Spinoza99, please explain . . .

Holy Crap!
spinoza99
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:19 am
Contact:

Re: Spinoza99, please explain . . .

Post by spinoza99 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:56 pm

FBM wrote:
I've demonstrated several times in the other thread where you've erred in your logic.
You just refused to answer my questions, and you said my definitions were tautologies when you know full well what I mean, not to mention some words are so basic that they cannot be defined. I gave a rather precise description of knowledge and you refused to accept it offering no reason or any counter definition, or a justification that knowledge does not exist.
For instance, starting with your favored conclusion, god, and working ad hoc to piece together support for it.
That's not what I did and since you haven't quoted any of my statements and shown where I did that, it's very hard for me to trust your reasoning.
I've tried to clue you in that the way serious scholars go about determining the truth or falsity or probability of a claim is to first start with your favored question, not your favored answer. Then you examine the relevant evidence and base your conclusion on whatever the evidence says, whether or not it supports your pet idea. If it pisses on your pet theory, suck it up, be a man about it and move on. Accept reality when it stares you in the face, rather than squirm around and cobble together one garbled word salad after another as a defense against that reality.

Your "evidence" is all word salad, none of which specifically supports your claim that a supernatural sky-daddy exists. You're taking unrelated information, twisting it unrecognizably, juxtaposing it with further unrelated data, and claiming fallaciously that it somehow supports your nonsensical conclusion. You have no empirical evidence whatsoever that specifically supports your claim that there is some sort of supernatural being in charge of all this. If you have some, out with it. Like I said, without empirical evidence, we may as well be arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It's a pointless, speculative waste of time and an embarrassment to the human species. I'd hate to be the one to have to explain to an alien visitor that we still have people who take this sort of crap seriously and who are not required to be under constant supervision*.
All's you're doing in the above paragraphs is saying I'm wrong without giving any reasons why. You won't quote any of my proofs or examine any of my ideas, all you do is just say I'm wrong but in very many words.
Those who are most effective at reproducing will reproduce. Therefore new species can arise by chance. Charles Darwin.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Spinoza99, please explain . . .

Post by FBM » Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:46 pm

spinoza99 wrote:
FBM wrote:
I've demonstrated several times in the other thread where you've erred in your logic.
You just refused to answer my questions, and you said my definitions were tautologies when you know full well what I mean,
Power is ability, knowledge is knowing... When you make statements like that, one thing I do know for sure is that you don't have any training in logic.
not to mention some words are so basic that they cannot be defined.
Are you serious? Can't be defined? If it can't be defined, it can't carry any meaning, and thus, isn't a word. To the contrary. Look up 'power' or 'knowledge' or 'will' in the dictionary. You'll find more definitions than you can shake a stick at. My point was that you weren't specifying which of the many definitions you were using. Without specifying which among the dozens of possible meanings and nuances you're using, something done routinely by trained thinkers, you wind up with ambiguities and invite arguments to run wild because of different connotations assumed by different participants.
I gave a rather precise description of knowledge and you refused to accept it offering no reason or any counter definition, or a justification that knowledge does not exist.
"Knowledge is knowing how to..." Please. Logic 101. I strongly recomment taking the class or at least working through a Cliff's Notes about it. I demonstrated what I set out to, that you had set up a false dichotomy based on black-and-white thinking. It's not necessary for me to refute your whole "argument" point by point in order to demonstrate that, which, I might add, you seem to be conspicuously avoiding mentioning. Nor is it necessary for me to offer a counter-definition when I simply claimed that yours was imprecise. We're talking about your "argument", you define the terms. Just do it precisely enough that we can understand what you mean. You have yet to specify how you're using the word. Let me help.
knowledge knowl·edge (nlj)
n.
1. The state or fact of knowing.
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
5. Specific information about something.
6. Carnal knowledge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English knoulech : knouen, to know; see know + -leche, n. suff.]
Synonyms: knowledge, information, learning, erudition, lore1, scholarship
These nouns refer to what is known, as through study or experience. Knowledge is the broadest: "Science is organized knowledge" (Herbert Spencer).
Information often implies a collection of facts and data: "A man's judgment cannot be better than the information on which he has based it" (Arthur Hays Sulzberger).
Learning usually refers to knowledge gained by schooling and study: "Learning ... must be sought for with ardor and attended to with diligence" (Abigail Adams).
Erudition implies profound, often specialized knowledge: "Some have criticized his poetry as elitist, unnecessarily impervious to readers who do not share his erudition" (Elizabeth Kastor).
Lore is usually applied to knowledge gained through tradition or anecdote about a particular subject: Many American folktales concern the lore of frontier life.
Scholarship is the mastery of a particular area of learning reflected in a scholar's work: A good journal article shows ample evidence of the author's scholarship.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
knowledge [ˈnɒlɪdʒ]
n
1. the facts, feelings or experiences known by a person or group of people
2. the state of knowing
3. awareness, consciousness, or familiarity gained by experience or learning
4. erudition or informed learning
5. specific information about a subject
6. (Law) sexual intercourse (obsolete except in the legal phrase carnal knowledge)
come to one's knowledge to become known to one
to my knowledge
a. as I understand it
b. as I know
grow out of one's knowledge Irish to behave in a presumptuous or conceited manner


You can easily see from this simple dictionary entry that your attempt to distinguish between knowledge and information falls apart. If you want people to understand what you mean, use words precisely. It's a skill. If you assume others are using the same definitions and assumptions that you are, you'll find yourself bombarded on all sides by people using different connotations, and thus making different arguments. I'm asking you to show some skill in both thinking and language. Your "argument" shows little of either.

For instance, starting with your favored conclusion, god, and working ad hoc to piece together support for it.
That's not what I did and since you haven't quoted any of my statements and shown where I did that, it's very hard for me to trust your reasoning.
So what answer were you looking for when you started accumulating that (mis)information? What question were you trying to answer? Please tell me at exactly what point you took an objective look at the evidence and was forced to conclude, 'Well, then. I have no choice but to conclude that there is a god behind all this.' Be honest. You believed in some sort of deity first, then started cobbling this stuff together to try to come up with a rational ad hoc justification for what you already want to believe. C'mon. We're not children here.
All's you're doing in the above paragraphs is saying I'm wrong without giving any reasons why. You won't quote any of my proofs or examine any of my ideas, all you do is just say I'm wrong but in very many words.
I've shown in sufficient detail where your logic is flawed. All that stuff about knowledge, will and power. Did you forget that? False dichotomies based on black-and-white thinking? Ambiguities? I quoted of that drivel to demonstrate major flaws in your approach and your logic. Want me to quote it from the other thread?
:coffee:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Spinoza99, please explain . . .

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:54 pm

Spinmeister, you still haven't answered the OP.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Bella Fortuna
Sister Golden Hair
Posts: 79685
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:45 am
About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend,
Nor services to do, till you require.
Location: Scotlifornia
Contact:

Re: Spinoza99, please explain . . .

Post by Bella Fortuna » Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:56 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:Spinmeister, you still haven't answered the OP.
You want him to 'splain shit?
Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Image
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Spinoza99, please explain . . .

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:03 pm

Bella Fortuna wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:Spinmeister, you still haven't answered the OP.
You want him to 'splain shit?
Bingo.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Link
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:19 pm
About me: I'm here to save the princess Zelda
Location: Shakespeareville
Contact:

Re: Spinoza99, please explain . . .

Post by Link » Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:14 pm

He hasn't answered my post either :(

Spinoza, I don't have time to read your 11000 word post whilst at work, would you mind answering my questions anyway as if you hadn't written that essay yet?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests