what is your problem with guy , he is very through , very through and has done 30 yrs of research into our Ancient past
why the flippant ignor list ?
How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
what is your problem with guy , he is very through , very through and has done 30 yrs of research into our Ancient past
why the flippant ignor list ?
Yes I did accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, and justifiably so. I repeat that accusation here and now for this knowingly dishonest position that you're taking here, which is the circular "We know it's fake because we know it's fake."
No no, you're assuming it's an invention. "I gather that's fake because it's fake" is not an argument. You are basing your opinion on the absurdity of its claims. Just admit it. I don't enjoy watching you squirm like this.
That's not an argument, Geoff.
The absurdity of the creature itself, then. A spaghetti and meatballs monster. That's your basis for unbelief. Logically, you can't know something is fake because you know it's fake; that's circular, and doesn't work. There must have been something else that made this being an obvious parody. And what else is there besides the absurdity of the monster and its claims?
You are twisting yourself into a pretzel! You know, I take it back: This is fun!
This dishonesty is disappointing, Geoffrey. It's not surprising, but it is disappointing. But the fact that you'd reduce yourself to such circular arguments and non-sequiturs just so you wouldn't have to admit that you are on the wrong end of this argument does swell my chest a bit. Watching a smart guy employ the arguments of a stupid guy all because he couldn't defeat my points is a great threat to my modesty.
It's never been a secret. :shrug:
Done and done. Your post makes me wonder: is there any situation at all in which ad hominem, alone, makes an argument?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
No, Henderson was good enough to do that at the outset. Didn't leave me a whole lot to work with. Sort of upsetting. I'm trying to get over it. I know I can count on your support.
I liked that one, though: bringing to the table evidence that actually fits in with the allowed observations of the claim... by actually not existing. Cunning! Damn the ethics, full arguments ahead.
Ha!: yes, the exact opposite. Right, right. Naturalistic evidence? Well, that might be fancy enough fer your paper-writin', but we don't cotton to that around these parts, Geoff. My deliberately false postulations is as good as any unfalsifiable theory-makin'!
Why, heck... you know how to use logical fallacy too! Your arguments just must be correct, because you can't string two posts together without making the same assertion at least twise. It's not possible in your mind for people to disagree with you: they must inherently be stupid. I see. So that'll be a proof by assertion with an ipse dixit over a not invented here with a side order of ad hominem.
You want fries with that?
Neither, thank Myuu, do you. But unfortunately Henderson's proposition was false from the start, soo.... :shrug:
Sigh... you're actually right here: this wasn't the central issue. Do you know the difference?
I canned most of the rest of your post, because it was probably the same tripe. Step back, take a breath, and try to figure out the difference between speculation and naturalistic support.
And, no matter what they tell you, don't drink the koolaid.
He could be wrong.
I mean, we know Joseph Smith was a fraud, but that doesn't disprove Mormonism.
Well then, you're a fixed feature on the other side, JDawg. You have taken a position, and it's not unlike the reverse of that which a theist would take on this issue. There are better selections; but the way in which my modest proposal was received is a little worrisome.
It's nothing like the position a theist would take. My opinion is based on evidence, theirs is based on faith.
It is telling that you're trying to use my atheism as a way out of the debate. I could go on about how pathetic such a tactic is, but it speaks well enough for itself, and plenty of people will read it and cringe, and that's enough for me.
Joseph Smith was confused. The angel he called Moroni was actually sent by the FSM. His real name was Macaroni.
... wellll... kinda does, though...
In point of fact, I don't know whether anyone's proven that the gold Bibles or whatever the hell it was he apparently dug up were definitively proven as fakes, simply because I don't follow it. I mean, personally I think it's a crock, but I haven't investigated in any way. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out it was Smith's handwriting or something, and I think one would be justified in using such naturalistic evidence as reasons to reject their claims. I don't think this is unreasonable.
If I propose a hypothesis, I have to reject it at some basic threshold of significance, right? Conventionally we select 5%, because many statisticians are assholes. Based on relative distributions, we accept or reject differences in means between two things. I can't really functionally argue that I don't know if the test comes back at P = 0.45. Sure, I can only reject at that level of significance... but in Henderson's case we know he wrote it for the purposes of parody and sarcasm. This, to me, is invalidation of the evidence from the start.
Anyway, I think I'm done. Thanks for the polite discussion, SG, and also JDawg at intervals.
:shrug: I've tried.
You insist on holding intent to be a falsifier.
It isn't. But you would know that if you knew what falsifiability actually meant.
I've performed triage on the rest of your post and, due to your continuing ignorance of the concept of falsifiability, have deemed it worthless.
If there were any salient nuggets, perhaps you'd like to unentwine them from the misunderstanding of falsifiability that permeates your responses.
Your evidence that God doesn't exist? Good on you. I'm sure that Nobel will roll in any day now.
Clearly it isn't, or you wouldn't write back.
Frankly, I'm exiting because Sarkus has dealt in little except baseless accusations, and you look for any excuse to do the same because of an atheistic chip on your shoulder, and I'm not wasting more time dealing with the intractable here. Are you going to change your opinion? No? Well, it's difficult to imagine how you could possibly convince me that black is white on this thread. So, you carry on with your faith-based approach and I'll work on evidence, which is what I should have stuck with personally from the start; that is, getting actual work done rather than this pointless jousting.In short: you're a waste of my time on this issue.
Theories must be considered apart from their source, that's how science works.
Baseless accusations?
I have certainly accused you (and continue to do so) of not understanding what "falsifiability" means - but it is far from baseless.
You misunderstand the concept. Period. You keep saying you do understand it and then contradict yourself almost immediately by demonstrating your lack of understanding.
If you refer to other accusations then you'll need to remind me what they are.
exactly
and thats why Zecharia Sitchin is a very good source on Ancient History
take or leave it but at least read his theories before being critical of them
just to add
Zecharia has 6 books just dedicated to our , our Human Ancient past
now if that is not worth reading ....... where are we as far learning about the truth of gods , no matter what the bible says ?
nowhere , because all we have is the bible to rely on
yet the bible is so lacking in detailed info its a crime really
Zecharia has 6 books just dedicated to our , our Human Ancient past
now if that is not worth reading ....... where are we as far learning about the truth of gods , no matter what the bible says ?
nowhere , because all we have is the bible to rely on
yet the bible is so lacking in detailed info its a crime really
Missed some cleanup
Well, that latter part is factually incorrect, and you know that it is. I've come across some unscrupulous arguments before, but wow.
No no, it's sheer invention, as you know perfectly well.
Of course not. It's a statement of sheerest fact. As we speak of intellectual dishonesty, we have you pretending that the FSM really wasn't just a thought experiment on paper, or that my objections are about "the absurdity of the creature itself", below, which has had no bearing at all on the discussion other than your injection herein:
That is about the most abject misrepresentation I've seen so far on this board. I can see why you want me to be interested in the characteristics of the FSM as written: now all you have to do is show where I was so interested. Fire away; or just edit this point out, or misdirect, or whatever the next move is.
I don't know. What is it you think is absurd about the monster and its claims? What is it about your own position that you feel is incorrect or intellectually dishonest? You seem to be trying to get some kind of large, weighty point out. Might I suggest a laxative?
Yes, my angst was clearly staggering, there.
Oh? Which points did I not defeat?
Well, that latter part is factually incorrect, and you know that it is. I've come across some unscrupulous arguments before, but wow.
No no, it's sheer invention, as you know perfectly well.
Of course not. It's a statement of sheerest fact. As we speak of intellectual dishonesty, we have you pretending that the FSM really wasn't just a thought experiment on paper, or that my objections are about "the absurdity of the creature itself", below, which has had no bearing at all on the discussion other than your injection herein:
That is about the most abject misrepresentation I've seen so far on this board. I can see why you want me to be interested in the characteristics of the FSM as written: now all you have to do is show where I was so interested. Fire away; or just edit this point out, or misdirect, or whatever the next move is.
I don't know. What is it you think is absurd about the monster and its claims? What is it about your own position that you feel is incorrect or intellectually dishonest? You seem to be trying to get some kind of large, weighty point out. Might I suggest a laxative?
Yes, my angst was clearly staggering, there.
Oh? Which points did I not defeat?