LightGigantic's Defense Thread

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic and I have had many debates over the last several months. These have been both scientific (the racial characterization of the Indian people and the origin of the Indo-European languages), the metaphysical, the theological, and even the ethical. Throughout he has presented well-thought out and reasoned arguments, based on an ancient tradition of Indian religion. Whereas I am of the opinion that both he and his texts are flawed, specifically in regards to his defense that one cannot judge God from a limited perspective, I nonetheless hold a great deal of respect for his knowledge and skill at debate. He has also been, for the extreme majority, an extremely nice person.

I cannot say the same for the rest of you.

In the true tradition of the Sophists, our "learned majority" has expressed disdained for LightGigantic. Implying that he is crazy, his beliefs bullshit, and otherwise attack him, not from reason, but purely in ad hominem arguments. Few, if any, have attempted to provide rational critiques of Lightgigantic, and even our moderator has seen fit to reduce himself to ad hominem nonsense.

So thus I ask: Why? If LightGigantic's beliefs are flawed - which indeed, I too hold - why do you insist on merely disparaging instead of disproving? Can it be that we are faced with what can be construed as an Atheistic Fundementalism, which hides beyond popular pretenses of absurdity, instead of rigorous philosophic disproof?

Yet what is most disturbing is not merely the individual, but the group nature of such disparaging. It has become a popular, group-oriented thing, which has even made the moderator's turn a blind eye to the actions of many.

If any of you wish to rationally attack LightGigantic's beliefs, do so. He is wonderfully willing to debate anyone on his beliefs, even to the extent where it can take hours to finish one post. I know, as I have been so involved in conversations with him. But if not, why even post? You are simply lowering the level of the discourse here and showing both your intellectual ineptitude and cowardice.

 

[spidergoat]

I agree. He is a worthy debater (if somewhat obscure in his arguments), and a pleasure to talk to.

 

[lightgigantic]

I guess now we have to stick around and see what the anti-party will say ....

 

[Fire]

There are two sides to LG that I have noticed. The side that is very educated on aspects of religion - which by the way, I consider a valid subject to be educated in, faith or no faith, so I have no real desire to debate this side of LG. Then there is the jaw droppingly delusional side. He is the 'God of the gap' variety of theist, he hates explanations and ignorantly discredits them at all times. He realizes explanations reduce the scope for which he has to believe in god. This is why he shamelessly abuses gaps in our knowledge and tries to tag that gap to god. History shows this is not a wise thing to do.

The other thing that annoys me about LG, is that he is always coy about displaying his true beliefs. In a debate about evolution (which he obviously ignorantly said was false), I had to ask him about 7 times before I could even get him to suggest he was a creationist. After pages of asking him why evolution was false, he finally came forward with an article by a creationist and a pseudoscience conspiriacy theory website. He would not come out and say that fully formed biological beings poofed from nowhere via god, but I would have respected him more if he would just state it instead of being deliberately vague when I try to get his genuine view of things out in the open. At least if I had the opinion that he was honest, then that would be something to go on. At least with posters like Adstar, they don't hide behind trite analogies or mince words on their own beliefs. LG, pretends to be rational, and quite why some people would would be conned into thinking that he is, well...

 

[baumgarten]

The other thing that annoys me about LG, is that he is always coy about displaying his true beliefs.

That's exactly it. My favorite example is that it took him several threads to say something Lawdog once expressed in a single sentence: [I paraphrase] "I know God exists because my religious authority says so."

Why misuse philosophical terms -- epistemology, ontology, axiom, paradigm, justification, etc. -- to such a wild degree, if not to sound arcane and difficult to grasp -- if not to belittle his opponent? LG is not stupid. But he seldom seems to speak here with the intent of pursuing truth. I am sure we both enjoy the intellectual competition, but the ultimate point of the discussion should not be to prove yourself right. The implication in the demeanor I have observed in lightgigantic, that he does not expect that he can learn from his opponents but still actively seeks out to engage them in debate, is nothing but frustrating. I have in the past expressed disdain for the same kind of preachy behavior in many of the missionary-type atheists on this board. It's not constructive, and it's not much fun for very long. For someone who comes to this board on his spare time seeking a little knowledge, it eventually must elicit just one kind of response.

 

[Kron]

I've already pointed out that I hold respect for lightgigantic.

 

[audible]

I once called lightgigantic a moron, I apolgise for that rudeness. he can be foolish and stupid at times, as can anybody.
but tonight the crown of moron, I gave him has shifted to VitalOne, an ameoba is more intelligent, I dont suffer fools gladly, but this person takes the cake.
so light again I apolgise.

 

[UltiTruth]

Oh yes, my vote for him too.

 

[swivel]

So I take it that I'm the only person who thinks this forum would be better, more productive, and more popular without lg?

Sigh...

 

[(Q)]

So I take it that I'm the only person who thinks this forum would be better, more productive, and more popular without lg?

Sigh...

Actually, LG, or anyone like him/her, is an integral participant to any forum. It's important to understand that there are individuals with views not based in reality, hence it's important for us to educate others who might consider sharing those views.

Clearly, it's unproductive to attempt to educate LG, especially when he/she refuses education. But, for the most part, those who engage him are more interested in educating others.

 

[S.A.M.]

Clearly, it's unproductive to attempt to educate LG, especially when he/she refuses education. But, for the most part, those who engage him are more interested in educating others.

That sounds familiar.

 

[(Q)]

That sounds familiar.

So true. Many thanks go out to Sam for being one of those participants. Her Islamic propaganda and religious fantasies have sparked many a discussion and have educated a lot of members here on the dangers of Islam.

 

[S.A.M.]

So true. Many thanks go out to Sam for being one of those participants. Her Islamic propaganda and religious fantasies have sparked many a discussion and have educated a lot of members here on the dangers of Islam.

Interesting how those who claim to be the defenders of rationality so often show so little of it themselves.

 

[KennyJC]

What is rational about Islams vilification of those who don't believe in it?

 

[(Q)]

Interesting how those who claim to be the defenders of rationality so often show so little of it themselves.

Quips of nonsense become you. And we should probably be aware of who in fact argued the moon was split in half, who argued the universe was created by a supernatural entity, who argued the burkha was a show of respect, etc.

You don't even know what rationality is, let alone comment on its behalf.

 

[S.A.M.]

Quips of nonsense become you. And we should probably be aware of who in fact argued the moon was split in half, who argued the universe was created by a supernatural entity, who argued the burkha was a show of respect, etc.

You don't even know what rationality is, let alone comment on its behalf.

I do know what freedom of expression is, though.

You might want to try it sometimes. Its either that or Pepto-Bismol for you.

 

[KennyJC]

*cough* yes, lets skip over how hostile your religion is to infidels.

 

[(Q)]

I do know what freedom of expression is, though.

Yes, and that is all you appear to know.

You might want to try it sometimes.

With a suspension of disbelief and an overactive imagination, I might even rival you in that regard. But I gave that up when I turned 6.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, and that is all you appear to know.

I consider it a fundamental right, the right to choose.

With a suspension of disbelief and an overactive imagination, I might even rival you in that regard. But I gave that up when I turned 6.

That explains why you seem so cynical and intolerant. What a waste.

You might consider not leaning too far in the other direction though. Extremism in any form whatsoever tends to have similar consequences.

 

[(Q)]

I consider it a fundamental right, the right to choose.

The right to choose fantasy over reality does not give you the right to decide your fantasies are in any way reality.

That explains why you seem so cynical and intolerant. What a waste.

Yes sam, I AM cynical and intolerant to the fantasies of religious nutters who would deem their fantasies as reality. You may continue to do so, as I will continue not to tolerate it.

You might consider not leaning too far in the other direction though. Extremism in any form whatsoever tends to have similar consequences.

Reality is the extreme to your fantasies - I choose such an extreme.