Philosophy Now Forum

In case you're not up to speed, Walker is a bored teenager who is having to take a break from his favoured pastime, because of the blisters on his penis caused by over indulgence. His right hand is similarly afflicted. To pass the time, he is performing his own Sokal experiment, to see if anyone will take his gibberish seriously.
Nick_A is a middle aged virgin who has blown his mind by reading his first ever book.
Yiostheous has a brain that not only resembles a walnut, but shares it's intellectual capacity. She is in fact Nick_A's landlady and takes out her frustration at his continual rebuffal of her sexual advances by hating everyone.
Wassat? Evidence? These posts have been created, who else could have done it? Besides, the fact that you can't prove me wrong, proves I'm right.

Seems like you were overestimated.

Somebody should ask Yios if this meets his special ad hom standard.

Walker wrote:Seems like you were overestimated.

Gosh. Was I really subject to an estimate? How flattering. Anyway, which of you idiots got it wrong, or was it a team fuck up?

uwot wrote: Besides, the fact that you can't prove me wrong, proves I'm right.

Q.E.D.? - not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Does not prove that you are right, except on an elementary school playground.

What was your point in this post, I assume you had one.

The fallacy of argument from ignorance is just one of the many fallacies that a neophyte like uwot has no clue about.

His whole life is full of fallacies.

Sounds like a kid in high school ... probably in his sophomore year ... not even worth the space he takes up on the Internet.

Fairly obvious I'd have thought, he's just putting forward their argument for their being a 'God' in fairly earthy terms.

Quite a surprise really.

yiostheoy wrote:The fallacy of argument from ignorance is just one of the many fallacies that a neophyte like uwot has no clue about.

Has this berk put forward his argument for his belief in a 'god' yet?

yiostheoy wrote:The fallacy of argument from ignorance is just one of the many fallacies that a neophyte like uwot has no clue about.

His whole life is full of fallacies.

...

And he's got the bits of paper to prove it!

thedoc wrote:Q.E.D.? - not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Does not prove that you are right, except on an elementary school playground.
What was your point in this post, I assume you had one.

Well, the point you make above, was the point of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=19182
The point of the current thread is one I have made several times before. We are all witness to the same phenomena: the world does what it does and we have to make sense of it. Most people create a story they are happy with and leave it at that. Some though aren't content until everyone thinks as they do, and that's when the trouble starts.

uwot wrote:

thedoc wrote:Q.E.D.? - not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Does not prove that you are right, except on an elementary school playground.
What was your point in this post, I assume you had one.

Well, the point you make above, was the point of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=19182
The point of the current thread is one I have made several times before. We are all witness to the same phenomena: the world does what it does and we have to make sense of it. Most people create a story they are happy with and leave it at that. Some though aren't content until everyone thinks as they do, and that's when the trouble starts.

And the trouble is that when others look at the world and don't actually see what is there, but what they think should be there.

thedoc wrote:And the trouble is that when others look at the world and don't actually see what is there, but what they think should be there.

It's not really what is or isn't there that's the trouble. I have said many times that any metaphysical system could be true and it is none of my business how other people choose to see the world. Some loudmouths make it my business by telling me that I am stupid or ignorant for not seeing the world their way. I think both theists and atheists are entitled to object to that. Generally, I will only argue when something is presented as evidence, but some people are so revolting (I'm sure their mums love them) that they just need a bit of a kicking.

uwot wrote:

thedoc wrote:And the trouble is that when others look at the world and don't actually see what is there, but what they think should be there.

It's not really what is or isn't there that's the trouble. I have said many times that any metaphysical system could be true and it is none of my business how other people choose to see the world. Some loudmouths make it my business by telling me that I am stupid or ignorant for not seeing the world their way. I think both theists and atheists are entitled to object to that. Generally, I will only argue when something is presented as evidence, but some people are so revolting (I'm sure their mums love them) that they just need a bit of a kicking.

Now are you done kicking the hell out of the so-called 'newcomers' who seem to be 'old hands'?
Or is there more to come...

Good Luck to all real newcomers. All ye who enter here...enjoy the good, bad and the ugly !

Peace be with you

marjoram_blues wrote:Now are you done kicking the hell out of the so-called 'newcomers' who seem to be 'old hands'?
Or is there more to come...

Depends if they call me stupid for not agreeing with them.

marjoram_blues wrote:Good Luck to all real newcomers. All ye who enter here...enjoy the good, bad and the ugly !

Peace be with you

Indeed.