hominem.  It's very simple.  No complex synthesis required.  Read the definition.  Compare.  Contrast.  Not ad hom.

Idiot.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Can I just clear something

Can I just clear something up about "Ad Hominem" since we obviously have someone in our midst who is a little confused.

 

The phrase we all really should be arguing about anyway is "Argumentum Ad Hominem" as that is what is proving difficult to comprehend, and the substance of the contention arising from this miscomprehension is concerning itself primarily with one particular usage of the "Argumentum Ad Hominem" which is known in rhetoric as the "Ad Hominem Fallacy".

 

All three have specific meanings in terms of rhetoric, and all three are different.

 

"Ad Hominem" means simply "to the man" and in fact any remark addressed to another individual is by definition "ad hominem" on that basis. It is a neutral expression. It implies nothing by way of qualification or character assessment, though by definition a direct insult is of course "ad hominem" (as would be a glowing compliment).

 

"Argumentum Ad Hominem" means an argument directed against an individual which seizes on a personal characteristic of the individual. Again, this can be a valid rhetorical technique if, as is often the case, that same characteristic can be used to illustrate a characteristic of the target's own stated argument. Pointing out an individual's hypocrisy, for example, is a common employment of the technique, especially if that individual is attempting to coerce others into doing what he is obviously not prepared to do himself. In this example the "Argumentum Ad Hominem" is not only absolutely germaine to the subject under debate, but it quite often is the most effective method of rhetorically destroying the opponent's own specious argument.

 

The "Ad Hominem Fallacy" is essentially a misuse of the "Argumentum Ad Hominem" in that it employs a similar accusation against the opponent, but focuses on a characteristic which itself is not germaine to the subject. That's what makes it a fallacy. Of the three rhetorical terms therefore it is the only one which alludes to cheating in order to "win" an argument, and is the only one to which one can reasonably object if it is employed against one. Incidentally it does not have to be employed insultingly either. Flattery can also be employed in such a technique, though admittedly it takes a little more skill and is consequently rarer.

 

I am a great fan of both "Ad Hominem" and even the "Argumentum Ad Hominem" myself, especially when I find I am arguing with dickheads. In fact, not letting them know that I know they are dickheads is something I would consider rather a failure on my part, and potentially a catastrophic failure if they are hypocritical or deluded dickheads hoping to fool others into believing they are right.  It need not be done in overtly insulting terms but I generally let my opponent decide what tenor in which he wishes to conduct the exchange and then proceed on that basis, so it often is.

 

And here's the really important bit. If you are the target of "Ad Hominem" remarks which you then decry as usage of "Ad Hominem Fallacy" when in fact they are competely relevant, if insulting, responses to your argument, then in fact it is you who are employing the "Ad Hominem Fallacy", not your opponent. By deflecting the discussion into one of being insulted and implicitly disparaging your opponent in doing so, it is you who has actually performed the rhetorical transgression you claim to abhor.

 

Religious people tend to do both in any case, just for good measure. They employ the fallacial technique at the drop of a hat as a form of attack, and then unwittingly employ it just as regularly when they and their arguments are called into question, an eventuality they are poorly prepared for having been taught that the "Ad Hominem Fallacy" is in fact alright to use if the character assassination element of it can be attributed to their deity's will to prevail (ie. it's ok for them to use but not anyone else). But then, when one has such a weak argument to begin with, such lapses into hypocrisy are inevitable, aren't they?

 

And often totally deserving of insult, I might add. In fact I can think of little else which warrants insult as readily.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"But you're right,

Quote:

The reason why a term like idiot is rarely if ever merely an insult in an argument, is that as I said previously the term has implications that extend beyond the persons argument.

But like I said, it depends on the order in which the rebuttal and insult are placed. If the insult follows, it probably suggests that the person writing the post is ridiculing their interlocutor for making such a ridiculous argument.

But since this argument began with an insult from Nordmann toward Paisley, and Nordmann has now articulated his intentions above, the whole argument we are having becomes sort of irrelevant.

Quote:

It surely doesn't demonstrate your ability to analyze, synthesize and understand complex ideas competently, but rather like an idiot.

You're making a judgment of my intelligence based on my avatar?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Oh my.  I'm guessing

Quote:

Oh my.  I'm guessing you probably don't have advanced degrees in biology, chemistry, and physics, do you?  I don't think they give those out to people who can't synthesize ideas.

Drop chem and that becomes an accurate picture of my credentials.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


theacrobat (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:But since

deludedgod wrote:

But since this argument began with an insult from Nordmann toward Paisley, and Nordmann has now articulated his intentions above, the whole argument we are having becomes sort of irrelevant.


Yes it has become quite irrelevant, so we can just drop it. 

Quote:

You're making a judgment of my intelligence based on my avatar?

When I was in Japan, I used to see random Japanese teenagers wearing tee-shirts with English words printed on them. What they said made little sense, most of them weren't even complete sentences, nor were the placed in any semi-coherent order. You could easily see that those who wore the tee-shirts couldn't even read English, but wore the shirts because they found it cool to have English words printed on them.  Kind of like those white-boys who get Chinese letters tattooed on their body, for no reason other than they find Chinese script to look pretty.

I sincerely doubt you chose that avatar because of the angle in which the Twins Towers were shot, or because the words no matter what they mean look pretty. 

If I placed an atheist symbol as my avatar I'm sure people would reasonably make a judgment about my lack of religious beliefs. 

You choose that avatar for no other reason than that you agree with the sentiment proposed by it, and it's perfectly valid for me to make a judgment of your intelligence based on your endorsement of that sentiment. 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
theacrobat wrote:What they

theacrobat wrote:

What they said made little sense, most of them weren't even complete sentences, nor were the placed in any semi-coherent order.

I just had to pipe in...

 

Thats pretty much every T-shirt... period... regardless of language

What Would Kharn Do?


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:and it's perfectly

Quote:
and it's perfectly valid for me to make a judgment of your intelligence based on your endorsement of that sentiment.

Uh. No, it isn't.

 

Even if DeludedGod were endorsing one inaccurate portrayal of an event (and he is not), that would not at all be a good indicator of his overall intelligence.

Michael Behe, for example, is 100% wrong in his endorsement of intelligent design & irreducible complexity. However, this does not somehow automatically make him stupid; by all accounts, I understand that he's a rather marvellous biochemistry professor.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


theacrobat (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Quote:It

Hambydammit wrote:

Oh my.  I'm guessing you probably don't have advanced degrees in biology, chemistry, and physics, do you?  I don't think they give those out to people who can't synthesize ideas.

Well Hamboy if you knew how to read, you might avoid looking like an idiot yourself:

"Well, according to the logic you seem to advocate for labeling someone an idiot, you're an idiot." 

Quote:
Oh yeah... and DG wasn't engaging in ad hominem.  It's very simple.  No complex synthesis required.  Read the definition.  Compare.  Contrast.  Not ad hom.

Idiot.

Well, again my little idiot, I never claimed that DG was engaging in an ad hominem. 

 

 


theacrobat (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
and it's perfectly valid for me to make a judgment of your intelligence based on your endorsement of that sentiment.

Uh. No, it isn't.

Even if DeludedGod were endorsing one inaccurate portrayal of an event (and he is not), that would not at all be a good indicator of his overall intelligence.

Michael Behe, for example, is 100% wrong in his endorsement of intelligent design & irreducible complexity. However, this does not somehow automatically make him stupid; by all accounts, I understand that he's a rather marvellous biochemistry professor.

Read Hamy's response.