Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 - 03:33am PT
|
Daniel Dennett does fine so long as he is dealing with standard science of mind stuff that closely mirrors scientific method per measurments and all thing quantifiable. He looses his way entirely when he rounds the horn into qualia and other material that does not so easily lend itself to his rigid methodolgy. This results in fatuous shite like his "intuition pump" and other silly thought experiments that not only show where the poor dude is helplessly overmatched by the material, but where he makes one of the standard mistakes many of his kind make: they try and force the material into forms and paradigms in which they neither fit nor rightfully belong, a problem not with the material, rather with the form and paradigm, but which Dennett writes off as confusion of the material itself. We see this all the time.
Put diferently, per the issue of qualia, DD clearly strayed into waters too deep for him to handle, and blamed his floundering on the water. Silly rabbit. But otherwise quite efficient with straight left brain noodling. But ideas such as "self knowledge avails us nothing," and "You can't get here from there," cause short circuiting and a verbal ruckus from the old fellow. Nobody gets the whole picture, that's for sure, and DD's gig dead ends at qualia.
JL
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 - 05:15am PT
|
"However, it is difficult for you to see your own superstitions or other superstitions..."
Any examples? My apologies, HFCS. I did not mean that as a personal critique, but just as a general statement. It is near impossible for any of us to be aware of our own quirks and superstitions. It is like wearing sunglasses for long enough that you forget you even have them on. Other people can see the sunglasses easily, but you don't notice them. The bible says we see the fly in an others eye but don't see the log in our own. We assume it is a human character flaw, but it isn't. It is just part of the perceptual process. Even if others point out things about ourselves it is still very hard to perceive them unless we figure out a way to compare one state with another. So if somebody says you are looking through green sunglasses you still can't really tell until you take them off and put them back on to see the difference. You have to be able to experiment in order to come to greater understanding. No amount of philosophizing will ever suffice.
I will give an example from my own failings. My dance instructor is always getting on me about one postural defect or another. Actually the same ones over and over it seems like. I seldom have any idea what she is talking about. Even looking in a mirror, it is hard for me to tell. But, if I can somehow start to alter my posture in one way or another, experimenting with it, I can gradually start to tell the differences.
I think this might even be an example for your science of morals.
I am a big fan of empiricism, and empirical, experiential education. I loved climbing and kayaking and outdoor adventures partly because they are so empirical. I get to experiment and find out what happens. The experiments might not be very well controlled, but they are experiments nonetheless.
I'll put it to you: Is not the Abrahamic religion in all three forms the #1 obstacle to science education? You just happen to be addressing a climber here who sees science education as a superb FOUNDATION for the practice of living and has taken on the right if not the duty to defend it as such.
If some groups of Christians, Jews, Muslims hate science education, but other groups of Christian, Jews, Muslims love and support science education, are those labels the critical factor? I think maybe religion is an easy target (don't blame you) but that it is really more of a symptom than the cause of the problems of science education. Just an opinion at this point, but there might be ways of testing this.
I think science education is very important. But I think learning the process of science, the process of empiricism is what is most important and most interesting. If you only learn the facts discovered by science, then there is no difference between science and religion. If I believe my science teacher when he tells me that evolution is a fact, then I can repeat it back to him and get an A on the test. If I believe my pastor when he says that God created all things, then I can be part of a church family and sing hymns, go to potlucks, be supported and visited when I am sick, etc. etc. If I can somehow experiment with and experience evolution in some form or another then it becomes much more real.
I did create a ruckus with the "I like looking at your body" thread, didn't I. Might have to do some more like that. My main thought was the observation that women take such extraordinary pains to look beautiful and to display their bodies. Yet when a man expressed the literal truth, he was viewed as evil. Just seemed pretty funny the more I thought about it. Women put themselves and their bodies on display. I enjoy looking at their bodies. I assume that most men do. Yet to state so openly is a terrible taboo. Maybe this could be a good research area for scientific moralism. What better ways can a man compliment a woman's efforts to make herself look good.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 - 10:40am PT
|
My use of "freedom" is no more loose and uncertain than the philosopher's use of...
And then you proceed to use "freedom" as though it is one concept, when you employ it with at least three different senses:
Sorry for the news, if this is taken as bad news,
Said the man eating freely from his bowl of ice cream.
Yes, this is tiring now.
I think I'll go free-climb something tomorrow for a pleasant escape
From all this philosophizing (term used loosely).
Hmm... I should at least have the freedom to climb Nutcracker, I think.
Your first usage, "freely," means "without external restraint."
Your second usage, "free-climb," means "as opposed to aid-climb."
Your third usage, "freedom," is ambiguous. It could mean "not being restrained against," or you MIGHT mean it in the genuine sense of agency we have been discussing here: "exercising free will to chose one option as opposed to another."
Are you really such a dingleberry that you think you are using the SAME concept in these three instances? Your use of the term is BOTH "loose and uncertain!" OMG... hahahaha
Is this an example of the sort of "new vocabulary and everything" we should "have faith" is coming? In other words, a "new level of fuzziness" of thinking? Wow, I sure hope not!!! This sort of fuzziness is worse than the ill-fated Ebonics nonsense! Or, "think different," which in that case really means, "think incorrectly."
And you should be very careful so cheerfully admitting the inescapability of causality, because that is the death-blow to the very AGENCY that you think you understand but clearly don't!
One of your stated heroes is Dennett, as you have reminded us many times. But Largo beautifully summed up Dennett's philosophy of mind! And the situation is even worse for YOU than Largo denotes. In fact, Dennett's philosophy of mind comes down to "denying the phenomenon" of self-consciousness. Dennett, your hero, actually takes what you so cheerfully admit to it logical conclusion: there IS no agency; there IS no actual "mind." And he argues the very thing I've been trying to get you to see (did you not read Brainstorms or Consciousness Explained?): NO AGENCY means NO FREEDOM. We are causally determined to do what we do, and all "doings" are really just events in the world like volcanic eruptions. I'll inundate you with quotations if you wish, but your hero carefully argues that YOU ARE WRONG! Attempted "compatiblism" really amounts to nothing more than the ILLUSION of freely choosing among options.
And, HCFS, you are wrong because you are so dismissive of "academic philosophy" that when YOUR OWN CHOSEN academic philosopher TELLS YOU the truth about where your world view leads, you are incapable of recognizing it!
It would be merely pathetic and pitiful to watch, but you are SO RABID that your fuzzy, ignorant, RELENTLESS stupidity is actually galling and MUST meet a thoughtful response.
If you would simply bite the bullets that are before you, we could move on. But you will continue to resist, in the face of all of the evidence, including evidence carefully argued for by your own "good company," and at every step you reveal more and more how intellectually dishonest you really are.
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 - 12:14pm PT
|
I bought a video tape at a thrift store, "Remember the Titans". It is an inspirational feel good story about a southern white high school that is integrated with black students. A black head football coach is brought in with the backroom hope that he will fail and prove integration a failure. Somehow he pulls the team together so that black and white players respect and fight for each other. The team goes on to an undefeated season and become state champs, thanks to a last second miracle play. All the good guys are happy, bad guys slink off in defeat and a few people make apologies.
A second strong lesson was acted out. Football coaches have to be tough. They have to be mean and denigrate their players in order to make them strong and tough and cooperative and winners. It is the boot camp philosophy, "Tear them down, make them suffer, to make them tough". I have never been to boot camp so this is just my impression. The players had to submit to the coaches authority before they could be a cohesive team. Perhaps if MB1 and HFCS make each other suffer enough and denigrate each other enough, then they will learn to respect and cooperate with each other, and they too can win a state championship!
In climbing and kayaking, I have almost never been around coaches or mentors who were mean to me. Maybe cause we are not trying to win the state championship or maybe because there is enough suffering built into climbing and kayaking. Maybe I am just an emotional wimp, but I don't see any point in emotionally attacking and denigrating those whom I am trying to teach.
So there are some questions in this.
Is it morally right or wrong to denigrate your players and students, and those who disagree with you on Supertopo?
From a pragmatic standpoint, does such denigration actually lead to greater group cohesion, cooperation and championship teams. Is it a superstitious behavior that has little positive effect or does it actually have negative effects on team effectiveness, that the team must somehow overcome?
From a scientific point, the question is, what are some of the ways we might try testing these questions?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2010 - 12:22pm PT
|
Man, MB1, I have you on the ropes, now.
But I'll have to make this short and sweet at this point because today I have the "freedom" to go out and play in the snow!
What your failing to take into account are different levels of explanation, also different levels of being. That's PRECISELY why the freedom question is No at one level and Yes on others. Think about it.
The Bill O'Reillys of the world mock these yes AND no type answers but "true inquirers" into how the world works shouldn't.
Oh, I cited Dennett (1) as a philosopher, (2) as a popular philosopher. I didn't say I agreed with all his stances concerning EVERY component of the mind (there's more than one!) least of all consciousness.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2010 - 12:25pm PT
|
Paul, thanks for the thoughtful reply in your earlier post. Please accept my apology for any miscommunication earlier and also for my tediousness regarding my criticisms of the Abrahamic religions. Posting on this internet forum is not the easiest artform. One minute you're addressing one poster that requires a certain style, the next another. It's all very challenging.
.....
EDIT
Paul, just read your next post. Titans is one of my favorite movies, too. I have it also. It's a favorite for ALL the reasons you cited.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2010 - 12:29pm PT
|
MB1-
In the end, you know my stances (mechanistic universe, nonpredicatable in the "predictable computable" sense of Liebnitz; living things are agents with variable degrees of freedom), what more is there, what more do we have to discuss? H. sapiens is arguably the premiere decision-making species on the planet. Obviously I am an individual memmber of this species last I checked. As such, as an interested decision maker of this decision-making species, I decided on these things long ago. For increasing thousands if not millions, myself included, the virtue of these decisions (and others) is that they contain a great deal more plausibility than the religious claims / stances of (a) God Jesus, (b) ghost in the machine, (c) evil as a result of the Fall.
At this point, I'm simply interested in the idea, the effort, the social movement, the creative push of putting into place, getting established, a different kind of belief system (modern, built on a scientific FOUNDATION) whose focus is better practices in the practice of living (modeled somewhat on engineering disciplines already in place that take into account human interests, goals, values; also that include prescriptions, ethics, strategies for achieving their endeavors) - needless to say apart from religions that rely on supernaturalist belief - that reflects this aforementioned decision-making. That's it in a nutshell. It is my opinion that the world would do itself better simply by having another branch of "belief" apart from religion whose focus was not God (let alone Jehovah) but life guidance and life strategies in the pursuit of best practices in the practice of living.
I get the fact that your decision-making (at the end of the day's analysisis) is not my decision-making. But that is okay since YOU ARE FREE in this FREE SOCIETY to stay put with your religion, Christianity.
Later...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 - 12:34pm PT
|
It's all very challenging.
Yeah I agree HFCS, especially when replying to rascals like me. :-)
Anyways ... Paul Martzen
This reminds me of when coach John Madden of the Oakland raiders was in charge of the team.
They ran some play and one guy totally screwed up and coach Madden screamed every cuss word in the book and some more at the player.
On the next play one of the star players did the exact same mistake again.
Madden took him aside and asked why the fuk did you just do that after all hell a few minutes ago?
The player said he wanted the coach to scream at him too because he felt left out.
Hahaha Madden realized they just love him ......
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 - 05:40pm PT
|
...living things are agents with variable degrees of freedom), what more is there, what more do we have to discuss?
If at this point you want to just "agree to disagree," then that's fine, and in the spirit Paul suggests, I'm quite happy to "back off" and accept that. As I've said, I think you are "helping yourself" to all sorts of things in your world view that your world view actually does not sustain. But we have not yet been able to even get to that point in our responses to each other. Perhaps it's not possible to bridge as wide of a gulf as exists between us, and I'm happy to just acknowledge that, as I have with Ed.
But you have spent over a year that I know of on many threads doing everything in your power to as stridently, abrasively, and even abusively call Christians out. You've called us stupid and ignorant. You've stated that our entire world view is laughable and ridiculous. And you've even personally attacked me and the discipline in which I am trained, as though even my discipline is itself stupid, worthless, and ridiculous (despite the constant irony that you appeal to philosophy and philosophers as it suits YOU).
I have determined to meet you in kind! And I say now that, regardless of your personal opinions, your utterly uncharitable approach toward fellow human beings is odious in the extreme. If YOU are the face of some coming "new atheism," then, seriously, God help us ALL! And I will respond in kind every chance I get to the sort of rabid nonsense that I take most of what you say to be.
However, if at this point you are prepared to "bury that hatchet" and acknowledge that, despite your disagreements with my world view, I personally am not stupid or ignorant, thus that "Christians" (whatever that even means as a superset) are not necessarily stupid or ignorant, then you will not find in me any sort of enemy. I will only rise to the fights that you start.
I as vehemently disagree with your world view as you do with mine. But you do not find ME starting threads DESIGNED to abusively call out people that believe as you do!
But to the extent that you insist on continuing to treat Christianity, and even contemporary academic philosophy, as worthy only of derision; you will find me quite willing to engage with you and treat you in the exact same fashion.
Get this, HFCS. I feel EXACTLY as passionately opposed to your world view as you seem to be opposed to mine. But your mode of "discussion" is utterly inappropriate and counterproductive, as I have tried to demonstrate by responding in kind.
You will see that I do not respond to Ed, for example, as I respond to you. Ed and I disagree just as basically. But I respect Ed as a disciplined and informed thinker that simply interprets the evidence differently from me.
Ed, I believe, has a basic optimism about the reach and scope of science that I do not share. I do not denigrate science! I simply have sound philosophical reasons (not religious; those FOLLOW) for thinking that there are entire branches of phenomena that are necessarily opaque to scientific study. Ed, and you, seem to believe that there IS no other productive approach to study. I disagree, but even if it is true, then I would say that there are huge areas of phenomena that we simply will never know ANYTHING about.
Yet, the fact that Ed and I disagree at such a basic level does not cause him to start threads in tirade against people like me or philosophers in general. YOU, on the other hand, seem to feel compelled to do so; and, thus, you cannot garner the level of respect from me that Ed has.
So, at this point, the ball is in YOUR court. If you feel compelled to continue calling people like me out, then you will find me quite willing and capable of responding.
If, on the other hand, you want to ratchet things back a few notches and start having a genuine discussion, based in mutual respect, then I'm happy to engage at that level also. Or, if you're prepared to just "drop it" on these threads, that's fine with me also. You won't find ME starting threads to call YOU out.
Now, I hasten to apologize for the likes of those that just fire up threads to quote scripture, and so forth. I see that as every bit as counterproductive "between the sides," so to speak, as what you have done. People that start such threads are not helping the way Christians are perceived, IMHO. Of course, I'm sure that there are Christians that would not be happy with how I've responded to you in this thread. So, opinions vary.
Of course, people have the right to do whatever they want on these threads. I'm not a watchdog, although I have posted on some of the scripture threads that I don't think they are helping anybody. And I am not TELLING you what you can do either. Certainly you are free to post whatever you like.
ALL I'm telling you is that your approach is deeply offensive on many levels, and I will rise to such offensive challenges to the extent that I have time and ability. I would much prefer us to be able to discuss charitably and in much less "heated" fashion, but, honestly, that's YOUR call.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 - 10:58pm PT
|
Fructose-
Religion and spirituality are about inspiring people not engineering them and only an engineer could think otherwise. I know because my father was an engineer so I've heard this line of reasoning before.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2010 - 01:30am PT
|
There are several challenges to applying scientific methods to human behavior – or morality, as we’re calling it here – but the word has no value as an idea lest it is put into practice per what we actually do. For the truth is in what we do, not what we say.
The first fiction, IMO, is that superstition or stone age religious beliefs are the “cause” of wars and so forth. And yet while the bulk of antique superstitions have been disproven, and the atom lies split in several parts, the fighting and bloodshed continue. Of course religion was merely the reason stated, while the wars and conflicts themselves are simply unchecked aggression. The fallacy here is that if we only had the proper measurements, facts and figures, and could quantify the situation properly, we could mentally know, ergo we’d start acting differently owing to our new knowledge. Anyone who thinks like this must have never studied psychology, or Jung, or shadow/unconscious drives and so forth. The simple truth that facts don’t alter our behavior in the ways we think and wish they should, leads to the paradoxical statements I’ve been repeated, such as, “self knowledge availed us nothing.”
What does that really mean? More later . . .
JL
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2010 - 10:57am PT
|
On Sundays, I sing in a church choir, because I love to sing. If you don't believe in Christianity, then the lyrics will be nonsense. Many of the lyrics will be nonsense if you believe in a sufficiently different version of Christianity, or if your personal experiences differ enough from the author of the song. Yet to my ear the music all seems very pretty and very interesting. If you prefer a rock and roll type of church, then maybe our songs would not appeal, so there are lots of differences in taste in music and lyrics.
Over on the Neal Young thread, somebody objected to some particular lyrics in the song Cortez the Killer. The lyrics painted a Utopian vision of Aztecs. Seems to me that all of Neal's lyrics are vague mystical nonsense. I love his vague weird lyrics, but I don't know how you would test their validity in any scientific way.
Seems to me that popular music is at least as nonsensical as church music. We don't think about it much, but look carefully at popular lyrics, most are either nonsense, utter lies, or really really bad advice. Songs are about revenge, petty squables, wallowing in self pity and misery, mean spiritedness, stalking, me me me, obsesiveness. One night a dance partner said, "I really love this song, but it gives such horrible advice!" I had to agree and we talked about how the lyrics for so many songs are just crazy. Yet we love them and love the emotions that they evoke. Like dreams, they don't have to make any sense. I also remember believing much of the bad advice given in the popular songs of my day. Now I can listen some of those songs and think, "What a load of bull!" In some ways the more nonsensical and vague a song is, the more timeless it is. If we can't pin it down it remains mysterious and we can project whatever meaning we want on it.
I do know of one musical group that tries to be scientifically accurate. The Bungy Jumping Cows! http://moo-boing.com/
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2010 - 11:05am PT
|
Jan- Really, is that what I said? we need a new kind of belief system so that we can engineer people. Lost in translation?
Later. Way later.
.....
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2010 - 11:15am PT
|
Fructose-
I think it's great that you really love your profession but it is a little over the top when you advocate that I need to think just like you and that I would if I only spent 50 more years studying the same courses you did in engineering.
Then there's this quote from you on the previous page.
"At this point, I'm simply interested in the idea, the effort, the social movement, the creative push of putting into place, getting established, a different kind of belief system (modern, built on a scientific FOUNDATION) whose focus is better practices in the practice of living (modeled somewhat on engineering disciplines already in place that take into account human interests, goals, values; also that include prescriptions, ethics, strategies for achieving their endeavors)
These sorts of statements mostly just bemuse me because I've heard them all before.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2010 - 11:53am PT
|
The trouble is that science deals in absolutes, or at least the search for them, while morality is always relative to transient societal norms. For the Aztecs, it was a perfectly moral duty to sacrifice thousands of lives based on the idea that the sun needed to be coaxed into rising every morning. Of course now we know that was completely wrong, but it doesn't change the contextual perception of its morality within the society. Even the Golden Rule fails when confronted with natural variations in individual mores; what if you're a masochist? For any system of morality to work, everyone has to be on the same page, and in the long run that's just not possible.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2010 - 12:26pm PT
|
Yes, "Lost in Translation."
"I think it's great that you really love your profession but it is a little over the top when you advocate that I need to think just like you and that I would if I only spent 50 more years studying the same courses you did in engineering."
Alright, I'll take the time:
Bullsh'it #1: "You need to think just like me." Ooh, hyperbole. Woohoo!
Bullsh'it #2: The point of the piece about taking a bunch of engineering courses is that a lifetime studying cause n effect (aka "mechanisms of action") across the sciences teaches causality. Deeply. Deep, deep, deep. That's all.
(In contrast, leading a life like Britney Spears or Sarah Palin probably doesn't offer much exposure to it let alone training in it.)
Bullsh'it #3: The point of the piece you quoted above re: engineering - it is apparent you missed entirely: A fundamental difference between (a) science and (b) engineering is that that the latter takes into account human goals, interests, values and develops strategies, policies, guidelines of conduct (ethics) in their pursuit - that's all. Repeat: that's all.
It certainly doesn't suggest we need a spirituality that engineers people - which is laughable. Or that we need a "new religion" that would be an engineering discipline. Also quite silly.
You certainly bring to the table your own attitudes, (mis)perceptions and biases. FOR SURE.
BTW, I'd be the first to admit there are a lot of engineers out there who are embarassingly over the top either in the controlling dept or in the anal-analytical dept or in the simply nerdy dept. If your dad was one, you should be prudent about extrapolating too much. (Maybe you go too far?)
Bottom line: (1) The engineering disciplines (which hardly existed even 300 years ago) are friggin awesome. Awesome! (2) We will soon have a belief system that (a) like engineering draws its strength from a science FOUNDATION; (b) like engineering takes into its thinking "what matters" (e.g., interests, goals, values); (c) like engineering seeks strategies, solutions, policies concerning "what works" along with ethics to guide right conduct.
EDIT
Among any new development's central assertions: (1) Knowing better is doing better. (2) Life (like a video game, like sports) works according to rules; you can learn those rules, practice and train, and perform better in life, in the practice of it, based on these rules and this training.
Its focus will be life guidance, life strategies, better practices in the practice of living. Its central focus won't be any GUY in the SKY (Jehovah or any other) or any vestiges of this guy. Its focus, among others, might also be coping strategies for dealing with the so-called "demotions," dashed expectations, letdowns, etc. in the aftermath of religious institutions that over-stated things. (ala Moses, bin Laden, Pat Robertson, others)
Now I'm sorry if you don't get this. Having been listening to Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World lately on audio tapes (having read the book in 1996), it's helped me once again put your posts (and Madbolter's posts) into a wider context.
EDIT
Oh, and one last point: You're utterly misinformed if you think any new development (of a belief system) is going to be for everyone. Or, if you think I think that. No way. It's going to be "for" those who get it, for those for whom the old ways don't work any longer; for those for whom it is useful; for those who, for starters are scientifically literate, scientific enthusiasts, science-respecting. That might not mean billions in our "demon-haunted world," but it still means millions. That's enough for me.
Carl Sagan, your works remain a beacon even into the 21st century.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2010 - 12:33pm PT
|
Cintune- You should post more. The Force could use your help. ;)
.....
Oh, this bears repeating:
"At this point, I'm simply interested in the idea, the effort, the social movement, the creative push of putting into place, getting established, a different kind of belief system (modern, built on a scientific FOUNDATION) whose focus is better practices in the practice of living (modeled somewhat on engineering disciplines already in place that take into account human interests, goals, values; also that include prescriptions, ethics, strategies for achieving their endeavors)..."
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2010 - 12:58pm PT
|
Jan- You told us you're a teacher, that you teach evolution or subjects in which you discuss evolutionary theory. I'd be interested if you could point me to a link of your syllabus or course content. Thanks.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2010 - 01:05pm PT
|
Dingus- I'm convinced you truly pride yourself on being the proverbial fly in the ointment.
.....
EDIT
"These sorts of statements mostly just bemuse me because I've heard them all before."
Esp when these "sorts of statements" are grossly misinterpretted, the responses to them are a poignant example of the danger or folly or mediocrity that so many - from Sagan to Menchen to Twain - have written about, critiqued or satirized, and that characterizes both the fits and starts and the whole of human history.
Yoda: "More of a solution or more of a problem to the Cause are you?"
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2010 - 01:56pm PT
|
I guess what characterizes this forum is hyperbole as much as anything:
MB1 wrote-
"you have spent over a year that I know of on many threads doing everything in your power to as stridently, abrasively, and even abusively call Christians out. You've called us stupid and ignorant."
No.
MB1, you ARE the spin and hyperbole MASTER. Apparently you don't draw distinction between (a) criticizing Abrahamic religions for basing their institutions on "bronze age ignorance" and (b) calling Christians stupid.
I do.
If you could post a quote of mine where I'm making it personal and personally attacking a Christian and calling him or her "stupid and ignorant", I'd like to see it. Otherwise, you're bullshi'tting.
.....
Initially I was going to post the link to our very first exchange where you attacked just about everything science and Sagan related. -Which got my attention. My aim was to show how caustic and pompous YOU can be. And what set you and me off as adversaries.
But then...
But then, I ended up at your Forum posts pages. Started looking at your posts. Example:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=638998&msg=645439#msg645439
Those pages and those posts were enough. Turns out, your history here goes way beyond me. WAY BEYOND. And if anything characterizes your posts all the way back to 2008, I think it was, it is rudeness and abrasion if not bullsh'it. (Before that, you were rather nice in your posts - what happened?) So regarding you - ONCE AGAIN - time to let go.
Good luck to you.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!