Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 106

Thread: Internet on Einstein

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Directly above the center of the Earth
    Posts
    4,889


    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Scythe Death View Post
    Saying that belief or non-belief signifying characteristics in people is silly is even more silly; it ignores the fact that it's a very important characteristic of the foundation of a person's way of thinking.

    It's, unfortunately, not as simple as you wish it was since both grounds (theism and atheism) have an inherent difference in thought. It's not as black and white. It's certainly untrue to say that whether you believe or not doesn't make a difference; there's a whole complex of thought behind this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scythe Death
    It is deplorable that people are eschewing Einstein for such arbitrary reasons. I say arbitrary because arbitrariness is the sole foundation of belief in people.
    Taking things one at a time here, you are saying that belief or non belief in an individual is a very important characteristic of the foundation of a person's way of thinking, while also being completely arbitrary and thus a silly reason to criticize someone.

    You are contradicting yourself so heavily that it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.
    “It is a strange paradox that today’s central banks are generally staffed by economists, who by and large profess a belief in a theory which says that their jobs are, at the best, unnecessary, and more likely wealth-destroying. Needless to say, this is not a point widely discussed among respectable economists. Nevertheless, it is an issue worth pondering.”

    George Cooper, The Origin of Economic Crises

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    7,241


    Default

    Oh now I remember you. You're that guy. What's your obsession with this?
    I mean that religion is for the weak minded in the way that it is an escapism for death among many things.
    The thing that bothers me about debating on the internet is that you can always backtrack to one of your points and say you meant something else when a flaw is found in your argument.

    The entire point of your first post was basically religion is for idiots and closed minded people and Einstein agrees with me. So idiocy and close mindedness what I naturally inferred by "weak minded." Then you change your definition of weak minded to "escapism from death." What does that have to do with anything you said in your original post?
    Last edited by Jebus; 05-18-2008 at 11:21 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    267


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mota Boy View Post
    Taking things one at a time here, you are saying that belief or non belief in an individual is a very important characteristic of the foundation of a person's way of thinking, while also being completely arbitrary and thus a silly reason to criticize someone.

    You are contradicting yourself so heavily that it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.
    You're worthless. It's not arbitrary, it's basic understanding of the human mind. It's not arbitrary at all. Most of the people don't have a belief just because yes.

    You're trying too hard to bring arguments together.

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Miss
    My point? What I described is trolling.
    Yes.. so?

    Actually, I'm trying to be a little more serious about this than I was last time. I want some good arguments you guys can give me instead of trying to make you guys mad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jebus
    The thing that bothers me about debating on the internet is that you can always backtrack to one of your points and say you meant something else when a flaw is found in your argument.

    The entire point of your first post was basically religion is for idiots and closed minded people and Einstein agrees with me. So idiocy and close mindedness what I naturally inferred by "weak minded." Then you change your definition of weak minded to "escapism from death." What does that have to do with anything you said in your original post?
    What a good straw man.





    That's a logical fallacy by the way.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cascadian Exile
    Posts
    19,597


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scythe Death View Post
    You're worthless. It's not arbitrary, it's basic understanding of the human mind. It's not arbitrary at all. Most of the people don't have a belief just because yes.

    You're trying too hard to bring arguments together.


    Yes.. so?

    Actually, I'm trying to be a little more serious about this than I was last time. I want some good arguments you guys can give me instead of trying to make you guys mad.


    What a good straw man.





    That's a logical fallacy by the way.
    Speaking of logical fallacies. (And a Straw man argument is not a logical fallacy.)

    However an ad-hominem comment is a logical fallacy. Instead of picking apart his argument, you pick apart the man. It's a dirty method of debating, as a method of argument it's quite worthless in negating anything, and it changes the atmosphere of the debate greatly.

    Besides why should someone debate with you when the history of your debates here consists of trying to make people angry? Your pretentious holier-than-thou attitude is repugnant and you've offered no rebuttals so far to anyone who's replied to you.

    With this kind of behavior I don't see why anyone should take you seriously, at all?
    Quote Originally Posted by T-6005 View Post
    I do no be following, fortune prick me if I do no.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    267


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wheelchairman View Post
    Speaking of logical fallacies. (And a Straw man argument is not a logical fallacy.)

    However an ad-hominem comment is a logical fallacy. Instead of picking apart his argument, you pick apart the man. It's a dirty method of debating, as a method of argument it's quite worthless in negating anything, and it changes the atmosphere of the debate greatly.

    Besides why should someone debate with you when the history of your debates here consists of trying to make people angry? Your pretentious holier-than-thou attitude is repugnant and you've offered no rebuttals so far to anyone who's replied to you.

    With this kind of behavior I don't see why anyone should take you seriously, at all?
    Hey look, someone doesn't understand ad hominem completely. My argument wasn't "you're worthless", that was an additional comment. My argument is the sentence next to it. It brings into conversation that what he believes is arbitrary actually has a viable basis in psychology. (Ad hominem is always the first thing people associate with logical fallacies, curiously.)

    How isn't the "straw man" a logical fallacy when what this guy is doing is altering the context of my argument into something he can knock down while the straw man twisted reality in such a ludicrous manner, it's simply delusional to apply into my post and, even worse, cling to it.

    You're poisoning the well (a logical fallacy) by thinking my purpose is to troll. I've already stated that I'm trying to have an actual argument. I apologize for the past trolling.

    I've rebutted Mota's belief that faith is unrelated to a person's way of thinking albeit perhaps not in the quality or explanation that I should. What is there to rebut about Jebus' straw man?

    I'm quite sure you understand the premises, let's see an actual argument from you.
    Last edited by Scythe Death; 05-19-2008 at 03:52 PM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    7,241


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scythe Death View Post
    What a good straw man.
    That's a logical fallacy by the way.
    Oh, good for you. You know what straw man means.

    How about answering my question and explaining how I misinterpreted you? You start off with saying how Einstein thinks religion is foolish and it helps you confirm what you already believe. Then you say religious people should be more open minded because Einstein backs you up. Stop we me when I'm wrong. Then you bring up an isolated incident of people attacking Einstein's intelligence. Finally you say people with religion are weak minded based on those points. Don't you think it's a fair conclusion that by weak minded you meant idiocy and closed mindedness? Where did I twist your words?

    So I point out the inherit irony in your post because a catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) of all people actually came up with a central point in cosmology and in your humanistic world view. I mean, how more open minded do you have to be?

    You respond by saying that by weak minded you actually meant escapism for death. Now tell me where in your first post does it back up your new definition for weak minded?
    Last edited by Jebus; 05-19-2008 at 09:26 AM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Directly above the center of the Earth
    Posts
    4,889


    Lightbulb

    You know, there is a reason that nobody takes you seriously. Now, it could be that everyone else is crazy, but Occam's razor doesn't particularly like that argument.
    “It is a strange paradox that today’s central banks are generally staffed by economists, who by and large profess a belief in a theory which says that their jobs are, at the best, unnecessary, and more likely wealth-destroying. Needless to say, this is not a point widely discussed among respectable economists. Nevertheless, it is an issue worth pondering.”

    George Cooper, The Origin of Economic Crises

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    267


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jebus View Post
    You start off with saying how Einstein thinks religion is foolish and it helps you confirm what you already believe.
    You started out wrong. I never said that it helps me confirm what I believe. I said I was comforted with that. Not because Einstein says it, it must be true (that would be argumentum ad verrecundiam), but his opinion could at least be considered rather than blatantly eschewed as it was.

    Then you say religious people should be more open minded because Einstein backs you up. Then you bring up an isolated incident of people attacking Einstein's intelligence. Finally you say people with religion are weak minded based on those points.
    This could be a way to say it, but it does sound rather incriminatory. The case of Einstein was rather just an example of how people eschew anything that puts into jeopardy their mental comfort; my ground isn't based on that incident. It'd be delusional to say that I stand my ground because of Einstein, and we don't really have the same grounds as far as I know.

    So I point out the inherit irony in your post because a catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) of all people actually came up with a central point in cosmology and in your humanistic world view. I mean, how more open minded do you have to be?
    There's also irony in that a Priest wrote a book as professing that God is fictitious. However, that would be irrelevant.

    Lemaître defied the dogmatic principles of religion with his theory. Religion is supposed to be an absolute truth, and science defies religion in so many aspects. Faith is blind, and opting for that instead of actual human research and science to find an answer could be called hindering. Eventually science reaches a point where theories collide with religion, and since believing that religion is an objective truth is puerile, a person might as well go with what makes the most sense (which is science's approach) instead of faith for the sake of comfort and convenience (the sole purpose of religion).

    Saying that religiosity doesn't have an inherent characteristic of weak-mindedness because of a person certainly isn't an argument.

    @Mota: Occam's Razor... it's more like the excuse for the lazy. The universe is infinite and infinitesimal. It could be infinitely complex (as there will always be a smaller block), but it can at least be understood.

    People often discredit science by saying it's way too complex, but they ignore that their belief is inherently more complicated that the answers science can give you. The universe can be explained by viable means through science at least, but when we think of religion, this omnipotent and omnipresent God is infinitely more complex than the universe itself. It's just so plain ridiculous that people give up in trying to explain god, a god that defies so many basic principles of the universe. What is this god made of, when did it start.. so many questions meant to remain unanswered.

    What seemed to the simplest answer is actually completely unexplainable. Now this is real cognitive dissonance. If that's your definition of simplest solution, then let's just say that the universe and its order have always existed. Do you see the lapse of logic?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,286


    Red face

    awww would you look at that, it's our good ol' delusions of eloquence guy again. how adorables. Scythe Death, lemme pinch yer cheeks!

    When I'm good, I'm very, very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    8,902


    Default

    Can't you get yourself a free blogspace over at wordpress.com or blogger.com or whatever? Join a militant atheist web forum or go troll a Jesus fan club. Nobody over here cares - fact.

    Also, what's your address? I have a copy of The God Delusion I need to get rid of, and I think you'd like it - the writer is also a douche.

    Edit: Obviously directed at Scythe, not Sunny.
    and no wonder hearts and minds have been won

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •