Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - What we argue about when we argue about evolution

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

What we argue about when we argue about evolution
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 4:58 am Post subject:

Rteacher wrote:

My guess is that "pastis" is functioning as a sock of one of the other "new atheist" participants on this thread.

One way to counter someone who presents effective arguments challenging your materialistic/intellectually imperialistic world view based on scientific naturalism is to throw them off their game by constant flaming and baiting...

Amazing he joined two years ago to be a sock for this thread.

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:24 am Post subject:

bovinesackofshite wrote:

Don't worry...it hasn't escaped the attention of anyone that he's adding nothing of worth. I't should also be noted that last few pages of counter arguments for my extemely moderate arguments have all been semantic in nature....nit picking about the form , rather than delaing with the content. Surely the blatant signs that the opposition doesn't really have a leg to stand on? What do we all something that adds nothing of worth ? Oh yes ....worthless! Yes , that sounds about right.

True, you have yapped away about a hundred times more than I have on this thread, yet you have still contributed nothing whatsoever. If anything you have cheapened the worthwhile contributions made by other posters, making you a hindrance. Just typing all those words doesn't make you a star ya daft plank. Rather, it makes you even more of a loser. Get it? Your pretentious, ill-conceived 'argument' was totally done away with by the first few replies of mindmetoo and a few others. After that you just kept repeating the same crap ad-f-cking-nauseum. You're not just way too big for your boots, you're an absolute clown. You seriously need to be put down.

Understand: I'm f-cking shellacking you right now, as you read this. Laughing

Rteacher wrote:

Come on R, try me. Pose me a question (and not that purple-texted vedic rubbish, something actually thought provoking from your own noggin), and if it's good, I'll reply seriously. Bovineskaapfokker is just far too big a mompie to take seriously or reply to in earnest. He is worthy only of mockery and disdain.

Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:32 am Post subject:

Well, that could still make him your sock, eh, "mindmetoo"? ... And I suppose this poster boy for "Hitler's Youth" doesn't resemble a young Richard Dawkins (one of the "New Atheists" icons)

Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:37 am Post subject:

The fact that "pastis" replied immediately after "mindmetoo" did is further evidence that I've successfully flushed out a sinister sock-device used by mm2 to run interference for him when needed (like on this thread...)

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:39 am Post subject:

Rteacher wrote:

The fact that "pastis" replied immediately after "mindmetoo" did is further evidence that I've successfully flushed out a sinister sock-device used by mm2 to run interference for him when needed (like on this thread...)

I would like to set the record straight: I am actually Rteacher's sock. The fact that I am replying right after him proves this (since we couldn't possibly be online at the same time were that not the case).

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:13 am Post subject:

Rteacher wrote:

Ummm. Socks don't make over 700 posts. Review his posts. Do they appear like he's merely chorus to me? Geez. I thought you Krishnas tried to be honest insightful people. Not rumor mongers. You're going to hell, you know.

Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:32 am Post subject:

Yeah, nice try at a save, but the puck's already crossed the goal line ...

itaewonguy

Joined: 25 Mar 2003

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:42 am Post subject:

Rteacher wrote:

My guess is that "pastis" is functioning as a sock of one of the other "new atheist" participants on this thread.

...

I agree!! Pastis is a tool and clearly doesnt have a clue about this topic becuase if he did he would actually give bovinerebel a debate!
problem is bovinerebel would tear him a new A hole and he knows it!!

bovinerebel

Joined: 27 Feb 2008

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:10 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

bovinerebel wrote:

Quote:

I should just have a macro that spits this out. But I'll repeat it again from my previous post:

Boy. You really miss simple stuff. You keep claiming people in science believe it is the only method to achieve knowledge, to know. I keep asking you "well, who exactly?" I've stated, rather clearly MANY times, I don't think science is the best tool to determining things like how to lead a moral or ethical life, how to love your family, etc.

And I should just get copy and paste the following : So what are you arguing against then ? My main gripe all along has been with people who won't allow of other ways of understanding the world beyond physics .

Really. I'll highlight. A simple simple question. Not sure why you've never answered it but keep returning to your original claim that some people are doing X. If the guy raging before city council that it needs to do something about human sacrifice, the first logical question posed to the petitioner would be "who exactly is conducing human sacrifices within the borders of our city?" I'd hope after 12 pages you could take the first logical step in demonstrating this is indeed a problem.

Quote:

But what it would take me to take sides would be for the materialists to isolate the phenomena known as qualia and consciousness into a physical quantity and demonstrate that it operates without necessary input from the quantum level (or other metaphysical area).

But if the brain operates via QM then we're still in a material paradigm. Where is this QM level anyway? Can you define that term? I understand it to mean, when we get down to very very small scales we can only use probability to describe the behavior of subatomic particles.

Wiki's definition however doesn't seem to mean what I'm trying to grasp you're implying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_level

Anyway, to my definition, I still don't see anything particularly non-materialist about that.

Quote:

This is a cheap semantics trick you play to pander to the idiots while knowing fully well what the intended meaning is . I suggest you spend more time on the content of the arguments rather than the form.

Then why don't you state clearly why the two amount to the same. As far as I see, QM is part of materialism. We can measure. We can test. But QM is also probability. There is no determined chain. If we rolled back the universe to the point of the big bang, we most probably wouldn't get this planet earth. If we rolled back evolution to the first cell, we might not get humans or zebras again. Would not a materialist argue that? But even the most hardcore materialist I know, Dawkins, doesn't believe we'd get the same universe or the same path of evolution if we rolled back and started again.

So yes, I can rather comfortably believe materialism (ie, there are some things that can be shown to exist for sure and some things we'll never be able to satisfactorily demonstrate but have to take largely on faith) and believe in free will.

Quote:

Another fesh point I'd like to make is that most materialist people here seem to feel that a good definition of the metaphysical is "that which has yet to be proven is physical".

And who is using that definition? Can you be specific?

Semantics . Do you have another trick , pony ?

You've got to be pretty desperate for something to say to have to have as the main point of your argument.

a) YOUR (probably deliberate) misunderstanding of my usuage of "level

b) Your constant denial that the materialist position exists , while arguing for it . Really....trying to sound articulate and intelligent whilst arguing something so groundbreakinly stupid will only work to convince the extremely dim witted.

c) Your absurb suggestion that you could believe in hard materialism and free will at the same time.... Hard materialism means that everything in the universe is due to physical cause and effect (in effect if you don't allow for outside influence that equals determinism)...the very first action determined every current effect.....to argue we can have free will from this position without allowing for phenomena beyond the physical again is stupid. I'm losing respect for you and your silly ideas by the second .

Your arguments are full of lovely jargonistic frills and decoration...but they have no balls or substance.

Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject:

Well, we can't say he's like the Emperor with no clothes - 'cause he's got a sock at least ...

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject:

bovinerebel wrote:

a) YOUR (probably deliberate) misunderstanding of my usuage of "level

I'm merely asking you to clarify. Can't do it?

Quote:

b) Your constant denial that the materialist position exists , while arguing for it . Really....trying to sound articulate and intelligent whilst arguing something so groundbreakinly stupid will only work to convince the extremely dim witted.

Where did I deny the material position exists? It's part 'n' parcel with science.

Quote:

c) Your absurb suggestion that you could believe in hard materialism and free will at the same time.... Hard materialism means that everything in the universe is due to physical cause and effect (in effect if you don't allow for outside influence that equals determinism)...the very first action determined every current effect.....to argue we can have free will from this position without allowing for phenomena beyond the physical again is stupid. I'm losing respect for you and your silly ideas by the second .

Let me quote from the AHD:

Quote:

1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

QM is a physical phenomena. QM is not deterministic. Not sure exactly how much simpler I can make it. You're free to argue against this but please just don't simply retort with more bluster.

As noted, one can believe in the above and believe if you roll it all back, it will turn out differently a second time. I believe this. Dawkins does. Know anyone in science who argues differently? However, my position on materialism isn't as extreme. I'm willing to admit there are some realities that can't be explained by measurable, testable methods. While science can inform morality, it's not the final word.

Ultimately, you're trying to argue like this: You are making a claim akin to "There are no egg laying bats." If I show you one example of an egg laying bat your argument fails. I'm the egg laying bat. Your claim fails.

Quote:

Your arguments are full of lovely jargonistic frills and decoration...but they have no balls or substance.

And yet like the guy raging at city council to take action on human sacrifice, you've not even provided the first logical step in your argument by demonstrating who exactly in science is claiming science is the only method to attaining knowledge.

Let's call this the 10th time I asked. We'll x=x+1 each time I have to ask again.

Last edited by mindmetoo on Fri May 09, 2008 3:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject:

Rteacher wrote:

Yeah, nice try at a save, but the puck's already crossed the goal line ...

You're a sad little man.

Mod Edit: looks like this topic has been hijacked by flaming/name-calling.

Time out for every one to cool down.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19
Page 19 of 19

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe