Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I have taken pot shots at your words, so I expect the same, OL!

Be my guest, SOB, I'm not overly precious about the use of language in the robust cut and thrust of the discourse.

In fact I don't call myself either an atheist or an agnostic because of the semantic confusion this might cause in the minds of some people. I simply call myself a non-believer because I am unpersuaded by the god hypothesis. In my personal lexicon the non-believer is one who doesn't believe in ANYTHING which requires belief as a pre-condition for acceptance, which puts gods in the same category as astrology, leprechauns, the tooth fairy, homeopathy and the healing power of crystals. I'm just not a believing sort of bloke.

However I am unquestionably a man of opinions and I have an opinion on bloody near everything. Opinions are not beliefs because opinions are infinitely malleable. They can be modified in the light of further evidence and even discarded altogether if such evidence is sufficiently persuasive, a process commonly known as learning.

You are hereby advised that I reserve the right at all times to modify or discard any of my stated opinions without notice or explanation, but you may be re-assured that in such an eventuality I have not done so without good REASON.

Obvious Leo wrote:As I said earlier, arguing over the meanings of words is unworthy of a philosopher and exactly the sort of navel-gazing shit that gives philosophy a bad name.
It's your prerogative to see things as you want to see them, and you shall always do so. The reason humans do this is to stroke themselves. As to most humans, they are their favorite person. But you're dead wrong on the meanings of words, as that's all we have so as to proceed with any sort of communication. If the meanings of words are not examined, so that one can be sure that another gets it, then they've shared nothing. All the time taken to impart them and respond to them has been for naught, one is just spinning their wheels, getting nowhere.

Once words have been committed to the page they pass out of the ownership of the writer and become the property of the reader and this is something that simply can't be helped.
Incorrect, which is why one specifies their intended meaning. Unless you're saying that you are only full of preconceptions, something you denounced in another thread, contradiction? The preconceptions of one can only ever be arrested by the clarification of the other. Unless of course one is far too full of themselves to listen and be cured of their misconception. It's called learning, and one must consider it, or else they've stopped.


I agree with you that intelligence tests are merely a test of what the subject has managed to learn as well as a test of his capacity to retain such learning in his memory in a meaningful form. However it is this process of memory retention which is most germane to such tests because retaining learning in a meaningful form involves the concept of UNDERSTANDING what one has learned. This involves a process of active cognition whereby all the parameters of the learned material are evaluated and compared against what is already understood.
True, in theory, but the problem is that if one bit of false data is thrown into the mix, then the entire structure, comes crashing to the ground. Meaning that just because one says they understand something doesn't mean there's any necessary truth contained within that which they believe they understand. For instance above you condemn the arguing over the meanings of words, however this can certainly lead to misconception, thus a shaky foundation of so called knowledge.

Such an active process of cognition must obviously be impaired if the subject has deliberately chosen to obscure a suite of knowledge parameters beneath a veil of beliefs which he has already defined as absolute truths.
Obviously, yet remember that any so called suite of knowledge, is often merely theory, and sometimes it's been bought and sold!

When he does this he immediately interprets any new learning in the context of such absolutes.
Case by case, I'd say. But I'm glad to see you have a crystal ball; preconceived absolutes?

The results of the surveys which skip and Hobbes allude to are thus utterly unsurprising.
Which only speaks of those minds that were part of the survey, not necessarily the object of their belief.

Skip has already adequately made the point that such surveys are purely statistical analyses and that for every sweeping generalisation there must necessarily always be a great many outstanding exceptions.
He also said that as to ones IQ, he'd be the judge. Where we'd probably all tend to do the same, the findings of any of us would not necessarily be conclusive. Of course we can toot our own horns as much as we like! It's just that some do it more than others.

Atheists are smarter...

bobevenson wrote:Not a very smart statement,]

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Not a very smart statement,]

What statement?

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Not a very smart statement,]

What statement?

Part of the title of this stupid thread.

bobevenson wrote:Why would I want to follow a stupid thread with a stupid title, huh?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...you the deluded theist.

bobevenson wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...you the deluded theist.

Oh, really? Why don't you give me your take on how I was able to discover in 20 minutes the origin of Cincinnati's Queen City name, something the rest of the world couldn't do in 170 years, connecting Cincinnati to Babylon and ancient Rome in the book of Revelation, as certified by the Cincinnati Public Library. That's just one of many mystical events establishing my prophetic credentials.

bobevenson wrote:Why would I want to follow a stupid thread with a stupid title, huh?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...you the deluded theist.

Oh, really? Why don't you give me your take on how I was able to discover in 20 minutes the origin of Cincinnati's Queen City name, something the rest of the world couldn't do in 170 years, connecting Cincinnati to Babylon and ancient Rome in the book of Revelation, as certified by the Cincinnati Public Library. That's just one of many mystical events establishing my prophetic credentials.

I take that back, you're both self fellating.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...you the deluded theist.

bobevenson wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Oh, really? Why don't you give me your take on how I was able to discover in 20 minutes the origin of Cincinnati's Queen City name, something the rest of the world couldn't do in 170 years, connecting Cincinnati to Babylon and ancient Rome in the book of Revelation, as certified by the Cincinnati Public Library. That's just one of many mystical events establishing my prophetic credentials.

I take that back, you're both self fellating.

Does winking at me mean you're gay?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:As to your message, if it could actually be taken seriously...