Rambling or coherent?

[CatharzGodfoot]

I think the point he's making is that blind obedience to anything is bad. I'm just sayin'.

Yeah, well Tzor has been clinging to the same religion I assume he was raised to, and I've been clinging to the same lack of one I was born with. In that context blind obedience is pretty much beside the point.

Atheism is a negative hypothesis, making it pretty much an unprovable position.

I'll keep my eyes open in case Jesus cares enough about keeping my family from being tortured for eternity to come down here and let me put my hand in his hole. But until then I'm going to keep beating off now and then, fucking my girlfriend of 7 years even though we aren't married, and taking God's name in vain because I was raised to it.

[Prak]

I'll keep my eyes open in case Jesus cares enough about keeping my family from being tortured for eternity to come down here and let me put my hand in his hole. But until then I'm going to keep beating off now and then, fucking my girlfriend of 7 years even though we aren't married, and taking God's name in vain because I was raised to it.

I was going to say amen, then realized how ironic that would be...

[PhoneLobster]

I think the point he's making is that blind obedience to anything is bad. I'm just sayin'.

Nah, the language he is using, vulcan, liberal elite, etc...

It's all very standard party line for the conservative christian nut jobs.

Reason is bad by its nature, ignorant faith is a self proving virtue.

Logic and reason is labelled as 'blind' not because they regard "blind" thought as bad but because they seek to put it on par with ignorant blind faith so that ignorant blind faith gets equal air time and consideration despite being, well, ignorant and utterly unfounded in observable reality and meaningful discussion.

Really, you'll find a thousand like him towing the talking points he produced on this one almost word for word.

That's why I make my point. If you say reason and logic is 'bad' then you are promoting a world view based in illogical insanity. Because that is literally what he is doing, not for the first time.

Edit: It's so conforming to the party line prattle I can predict the nature of any response to the criticism. He would have made claims along the lines of the following.

I'd expect claims that you can only feel, create, or appreciate things like art, beauty, love and even lateral thinking through ignorance and blind faith and that these things are in no way observable, explainable or enhanced by sober experience or detailed knowledge and understanding.

Because in the world described by the language he is using to be, say, a scientist, is to be a cold hard heartless Vulcan. Unable to experience love happiness or friendship, to see beauty or create new ideas.

Despite every observation to the contrary about the reality of the lives of those who favour reason and logic over the lack of it. But then, ignoring observation and understanding of reality IS the whole point after all.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

That's why I make my point. If you say reason and logic is 'bad' then you are promoting a world view based in illogical insanity. Because that is literally what he is doing, not for the first time.

Ah, the world-famous Gaming Den escalation of argument! Where someone makes a point, then someone else tries to inflate the other person's point into something extreme!

You're not arguing that logic can in fact be bad and lead to the wrong conclusion as a result, you're arguing that logic is evil and needs to be discarded!

What's the matter, Phonelobster, couldn't find a way to work the Nazis in your argument too?

[tzor]

A few things I thnk need mentioning. I am not for the promotion of illogic. (Except for comedy on TV of course.) I do promote the reasonable application of science, reason and logic. I object to the abuse of the three by a number of groups. Unfortunately I don't see any wacko Conservative Fundamentalists around here trying to say that everything they see has to be a lie because according to what they read in a book it must be so.

I have to go somewhere so I'm keeping this short. Simply put the universe consists of far more than we have come to believe through our own observations and experments. The notion that what we have not yet proven must be false is in itself a gross insult to logic, science and reason no matter if you call it "logic" or not or if you insist that the opposite is "illogic."

[tzor]

Nah, the language he is using, vulcan, liberal elite, etc...

I started using the term "vulcan" to express those who stubbonly refuse to consider anything that is not logically proven by their own reasoning. Almost every major scientific advancement was decried as illogical by the establishment of the time. The height of this insane philosophy occured in the late 19th century when the head of the U.S. pattent office suggested they close up the office because everything that could possibly be invented has already been invented. How insanely wong he was!

I use the term "liberal elite" mostly because I see this attitude among liberals that they must be right because they are right. The best example is that of Al Gore, who came down from the mountain with the two tablets of global warming; an exceptionaly inconvenient truth because his arguments are exceptionally feagile in the first place. But woe to anyone who dares speak out against the great one or who might question his argument.

It's all very standard party line for the conservative christian nut jobs.

Well I'm more than happy to write for pages about those wacky conservative "Christian" fundamentalist nut jobs. But since I don't see any here, I don't see why I should bother. In addition, the notion of honor demands that I refuse a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Reason is bad by its nature, ignorant faith is a self proving virtue.

No. It is faith and reason. They must be together; even from a strictly scientific point of view. Proven scientific theories have never been able to keep up with what we know about the universe. Like the old joke about the hummingbird not being able to fly, (and yet it did) our theories and models leave us with gaping holes which we can only speculate about. Modern theories about the universe, for example, are filled with speculation about dark matter and multiple intersecting universes in order to simply explain why things exist as they do.

In the end we all need to follow the prudent philosophy of Reagan, "Trust but verify." Faith (trust) and reason (verification) must go hand in hand, or we wind up going nowhere alone.

Because in the world described by the language he is using to be, say, a scientist, is to be a cold hard heartless Vulcan. Unable to experience love happiness or friendship, to see beauty or create new ideas.

Actually I tend to insult Vulcans too much. I could actually go on for pages about the one Vulcan emotion - couriosity. As the result a true scientist is a proper Vulcan, knowing what is known, knowing what is not known, seeking out what is not known knowing in the process that in doing so he will only discover still more things that are not yet known. Yet he will persist in doing so simply because the persuit of knowledge is simply "fascinating."

No the people I describe are more like the robots on the planet that enslaved Mudd. When presented with arguments that go against their pre-conveived notion of how the universe should work, they go blank.

Despite every observation to the contrary about the reality of the lives of those who favour reason and logic over the lack of it. But then, ignoring observation and understanding of reality IS the whole point after all.

I do not ignore observation, but all observations are incomplete. I do not ignore the understanding of reality but our understanding is incompete. I object to those on the left or the right who will bend both simply because they believe they must be right.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I use the term "liberal elite" mostly because I see this attitude among liberals that they must be right because they are right. The best example is that of Al Gore, who came down from the mountain with the two tablets of global warming; an exceptionaly inconvenient truth because his arguments are exceptionally feagile in the first place. But woe to anyone who dares speak out against the great one or who might question his argument.

Al Gore didn't invent global warming any more than he invented the internet.

He's spent a lot of time and money trying to spread awareness of global warning, supposedly because he thinks it's a serious problem (and maybe because he likes the spotlight..).

If you want to look at the subject of the Vulcan Liberal Elite that did 'invent' global warming... Well, that's basically every climatologist that's studied the subject. They're too blinded by their adherence to what their training, intuition, and even logic tells them; they are stupidly incapable of believing things which seem completely without merit.

Tzor, with your smug pretensions at superior intelligence, your snide dismissal of 'evidence' so that you can seem 'cool' to your conservative peers.. You are the cancer that is killing America!

Thank you, and goodnight.

[tzor]

If you want to look at the subject of the Vulcan Liberal Elite that did 'invent' global warming... Well, that's basically every climatologist that's studied the subject. They're too blinded by their adherence to what their training, intuition, and even logic tells them; they are stupidly incapable of believing things which seem completely without merit.

As the great Reagan would say, "well there you go again." That is not the opinion of "every climatologist that's studied the subject." Hyperbole is also the great tool of the Vulcan Liberal Elite. Note I never said or wrote that he "invented" it. The great conservative Margaret Thatcher invented it because she got pissed at the coal unions, didn't like the Arabs so she thought only nuclear power was the olny solution for England.

Gore fell for it, hook line and sinker. The result? Only by creating nuclear waste and by installing a potential source of mercury poisoning in every light socket can we survive? I'm sure they will find a reason to destroy the rain forest in the name of Global Warming.

Gore fudged his data in order to prove his case. Take his notion of the linking of CO2 and global temperatrures. People who have looked at his curves see a cause effect relationship allright, but backwards, as much as 30 years backwards. Global warming causes rises in CO2, generally because the warmer oceans cannot hold as much CO2 as colder oceans and this effect takes decades because the oceans are so huge.

So in the name of Global Warming, China is allowed to burn coal at warp speed but some poor doctor in Africa has to choose between running his medical refrgerator or performing operations at night because the industrial world won't let him use anything but a solar cell to operate his hospital.

I don't have "superior" intelligence. I just think everyone should be able to see the fact that tne emperor has no clothes. Global warming research is big business all around the world, funded by an organization that is great for breuracy, the United Nations. (That's the same organizxation that has dictators in charge of human rights committees.)

[PhoneLobster]

Oh look global warming denial again. And Revisionist Reagan worship.

And continued uses of this liberal elite stuff. What's that even supposed to mean? "Socialist Egalitarian Aristocratic Elitists" !?!? or "Heartless Bleeding Heart Lefties" ??? Eh?

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
I am shutting this one down, folks.
[/TGFBS]