Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 99
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternativesPage 3 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
what do you want to know, wow?

and, I repeat to everyone;
now, you don't have to convince me, [you can't, no proof] but just tell me what honestly convinced you, that's all, fair?

Is that a fair question? what convinced you?
I know, it can't be put into words.
It's always stuff like go read all the stuff
or,
there a million pages to read
or,
your an idiot
so,
lets see what comes next.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 100
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 9:15:03 PM

what do you want to know, wow?

Creationist scientists?

Tell you what, ..let's put aside the ridiculous assertion of a creator (violating the law of parsimony), and just consider:

What have they contributed by way of byproducts of their assertion of a "creator"?

Compared to pretty much the entire body of work represented by modern medicine, genetics, biology, etc. which is part and parcel of the scientific fact of evolution and the theory that explains it.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 101
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 9:26:53 PM
If you want to play that game, which is all it is.

a creationist thinker has ideas about eternal life.
evolution is a dead end road.

and I have no idea where you get the high and mighty aloofness to suggest that scientists of the other persuasion haven't accomplished anything.

evolution hasn't got a thing to do with how biology works.
evolution doesn't own adaption and the way biology works.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 102
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 9:42:50 PM
and I have no idea where you get the high and mighty aloofness to suggest that scientists of the other persuasion haven't accomplished anything.


A lack of any results, got some? Please, show 'em!

Just one byproduct of the science based on there being a creator.

Just a single example will do, ...just one.


evolution hasn't got a thing to do with how biology works.

It is inextricably tied to it, ...this is a fact.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 9:50:56 PM
It is inextricably tied to it, ...this is a fact.

you brought it up, you show me how evolution has to be true for biology to work.
you give me an example of how with out evolution we can't go on.

your confusing biology with the THEORY of evolution.

like I said, evolution doesn't own biology.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 104
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 9:59:10 PM
you brought it up, you show me how evolution has to be true for biology to work.
you give me an example of how with out evolution we can't go on

Virology, genetics, agriculture, ...are just a few that wouldn't exist without an understanding of the fact of evolution and the theory that explains it.

But, ...you've been given enough proof to fill a stack of books higher than a house, ...you ignore all of them without any real refutation of them other than, "I don't believe it", and you provide nothing but equivocation to buttress your disbelief.


You get asked for a single example to back your position, ...repeatedly, over many years, ...and you still side-step it.

Why the silence?

People do you the courtesy of giving you answers, ...probably thousands of posts worth, you get asked for a single example of a single very simple question and....?

Nothing.

It's not even a request for quid pro quo, ...it's a request for a single example.

Have you looked, or do you already realize that none exist?

Edit VVV

and waaalla

Ha ha... sorry, I always laugh when I see this, ...PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, ...it's "et voilà"
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 105
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 10:32:16 PM
Virology, genetics, agriculture.

that's how biology works, not a thing to do with evolution.

do you not have any idea about how much trouble the theory of everything happening ALL by itself is in?

the deeper scientists delve the more they realize they have a problem with the simple little theory.

3 ft long, 3 billion bits of information in your tiny cell, and you are going to try and convince me that that ALL somehow happened by accident, with not a shred of proof.

and no way do you want to properly acknowledge the actual mathematical impossibilities of that.

do you know what impossible means?

I have read dozens of your type of articles and they are all postulation.

the odds against just life forming are also calculated to be less likely than 1 to more than all of the atoms of what ever in the universe.

ya, I know, richard dawkins tries to break big possibilities into easier to swallow impossibilities.
but a simple single cell contains more information than a large library.
ya, got there all by itself.
good luck with that.

bacteria borrowing from each other is not evolution.
dogs from dogs, is not evolution.
adaptation is built in.
what else you got?

how do you suppose the information for a leg would have come about to grow, if there was non to begin with?
if you could find me a link to explain that, I would definitely read it too.

I red the stuff, but there is nothing there.
just more postulation.
there are no actual facts for evolution, I have been alluded to on a few occasions.
your not going to get this, because you don't want to, but I want concrete proof, and there ain't any.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 106
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 11:11:42 PM
From this:

now, you don't have to convince me

to this:

but I want concrete proof

Hmm... you shouldn't be at all surprised if your sincerity is called into question here. And here I was afraid that this would devolve :-) into yet another debate on evolution!

Regarding the above arguments-- see: argument from incredulity. I.e. not a valid argument.

Glutton for punishment that I am, here goes nothing (as I'm sure you'll agree):

The fossils of simple lifeforms (single cell) are found in older strata than the fossils of more complex lifeforms (multiple cells, fish, reptiles, birds, mammals). I.e. things with no legs existed earlier than things with legs, since you brought legs up.

Now, how about:

the only answer I've ever gotten (including having asked it of you countless times) is silence.

Why is that?

and

What have they contributed by way of byproducts of their assertion of a "creator"?

and

Just a single example will do, ...just one.

and

People do you the courtesy of giving you answers, ...probably thousands of posts worth, you get asked for a single example of a single very simple question and....?

Nothing.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 107
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/26/2010 11:53:51 PM
now, you don't have to convince me

to this:


but I want concrete proof

semantics and different context

I am curious what convinced you.
and
for myself to believe I would obviously need proof.




I not trying to be right.
that's a waste of time.


whats your point? I read tons of evolutionary information, its all postulation, don't you get it????

What have they contributed by way of byproducts of their assertion of a "creator"?
we are not discussing that now, changing goal posts.


The fossils of simple lifeforms (single cell) are found in older strata than the fossils of more complex lifeforms (multiple cells, fish, reptiles, birds, mammals). I.e. things with no legs existed earlier than things with legs, since you brought legs up

you can google that yourself
there are discrepancies.
so they got buried in different layers.
species are found completed.
there are no missing links that you don't need a tremendous amount of imagination for.
so a chimp thing has 98% human DNA, rice has a lot similarities too.
same designer, thats all.

OK, if you constitute that kind of circumstantial evidence as proof, I understand.




what I want, I can not google, believe me, I have tried, just thought you had some better links for actual proof.

It does not exist.
got it.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 108
view profile
History
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/27/2010 12:30:09 AM
hi ascendo tuum

the discussion gets even more bogged down when we bring religion into it.

this is my point, the few areas of evolutionary study that I have looked at, it can be seriously doubted, mutations, bacteria, dna.

each area has areas that you can devote your whole life to.
but after a while you learn not to take anyone's word for anything.
and a person can only read so much.

I have been reading some stuff on how information of say legs can come from a form of life that has no information in the dna at all for legs.
doesn't click yet.
if someone could give me a link on that I would be grateful.

I might have this slightly wrong, but every cell in your body has the dna information in the base pairs, of every part of your body, except for red blood cells, they don't, I believe.
but they have a way to not, for example have a leg come out of your eye, unless something goes wrong.

the point that was made was that unless the leg information is in the creatures dna, a leg is not going to show up.
so how did it get into the dna, is the most interesting point for me.
I heard some whales have leg type things dangling from them, so I have to find out if whales have recessive leg dna in them, or whatever that would be called, that would be interesting.


I haven't spent much time in the fossil side.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 109
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/27/2010 8:40:13 AM

I not trying to be right.
that's a waste of time.

whats your point? I read tons of evolutionary information, its all postulation, don't you get it????


Of course you are. Otherwise, you'd be asking questions, not making assertions. But do you want PROOF of the FACT of evolution? Read this...

http://tinyurl.com/3r6jr2

From the article:


Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."


This is not postulation. It's not hypothesis. It's experimentation and observation. It's evolution observed to be occurring. And please, spare me assertions of "microevolution but not macroevolution" because that's nonsense. If you can have one, you can have another. They are the same bloody thing!

And just for sh!ts and giggles, here's a great video that deals with that bogus "probabilities" argument you trotted out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbAUGkd5qdw

Now please, stop trying to hijack every science thread (although I'm being very generous with that description on this particular thread or for the OP) for pushing your anti-intellectual, anti-science agenda.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 110
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/27/2010 9:09:10 AM

I am curious what convinced you.

Alright, then. Firstly, I had to be in a place mentally where I could possibly admit to being incorrect. Then I read people systematically debunk all the claims made by creationists using sound logic, reasoning, and sourced evidence. No matter what point of rebuttal I or other creationists brought up, it was handily and honestly dealt with. I came to realize that ID (intelligent design) is not scientific. I was also referred to an article that handily debunked two of the pillars of ID, known as Irreducible Complexity and Grand Complex Designs (not sure if that's the name). MUCH of my reluctance to accept evolution as fact was the very mistaken notion that evolution = no deity/atheism. I was assured that science does not contradict alternatives to materialism (Whew! Keeping it somewhat on topic, even!). I began to realize that what I'd been told about creationism was based upon distortions, half truths, falsehoods, sophistry, and dogmatism rather than true intellectual curiosity. It was a sad realization. The final nail was the Dover, PA ruling against allowing ID instruction in school science classes. That ruling essentially confirmed everything I had gathered up to that point on the debate.

I just ask that you not attempt to debate what is my own personal experience, which is not up for debate.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 111
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/27/2010 12:31:06 PM

It does not exist


Again:

Just one byproduct of the science based on there being a creator.

Just a single example will do, ...just one.

People have been kind enough to respond to you in spite of your consistent reliance on equivocation as a refutation (it isn't one).

You still refuse to return in kind.

Why?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 113
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/27/2010 2:38:58 PM
In philosophy the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions


Which not only does science not "support," it doesn't say a darn thing about it. Consciousness is a prime example. There are even scientists who question whether conciousness isn't the product of quantum-level phenomena. Not all scientists support this idea. So clearly there are phenomenon that are still to be explained.


If the physical universe is all there is, then it's the ultimate realitly, and the ultimate reality is some arbitrary configuration of a complicated physical system. There are all sorts of ways the universe could have been, many supporting life. Why this one? Arbitrary. Ultimate reality wouldn't be arbitrary. Materialism doesn't work.


A little like someone standing in a single darkened room, holding a single vase and trying to come to conclusions about the nature of the house. If we can't turn on the lights (perhaps the power's out, who cares. It's a simile.) we can make assumptions based on what little we do know about the vase and what we bump our knees into, or we can slowly go through, feeling our way, gathering data about the room. Then maybe, if we find a doorway, we can find out about other rooms.

What approach do you think the scientist is going to take? What approach are you taking?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 114
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/28/2010 6:57:17 AM


Oh joy. Another one. *yawn*


Careful with the yawning, you may end up with something in your mouth.
Oh look! A hook, a line and a sinker!


Actually, I was referring to your initial approach. The "If I act arrogant and dismissive enough from the outset, I'll win argument points." You and Appy must be part of the same knitting bee. It would be great if, while trying to raise the understanding of others, you guys would actually try to raise the level of discourse, rather than turn it into your own personal vanity exercise.


Yes, I've noticed that you use that term to refer to logical observations that you don't agree with.


Okay, let's look again at your statement. Emphases mine:


But wow, right and wrong are merely arbitrary? That sort of attitude could explain why so many people have trust issues these days. I wouldn't want someone getting all arbitrary on my feelings.


Where is the logic in talking about discussion how something would affect your feelings?


Because medical, economic and recreational advances created by thousands of years of development allow for superior life satisfaction regardless of virtually all cultural differences. What is incompatible with living like a Spartan with all of the 21st century advantages?


Cultural bias. How do you know what a Spartan would think? Have you interviewed one? Why don't you get into your time machine and bring one back. You might be right. He might look at all that we've accomplished and not want to go back. Or he might look at the flabby, over-indulged and self-obsessed society we live in with disdain.


If there is nothing more than atoms and such, then there is no morality because atoms simply are and cannot be judged to be right or wrong. If human beings are nothing more than atoms then they too can never be judged to be right or wrong: they simply are.


And how do you define "right" and "wrong" in context? Let's look at our Spartan. When a mother today must see their child off to war, she doesn't tell that child "return with your shield or on it." Spartan children were subjected to some of what we would consider the worst in abuses (including sexual) as part of their "education" system and yet they considered this "right." Did they have different atoms than us?

Or, did they just have different cultural values? You seem to labour under the false belief that concepts such as "morality" are somehow inherent. Social hierarchy and cooperation certainly seems to have become evolved expressions but evolution has also instilled more roguish behaviour in other organisms. Likely using the same suite of atoms.


Science cannot answer which view is correct because it already assumes materialism.


Science can't answer the question because it is moot. However, like App, you bunch all "scientists" under the same tarp. Since there are atheist scientists and scientists who also profess to faith in a supreme being, then that would clearly be a fault in your observation.

"Metaphysics" from my reading is simply about first principles. A starting point. Why insist on making it "all?"
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 116
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/28/2010 3:21:29 PM

I've described Indian Metaphysics.


Not really...


I clearly stated that I didn't claim that mine was a complete exposition, but was intended to answer some questions of this thread.


What I have gathered from your intention in starting this thread is that you are not interested in a dialectic discussion of the topic. but rather a personal blog.

But I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt.


But, because of its simplicity, naturalness and brevity of description, it was feasible to tell it fairly well here.


But you haven't.


If you'e bothered that I've left something out, then you aren't being very clear with us about what you think I left out.


Let's start with: which portion of the Upanishads are you referring to? They were written by many different people spanning several thousands of years.


But how sure are you that you're qualified to evaluate whether I "really don't know much about Indian Metaphysics"?


Very. I was right wasn't I?


Are you saying that you're sufficiently qualified in that subject to evaluate my qualification?


Yep.


If there's anything in particular that I said that you disagree with, you didn't specify it.


You are not providing enough specific information on your insight into the Upanishads, in order for me to disagree.

But...I would like clarification. Is the purpose of this thread to offer a comparison of science to metaphysics? If so, could you clarify the premise? Everything so far seems a bit vague to me. I am unclear as to what the premise is. Unless it's this:


1. Materialism, being a belief, theory or claim about ultimate reality, is a metaphysics, and, as such, is no more provable than any other metaphysics.


Ultimate reality according to materialism and ultimate reality according to metaphysics is like comparing apples to turnips. Both can be considered food (ultimate reality being the same two words), but bear little resemblance to each other (different contexts).

So unless you can provide a similarity other than word usage, then there cannot be an adequate comparison. The premise becomes porous, and the discussion flounders into an argument of semantics, where each party dismisses the other due to a lack of agreement on the meaning of words.


Would you like to state the message number of the post in which I claimed to prove something about scientists?


You are right. Your beef seems to be with science enthusiasts. I stand corrected.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 117
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/28/2010 7:45:48 PM


Which not only does science not "support," it doesn't say a darn thing about it.


Exactly.


So then we're agreed. Talking about science and philosophy is like comparing apples to aardvarks. Philosophy is only about principles and ideals. Science is about the nuts and bolts of experimentation and observation. We can talk about first principles when it comes to science. However, just because someone says that a particular philosophy holds the position that "ultimate reality" is the material on which its based, science remains open to the possibility that it might be something else. Say, energy, for instance.


In the perfectly valid (as far as it goes) physial account, everything about us is the result of chemistry. Chemistry is well known to involve quantum phenomena. So, in that sense, you're right about that. Schroedinger said that there was no reason to believe that anything other than ordinary chemistry is involved.


But that's not to say he said it was the only explanation. Just the one we can experiment with and observe.


Yes, metaphysics isn't accessible to laboratory experiments. But comparisons can be made about such things as arbitrariness. I told why Materialism has the big fault of believing in an arbitrary ulitimate reality.


Metaphysics isn't accessible to laboratory experiments because metaphysics is philosophy. As for materialism believing in an "arbitrary" ultimate reality, well, first of all you're presuming to speak for a philosophy you disagree with. So your argument is going to be largely biased in favour of your own view.

In the simile of the darkened room, think of it as our universe. Even if our eyes adapt a bit to the dark, such as we are able to gain a bit more information, we still have a long way toward understanding everything about that room. It's decor. It's textures. How far it extends. We could sit and philosophize about it all day. Or we can go about trying to get information about it. Again, perhaps we can get hints of other "rooms." That's science.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 119
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/29/2010 9:20:01 AM

You want "chapter and verse". You want scriptural citation. I made it clear, in my first reply to you, that I at no time have I invokved or relied upon the Upanishads or any scipture for authority. The philosophical arguments that I've posted must stand on their own merits. If you disagree with them, say so. Otherwise, can it.


So then, why mention them to begin with? How can you cite them if you cannot use specifics from them to bolster your case? If you don't claim specific knowledge of the material, then how can you presume to use it even in this limited manner? If your arguments are so strong, surely they can stand without you bringing in apparently irrelevant or unrelated - even potentially contradictory - information.


You want me to tell you all about the Upanishads. My arguments are not scripturally-based. They're philosphical. If you want to hear scripture quoted and cited, maybe you'd be happier on a religion forum.


The same standard would apply to you. Since the Upanishads are essentially a religious document, their mention should then realistically be in a religious forum, not a philosophical one.


Some here want to equate Materialism and science. But some of the greatest scientists weren't Materialists. Newton, Einstein and Schroedinger weren't Materialists.


But they were superb scientists, for the most part. (Newton was also an alchemist.) They understood and used scientific methodology. This too is largely irrelevant since Materialism is a philosophy and not a methodology.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 127
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/29/2010 10:25:35 AM

I made it clear that I'm not using the Upanishads as a source of citations or authority for what I say. What I say must rest entirely on its own merits.


And...


Don't be an ass. I mentioned them to show that I'm not trying to take original credit. I've been discussing philosophy, not scripture.


*sigh* There you go again with your own "angry noises." Okay, let's go back to Msg 22:


This is my first posting about the comparison of Materialism with another metaphysics, Indian Metaphysics. By Indian Metaphysics, I refer to the metaphysics of Vedanta, the metaphysics of the Upanishads.


That's a specific reference with a specific intent. That appeared to be a direct reference with the intent to cite specific examples.

In Message 25, you wrote:


Tnen I ran across the Upanishads, and that was the end of trying to make Materialism work.


Again, at this point, a true academic approach would be to offer specific examples of how your experience with the Upanishads let to specific changes in your perception of "Materialism." Kind of like an evolutionary biologist referencing Charles Darwin for historical context in a talk but not mentioning anything about the Origin of Species.

Then there's message 45. You told me specifically:


What am I comparing? I'm comparing two metaphysical theories. Just as I said I intended to do. I'm comparing the metaphysical theory that I defined as Materialism to the metaphysical theory that I defined as Indian Metaphysics, the metaphysics of Vedanta, and of the Upanishads.


So, where's the beef? Either you know what you're talking about or not. Which is it?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 132
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/29/2010 12:47:23 PM

If you believe that the physical universe is all of reality, then you believe that it's the ulitmate reality.


Belief is irrelevant as it is a statement of personal preference. It has nothing to do with whether there is an ultimate reality, what it is and what qualities it has.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 133
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/29/2010 3:06:39 PM

I was simply responding in kind, you hypocritical twit.


Ah, the name calling. Usually the last refuge of someone who thinks if he's obnoxious and pushy enough, he'll "win." Fail.


You are a moron.


You see, I try to avoid calling people names. It's rude. Vulgar. Crass. Contributes absolutely nothing and only serves to highlight the weakness of one's own arguments. However, if I were inclined to do so, I might be inclined to call you a derivative of 'Richard.' But I'll refrain.


There is no cultural bias in saying that extended lives and greater comforts is something that all humans strive for. Even a Spartan would find their place in our "flabby, over-indulged and self-obsessed society ". Lord knows I have. I don't need to interview another human being to to confirm what is blazingly obvious to everone but you.


That's right. People with bias usually can't or won't see it.


"Context" is largely the refuge of people who want to impose their person views on others.


No, that refuge is usually crass and boorish behaviour such as calling someone "moron" and "twit" rather than engaging in reasoned and civil discourse.


You don't seem to know what the word "moot" means.


Here's one definition: "of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic."


and come back with a bit of knowledge.


You first. See if you can locate a clue while you're at it.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 134
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/29/2010 3:27:21 PM
Then you must believe that something that I said is inconsistent with or mis-states Indian Metaphysics.


You haven't stated anything that is either consistent or inconsistent with Hindu Metaphysics. All you have offered, are vague references to your own personal experience.

Not enough to base a comparison.


You want "chapter and verse". You want scriptural citation.


Nope. I would be content with a clearly outlined philosophy. Which you have yet to provide.


I haven't cited them. I've merely mentioned them to show that I'm not trying to take original credit.


Then what is your basis for a premise? Are you backpedaling on the outline that you provided?


You want me to tell you all about the Upanishads. My arguments are not scripturally-based. They're philosphical.


I am still waiting for a clear interpretation of their philosophy. I asked for this awhile ago.


1. Science and metaphysics are two entirely separate topics. Science says nothing about metaphysics. Science doesn't support the metaphysics of Materialism. Science doesn't contradict any other metaphysics, including Indian Metaphysics.

2. Materialisn is as unprovable as any other metaphysics.

3.. Materialism has a big problem, with its belief in an arbitrary ultimate reality.


Silly me, I thought you referenced Hindu metaphysics in your outline...I thought you were providing a comparison.


There you prove that you haven't a clue what you're saying. You yourself had just quoted me as saying that Materialism is a metaphysics.


Uhm...I quoted you in the hopes of receiving clarification. You know, conscious dialogue.


Then you speak of Materialism and metaphysics as if they were two different things.


The only unifying term that you have provided, is "ultimate reality". I am sorry...but isn't that part of your premise? I was merely pointing out that the two are different in context.



The same standard would apply to you. Since the Upanishads are essentially a religious document, their mention should then realistically be in a religious forum, not a philosophical one.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be an ass.


Perhaps you would do yourself a service by posting through example, instead of relying on the pejorative epithet.


I was simply responding in kind, you hypocritical twit.


Wow...insult much. This is often a sign of a deteriorated position within a stance of debate.


It was an appeal to the masses.


Argumentum ad populum

At least you are honest...I respect that.


You are a moron. There is no cultural bias in saying that extended lives and greater comforts is something that all humans strive for.


Uhm, there might be. Everything we know so far about the Spartans supports that they were a war-like nation, and that death was irrelevant compared to what they considered as "honour". Comfort is YMMV...


"Context" is largely the refuge of people who want to impose their person views on others.


I thought that it was the wisdom of those who seek clarification. Sometimes it is in the face of those who don't provide any.


You don't seem to know what the word "moot" means.


I checked your reference and scrolled down to this:


2 obsolete


Under Merriam-Webster.

Apparently, it is all about the context...
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 136
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/29/2010 4:01:51 PM
Ok, he's finally disclosed his technique.


Dude, truncating a quote to take it out of context is futile, ...really, ...one needs only to read the quote in its entirety to understand the explicit meaning.

The out of context thing seems to be your only trick, ...but it's clear that it doesn't fool anybody.


As I said elsewhere, Stargazer comes out of the starting gate bucking, snorting and raging. Conduct that expresses raging anger, right from the start, in his initial post on a topic. And then he complains about the "level of discourse" :-)


Those reading the thread and this forum can see who started what, it's a matter of record, prevarication on your part doesn't change this "ultimate reality".
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 138
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/29/2010 4:20:56 PM


If I act arrogant and dismissive enough from the outset,...



Ok, he's finally disclosed his technique.




Dammit App, you nearly made milk come out of my nose! That was hilarious! Pathetic but hilarious.

However, I think Dr. Wow handled that one suitably enough. But I've yet to see you actually answer a straight challenge with a straight answer.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 139
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/29/2010 4:31:17 PM

And then he complains about the "level of discourse" :-)

Which is entirely reasonable.

To sum up this thread (the discourse): you take a preexisting name for a certain worldview, misrepresent it by injecting certain flawed claims into it, then claim that those whom you disagree with subscribe to said redefined (by you) worldview, and then you proceed to point out its flaws (inserted previously by you), thereby insinuating the superiority of your worldview (which is undefined thus far) over that of your opponents. You claim to be doing all this is in response to your opponents' insinuations of superiority in the past-- although I doubt they started whole threads to proclaim and "prove" their superiority.

When called on this scheme, rather than engaging in intellectually honest discussion (which would, indeed, be challenging considering the intellectually dishonest foundation of the thread), you deflect true discussion and opportunity for learning and refinement through the use of sophistic devices such as more strawmen, goalpost moving, dismissal, ambiguity, and its relative, plausible deniability. Given enough of those elements, there comes the realization that relevance and profundity are lacking in your assertions.

Finally, you presumably pat yourself on the back for "accomplishing" all this-- which is fine, as no one else will.

*yawns* Must be a slow week around here... or a slow couple of weeks, even...

But these can all be dismissed as "angry noises."
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >