+88rat88
1) I've read your stuff on this thread long enough for it to register on my bullshit meter as the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that it is. I don't anticipate that improving appreciably, no matter how much "editing" you do
Sorry ... Strawman, we are not talking about "my other stuff I wrote down here long enough" ... we are talking of the immediate context where you began by quoting me
"The spiritual world exists - science proves it - and you cannot handle the truth"
The other category context we were talking of = Biblical Slavery
This category context we are talking of = Proof of the Supernatural
Using the other context to judge this context just shows that you do not know how to follow your arguments - and end up in a slippery slope fallacy and a Category Error. Using another context or appealing to my personal incredulity is a totally unwarranted reason to judge the objective credibility of the current category context arguments.
2) Do you know what a troll is? I'm not a troll, I'm one of the original posters on this thread, calling out the creator of this video on his lies and disingenuity. He's too delusional and cowardly to openly acknowledge them.
Here is wikipedia's definition
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.
Here is a demonstration of how you responded to the argument you were trying to give:
(C1) "The spiritual world exists - science proves it - and you cannot handle the truth"
And this is your response:
(C2) Thank you for demonstrating your lack of understanding of what science is.
Logically, someone who wanted to coherently debunk (C1) would say something like this
Science only deals with the natural world and not the supernatural world in my opinion
and we could have takes a non-inflammatory, non-extraneous, non-off-topic and mutually respective communication from there. But nooo.... you just had to involve an Ad-Hominem and tell me how stupid I am by saying (C2). In my opinion, coming from one unrelated topic and into this topic like that, is what I call a troll.
3) Even if I read none of your previous posts, the fact remains that when you make silly comments like "The spiritual world exists - science proves it" (C3), it can be safely concluded that you do not understand science.
By who's objective standard is C3 silly? By your subjective mind? That's a subjectivist fallacy. Yes, that conclusion can be made based on your subjective qualia ... this is a free country ... anybody can come to any conclusion without an objective standard even if they use a fallacious, irrational, hate-breathing and intolerant subjectivist fallacy.
YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH
I somewhat agree with what you are saying to a degree AND you are admitting the limitations of science. Well done. HOWEVER... that statement (C1) was not suggestive of the dealings / methodology of science, but rather it was suggestive of the usefulness of science ie, what science can be used for. For example, the methodology of the keyboard you are typing with is for typing - simple typing; but! the usefulness of the keyboard can be used smash someone's face and break their teeth. Here, we see the keyboard being extruded from the constraints of what the keyboard is concerned about into somewhat-metaphysical-other-things the keyboard can be used to do. Anybody that is a sentient creature can use science for many other thing
- Hitler can use science to justify killing jews
- Dylann Roof can use science to justify killing people in church
- Theists can use it to posit the supernatural world
- Scientist can use science to advocate using the ebola virus to commit madd genocide (2)
Do you want me to go on? Or are you convinced of your strawman in your confusion between what science is concerned about and what it can be used to posit?
God bless you
REFERENCES
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
(2) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm
1) I've read your stuff on this thread long enough for it to register on my bullshit meter as the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that it is. I don't anticipate that improving appreciably, no matter how much "editing" you do
Sorry ... Strawman, we are not talking about "my other stuff I wrote down here long enough" ... we are talking of the immediate context where you began by quoting me
"The spiritual world exists - science proves it - and you cannot handle the truth"
The other category context we were talking of = Biblical Slavery
This category context we are talking of = Proof of the Supernatural
Using the other context to judge this context just shows that you do not know how to follow your arguments - and end up in a slippery slope fallacy and a Category Error. Using another context or appealing to my personal incredulity is a totally unwarranted reason to judge the objective credibility of the current category context arguments.
2) Do you know what a troll is? I'm not a troll, I'm one of the original posters on this thread, calling out the creator of this video on his lies and disingenuity. He's too delusional and cowardly to openly acknowledge them.
Here is wikipedia's definition
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.
Here is a demonstration of how you responded to the argument you were trying to give:
(C1) "The spiritual world exists - science proves it - and you cannot handle the truth"
And this is your response:
(C2) Thank you for demonstrating your lack of understanding of what science is.
Logically, someone who wanted to coherently debunk (C1) would say something like this
Science only deals with the natural world and not the supernatural world in my opinion
and we could have takes a non-inflammatory, non-extraneous, non-off-topic and mutually respective communication from there. But nooo.... you just had to involve an Ad-Hominem and tell me how stupid I am by saying (C2). In my opinion, coming from one unrelated topic and into this topic like that, is what I call a troll.
3) Even if I read none of your previous posts, the fact remains that when you make silly comments like "The spiritual world exists - science proves it" (C3), it can be safely concluded that you do not understand science.
By who's objective standard is C3 silly? By your subjective mind? That's a subjectivist fallacy. Yes, that conclusion can be made based on your subjective qualia ... this is a free country ... anybody can come to any conclusion without an objective standard even if they use a fallacious, irrational, hate-breathing and intolerant subjectivist fallacy.
YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH
I somewhat agree with what you are saying to a degree AND you are admitting the limitations of science. Well done. HOWEVER... that statement (C1) was not suggestive of the dealings / methodology of science, but rather it was suggestive of the usefulness of science ie, what science can be used for. For example, the methodology of the keyboard you are typing with is for typing - simple typing; but! the usefulness of the keyboard can be used smash someone's face and break their teeth. Here, we see the keyboard being extruded from the constraints of what the keyboard is concerned about into somewhat-metaphysical-other-things the keyboard can be used to do. Anybody that is a sentient creature can use science for many other thing
- Hitler can use science to justify killing jews
- Dylann Roof can use science to justify killing people in church
- Theists can use it to posit the supernatural world
- Scientist can use science to advocate using the ebola virus to commit madd genocide (2)
Do you want me to go on? Or are you convinced of your strawman in your confusion between what science is concerned about and what it can be used to posit?
God bless you
REFERENCES
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
(2) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment