LightGigantic's Defense Thread

By brains I take it you mean sharing the same needs, interests and concerns as yourself (ie another atheist who agrees with your particular strain of atheism) - how many progressive discussions have you had innvolving a theist on sci forums (oh wait don't tell me - theists don't have brains).
Click to expand...

This is called "rationalizing" LG you don't know me, you haven't been here for 5 years as I have, and BTW I've had many good debates with theists a few which have become good friends over the internet!

I have to say, although Godless is as over-the-top as anyone with the "theists are dumb" thing, I think any of the back and forth we have had has been fairly free of personal attacks. Of course it HAS been a while, maybe I am not remembering correctly - but I think I am. At least i can't remember any real insult laden discussions.

Point = I'll have to say, Godless is ABLE to participate in a reasonable discussion, unless I am remembering incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Well Cole the difference between you and LG is that you do have reasonable arguments while LG's logic is inconsistent, that is he makes it up as he goes, he likes to use big words such as "epistemology" ad-hom, etx. without having a complete grasp of the term, we are all here to learn from one another, not to accept irrationality being shoved down our throats in a constant manner, such as done by LG. BTW he reminds me of Leo when he first came to the scene, at least lately Leo now makes reasonable arguments though flawed, but his logic is consistent.
 
lightgigantic said:
You can advocate a philosophy that everyone in the world is deluded except for you and a few of your friends
Click to expand...
KennyJC said:
Are you trying to say this is ridiculous? Most of the world blindly believes in their particular religion and all the supernatural nonsense that goes along with it. They believe in ghosts, Astrology, fortune telling, faces on mars, aliens on Earth, etc...
Click to expand...

And there it is folks.
The people here who argue points from a position that the other side must be deluded or ignorant, and cannot possibly be sensible and just simply incorrect, are ridiculous.
 
KennyJC said:
Superstition is wrong. End of.
Click to expand...
Using prehistoric belief systems to interpret metaphysical concepts is not good in my opinion, but there is no end or Q.E.D. to that discussion.

I was just saying the use of - "how can you be so dumb?" when discussing these concepts is over-rated, each side of the athiest vs. theist debate does this, it is not good, and there the defense of L.G.'s position on metaphysical possibilities can end.

Defending his style, however, is his job.
 
cole grey said:
Defending his style, however, is his job.
Click to expand...

Defending against constant ad homs is .... well ..... boring

All I've encountered on this thread so far are generic claims of irrationality, intellectual dishonesty, not having a standardized structure or point of view etc etc.

Unless these accusations are quoted or referenced by examples, there does not appear much to respond to, except perhaps how some people (ie fanatical atheists) have a different value system than myself (which of course in another uneventful topic of pursuit)

:rolleyes:
 
lightgigantic said:
Defending against constant ad homs is .... well ..... boring

All I've encountered on this thread so far are generic claims of irrationality, intellectual dishonesty, not having a standardized structure or point of view etc etc.

Unless these accusations are quoted or referenced by examples, there does not appear much to respond to, except perhaps how some people (ie fanatical atheists) have a different value system than myself (which of course in another uneventful topic of pursuit)

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I take it you understand that "fanatical atheists" is an insult, and not an ad hominem? I guess you think it is better to be rude than to commit a logical fallacy? Can't you see that you are doing the same thing that you mistakenly whine about all the time as "ad homs"?

You trip me out. You are so transparent in your attempts to win points by dodging them with the "ad hom" card.

It disgusts me.

(Which is a fact, not an insult, and not an attempt to win an argument by directing my points at you, rather than at your own arguments, and hence neither an insult NOR an ad hominem)

LMBACIFNEKWAAHIT = 14
 
swivel said:
I take it you understand that "fanatical atheists" is an insult, and not an ad hominem? I guess you think it is better to be rude than to commit a logical fallacy? Can't you see that you are doing the same thing that you mistakenly whine about all the time as "ad homs"?

You trip me out. You are so transparent in your attempts to win points by dodging them with the "ad hom" card.

It disgusts me.

(Which is a fact, not an insult, and not an attempt to win an argument by directing my points at you, rather than at your own arguments, and hence neither an insult NOR an ad hominem)

LMBACIFNEKWAAHIT = 14
Click to expand...
I guess the distinction between a fanatic and someone who is not a fanatic is that they can distinguish a variety of practioners - its not that all atheists are fanatics - only those that tend to maintain their value system in the absence of civil discussion (ie inability to express general principles, philosophical expression etc - and attack on the character of the opposing parties character when they adhere to civility)

as such, amongst the camps of atheists and theists, its not uncommon to encounter fanatics
 
From Webster - Fanatic: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion.

With this criteria LG qualifies as a fanatic due to his devotion to his particular belief system.
 
Cris said:
From Webster - Fanatic: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion.

With this criteria LG qualifies as a fanatic due to his devotion to his particular belief system.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, I think you just painted yourself with the same paint brush.

BTW I have never said that the processes of science are not valid - I have advocated however that they are limited and that religion is more synoptic - in contrast to your adamant determination to declare religion as a fiction on the strength of your confidence and opinion (and refusal/inability to even enquire, what to speak of applying, the processes outlined in theism) appears to make you more fanatical than myself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top