| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Atheistagnostic" |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2005 12:53:34 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Physics and metaphysics |
Craig Franck wrote:
"Mind" is now just tag for "conscious experience."
And we all know that humans (just like all organisims presenting with
operant behavior) appear to be conscious of their surroundings, therefore
mind exists? I have to tag that kind of argument "Equivocation."
The way I see it, mind is just a back-door attempt at giving man a soul
that God can then damn to Hell for all eternity, since mind, soul, spirit,
or whatever you want to call it, is all just the same kind of empty
metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact that you can demonstrate
scientifically, right?
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
10 Mar 2005 03:32:45 PM |
|
|
In article <FY6dnW8xV9EyCq3fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
"Mind" is now just tag for "conscious experience."
And we all know that humans (just like all organisims presenting with
operant behavior) appear to be conscious of their surroundings, therefore
mind exists? I have to tag that kind of argument "Equivocation."
Does Simple Septic only have unconscious experiences? From the tenor of
his attempts at logic, one could easily presume so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
11 Mar 2005 11:18:55 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <FY6dnW8xV9EyCq3fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
"Mind" is now just tag for "conscious experience."
And we all know that humans (just like all organisims presenting with
operant behavior) appear to be conscious of their surroundings, therefore
mind exists? I have to tag that kind of argument "Equivocation."
Does Simple Septic only have unconscious experiences?
Did "Simple Septic" say that? No. Stop making ***** up, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
11 Mar 2005 01:33:09 PM |
|
|
In article <7bSdnT0R5LqfTqzfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <FY6dnW8xV9EyCq3fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
"Mind" is now just tag for "conscious experience."
And we all know that humans (just like all organisims presenting with
operant behavior) appear to be conscious of their surroundings, therefore
mind exists? I have to tag that kind of argument "Equivocation."
Does Simple Septic only have unconscious experiences?
Did "Simple Septic" say that? No. Stop making ***** up, moron.
Submoron Simple Septic seems to be denying that there is any such thing
as a conscious mind, which would heave him with either an unconscious
mind or no mind at all.
Well, which is it, Submoron?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
11 Mar 2005 01:54:29 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <7bSdnT0R5LqfTqzfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <FY6dnW8xV9EyCq3fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
"Mind" is now just tag for "conscious experience."
And we all know that humans (just like all organisims presenting with
operant behavior) appear to be conscious of their surroundings, therefore
mind exists? I have to tag that kind of argument "Equivocation."
Does Simple Septic only have unconscious experiences?
Did "Simple Septic" say that? No. Stop making ***** up, moron.
Submoron Simple Septic seems to be denying that there is any such thing
as a conscious mind, which would heave him with either an unconscious
mind or no mind at all.
I haven't denied that any organism presenting with operant behavior
(operating in his environment) requires awareness of that environment, and
awareness of the whereabouts of his body in it, else he would immediatly
fall flat on his ***** and die of starvation and thirst; all I did was point
out the fact that equating 'mind' with 'conscious experience' is
equivocation, just like equating 'God' with 'love' or 'universe'.
Any questions on this point, or are you in a hurry to get back to building
your straw man, sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
11 Mar 2005 05:59:19 PM |
|
|
In article <3YudnT4RxLjoaqzfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <7bSdnT0R5LqfTqzfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <FY6dnW8xV9EyCq3fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
"Mind" is now just tag for "conscious experience."
And we all know that humans (just like all organisims presenting with
operant behavior) appear to be conscious of their surroundings, therefore
mind exists? I have to tag that kind of argument "Equivocation."
Does Simple Septic only have unconscious experiences?
Did "Simple Septic" say that? No. Stop making ***** up, moron.
Submoron Simple Septic seems to be denying that there is any such thing
as a conscious mind, which would leave him with either an unconscious
mind or no mind at all.
I haven't denied that any organism presenting with operant behavior
(operating in his environment) requires awareness of that environment, and
awareness of the whereabouts of his body in it, else he would immediatly
fall flat on his ***** and die of starvation and thirst; all I did was point
out the fact that equating 'mind' with 'conscious experience' is
equivocation, just like equating 'God' with 'love' or 'universe'.
Any questions on this point, or are you in a hurry to get back to building
your straw man, sir?
What precisely is is conciousness or conscious experience if there is
no mind to do the experiencing?
I cannot allow conciousness without a mind to experience it. So it is
Submoron Simple Septic's unconciousness that is the straw man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 02:35:48 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <3YudnT4RxLjoaqzfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <7bSdnT0R5LqfTqzfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <FY6dnW8xV9EyCq3fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
"Mind" is now just tag for "conscious experience."
And we all know that humans (just like all organisims presenting with
operant behavior) appear to be conscious of their surroundings, therefore
mind exists? I have to tag that kind of argument "Equivocation."
Does Simple Septic only have unconscious experiences?
Did "Simple Septic" say that? No. Stop making ***** up, moron.
Submoron Simple Septic seems to be denying that there is any such thing
as a conscious mind, which would leave him with either an unconscious
mind or no mind at all.
I haven't denied that any organism presenting with operant behavior
(operating in his environment) requires awareness of that environment, and
awareness of the whereabouts of his body in it, else he would immediatly
fall flat on his ***** and die of starvation and thirst; all I did was point
out the fact that equating 'mind' with 'conscious experience' is
equivocation, just like equating 'God' with 'love' or 'universe'.
Any questions on this point, or are you in a hurry to get back to building
your straw man, sir?
What precisely is is conciousness ...
Consciousness is nothing mysterious, it is simply the brain being awake and
aware of the state of the body (hungry, horney, or whatever) and it's
position in the environment (which way is up, and where's the picnic).
Having a conscious brain is what enables you and me (and the ants also) to
find our way to the picnic, sir. Without it we could not operate as mammals
(or insects) do.
Any further questions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 12:08:25 PM |
|
|
In article <xJidnUT8ns15NK_fRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <3YudnT4RxLjoaqzfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <7bSdnT0R5LqfTqzfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <FY6dnW8xV9EyCq3fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
"Mind" is now just tag for "conscious experience."
And we all know that humans (just like all organisims presenting with
operant behavior) appear to be conscious of their surroundings,
therefore
mind exists? I have to tag that kind of argument "Equivocation."
Does Simple Septic only have unconscious experiences?
Did "Simple Septic" say that? No. Stop making ***** up, moron.
Submoron Simple Septic seems to be denying that there is any such thing
as a conscious mind, which would leave him with either an unconscious
mind or no mind at all.
I haven't denied that any organism presenting with operant behavior
(operating in his environment) requires awareness of that environment, and
awareness of the whereabouts of his body in it, else he would immediatly
fall flat on his ***** and die of starvation and thirst; all I did was point
out the fact that equating 'mind' with 'conscious experience' is
equivocation, just like equating 'God' with 'love' or 'universe'.
Any questions on this point, or are you in a hurry to get back to building
your straw man, sir?
What precisely is is conciousness ...
Consciousness is nothing mysterious, it is simply the brain being awake and
aware of the state of the body (hungry, horney, or whatever) and it's
position in the environment (which way is up, and where's the picnic).
Those are capacities of a mind, not of a brain. A brain, being no more
than a wet machine, can have no awareness.
Having a conscious brain
That is a contradiction in terms. Consciousness and mind are compatible,
but not conciousness and brain-without-mind any more than consciousness
and computer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 01:58:15 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <xJidnUT8ns15NK_fRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <3YudnT4RxLjoaqzfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <7bSdnT0R5LqfTqzfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <FY6dnW8xV9EyCq3fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Craig Franck wrote:
"Mind" is now just tag for "conscious experience."
And we all know that humans (just like all organisims presenting with
operant behavior) appear to be conscious of their surroundings,
therefore
mind exists? I have to tag that kind of argument "Equivocation."
Does Simple Septic only have unconscious experiences?
Did "Simple Septic" say that? No. Stop making ***** up, moron.
Submoron Simple Septic seems to be denying that there is any such thing
as a conscious mind, which would leave him with either an unconscious
mind or no mind at all.
I haven't denied that any organism presenting with operant behavior
(operating in his environment) requires awareness of that environment, and
awareness of the whereabouts of his body in it, else he would immediatly
fall flat on his ***** and die of starvation and thirst; all I did was point
out the fact that equating 'mind' with 'conscious experience' is
equivocation, just like equating 'God' with 'love' or 'universe'.
Any questions on this point, or are you in a hurry to get back to building
your straw man, sir?
What precisely is is conciousness ...
Consciousness is nothing mysterious, it is simply the brain being awake and
aware of the state of the body (hungry, horney, or whatever) and it's
position in the environment (which way is up, and where's the picnic).
Those are capacities of a mind, not of a brain.
Not until you point out an actual mind in existence so that anybody can
check your observations. So far all those on your side are doing is simply
taking mind-body dualism for granted (begging the question). That isn't
allowed, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 04:54:03 PM |
|
|
In article <EfadnbrV0PtK1K7fRVn-hg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
What precisely is is conciousness ...
Consciousness is nothing mysterious, it is simply the brain being awake and
aware of the state of the body (hungry, horney, or whatever) and it's
position in the environment (which way is up, and where's the picnic).
Those are capacities of a mind, not of a brain.
Not until you point out an actual mind in existence so that anybody can
check your observations.
It is Simple Septic who has claimed that there is sometning called
"consciousness" does not require a mind, so he should be able to point
to "consciousness" as something physical so that anybody can check his
observations. Unless he can do this, he must give up consciousness when
giving up mind.
Those who do not give up the possibility of mind are in n such dilemma.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jake" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
13 Mar 2005 03:31:13 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... point to "consciousness"
Is the patient sitting up and taking nourishment? Probably conscious then,
wouldn't you say?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
13 Mar 2005 01:25:14 PM |
|
|
In article <I6WdnWhvfJb8lanfRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, Jake <j@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... point to "consciousness"
Is the patient sitting up and taking nourishment? Probably conscious then,
wouldn't you say?
I was not aware that one had to be a patient to achieve conciousness.
Since Simple Septic is apparently not sick, other than mentally, does
that mean that he has no conciousness?
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
13 Mar 2005 03:24:00 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <I6WdnWhvfJb8lanfRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, Jake <j@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... point to "consciousness"
Is the patient sitting up and taking nourishment? Probably conscious then,
wouldn't you say?
I was not aware that one had to be a patient ...
It was just an example of somebody objectively observed to be consicious,
not a limitation on who can be conscious, wasn't it, moron?
.
|
|
|
| User: "StevenV" |
|
| Title: Donald Alford (Septic) metaphysics |
13 Mar 2005 06:36:24 PM |
|
|
XL, aka Skeptic, aka Jake, aka Atheistagnostic,
aka Yoda, aka Rooster, aka Muddy Boggs, aka Hum,
aka Dr. Sister, aka The Theenker, aka ***** Dragon,
aka Tom Wetsuit, aka T. Jefferson, aka Bill Gates,
aka X, aka Puzzling Evidence),bent over & squirted
out his ignorant *****:
[sni]
It was just an example of somebody objectively observed to be consicious,
not a limitation on who can be conscious, wasn't it, moron?
Look, Septic's calling somebody _else_ a moron.
--
:Paul King: Up to now I've pretty much left the Twit
:list alone but now I've found a candidate who is
:eminently worthy for his invincible ignorance I am
:forced to nominate "Skeptic" for retaining his bizarre
:ideas concerning logic despite citing sources that
:clearly contradict him and his demonstrated inability
:to construct a valid logical argument.
:Joe Parente: You are either the most dishonest person
:I have ever met, or an idiot. Possibly both. I have
:*NEVER* claimed that these things exist. You know what,
:I'm sick of you snipping pertinent parts of my posts
:and replying to only what you can twist to your desires.
:You demonstrate your dishonestly daily, Skeptic.
:Victor Danilchenko: Did you consider the possibility
:that Skeptic is actually a theistic troll bent on
:making atheists look like morons?
:Maky: i have seen various opponents (and my self)
:correct errors and mis-understandings through
:discussions here, but not septic. that dude will
:die dumb. believe me, after close to two years of
:arguing with the *****, i am quite aware that he
:is dumb to the core.
:Mark Richardson: Do we think a charge of "invincible
:ignorance" is now warranted for Skeptic? You are
:completely insane.
:---
:Lawrence, my friend, you have probably by now began to
:suspect that Muddy Boggs (aka Skeptic) is a fool and a
:not very honest one at that. He is thoroughly discredited
:in his home group of alt.atheism and I and many others -
:some brighter and more eloquent than I - from that group
:have spent many futile months trying to argue rationally
:with him. We usually quit when we realize the futility of
:this. He is most infamous for completely ignoring any
:argument put to him and repeating a few stock phrases or
:quotes ad nauseum. Just thought you should know - please
:don't take his ideas (or tactics!) as typical of atheists
:in general.
:---
:Sometimes I get the impression Muddy (Skeptic) simply
:eats very large quantities of baked beans and then
:transcribes the noises his bottom subsequently
:emits into english words and then posts the results.
:Niall McAuley: Therefore we can conclude that Skeptic
:is the stupidest person alive. Skeptic has a variety
:of the same illness which afflicts bleaters. He knows
:his conclusion is true, so any argument which seems to
:support his conclusion looks good to him, no matter
:how full of holes the argument is.
:Fish: In all sincerity, I am at this point deeply
:ashamed that I in times past ever stuck up for the
:mentally disturbed individual currently trolling as
:Septic/Dragon. With that in mind, please allow me to
:rectify this unfortunate past decision by formally and
:publicly denouncing at this time the Usenet persona
:known as Skeptic, ***** Dragon (and any others that may
:exist now or in the future). I refuse to be associated
:in any way whatsoever with such a blatantly dishonest
:and reprehensible ***** as him.
:Andrew L.: No. You're just congenitally incapable of
:understanding that no one is saying any such thing.
:Skeptic, you're a living example of the concept of
:invincible ignorance.
:---
:The very fact that you believe that I'm arguing FOR the
:possibility of gods says everything that needs to be said
:about your amazing ability to read anything you want into
:anything that anyone else says.
:---
:The POINT of my statement, not that there's any real
:possibility of changing *your* understanding of it, was,
:in fact, to illustrate the cultural double-standard that
:we apply to the concept of gods, and NOT (!!) in any way
:to validate that double standard. It does not, however,
:surprise me that the deliberate irony of my statement would
:elude you.
:---
:For the last <expletive deleted> time, I am a strong athiest.
:My disbelief in deities is a positive one. I realize how
:difficult it is for mere facts to penetrate that neurtrino-
:grade shield you have around your mind but *please* try to
:get at least that much through your head.
:D.J. Nozem: This was for fun, Skeptic. Unless you
:come up with some new arguments I'll take on a
:different tactic. Reasoning the beliefs of fools
:away can only be entertaining for so long...
:--
:You were talking to an incarnation of Skeptic. Skeptic
:doesn't respond to content, he blindly fires automated
:answers. There is no use in being offended by it, or in
:responding to his posts in any other way, for that matter.
:Evina: What are you talking about Skeptic? I responded
:to a poster about the etymology of the word atheism,
:because he used it to support his argument. Please
:stop trying to read hidden meanings in my posts.
:You are invariably wrong, and it's becoming annoying.
:Jesse Nowells: Jeff left off half of the proposition
:because he wants to turn claiming something is
:possible into a presumption that something is real.
:You assholes are burning up the bytes here spouting
:off weak arguments & wasting everybody's time. Why
:don't you take your troll asses & dangle, Skeptic?!
:Rich Townsend: I have no problem with Huxley, dear
:Septic. I totally agree that "his [the theist's]
:proposition is not known to be true". However, I
:disagree with your rabid assertion that this is
:entirely equivalent to "his [the theist's]
:proposition is known to be false". As Sniper has
:pointed out many times, the latter assertion incurs
:its own burden of proof, which both of us have
:demanded you provide, to no avail. Your intransigence
:would amaze me, had I not on my desk this top-secret
:CIA detailing your historical penchant for moronic
:argument and pathetic pettifogging. Go look up
:"argument ad nauseam", and then go boil yer bum, you
:silly little man.
:Ted King: I've seen Skeptic make fun of the
:educational accomplishments of a person who disagreed
:with him who had earned a PhD in philosophy from UCLA
:and who teaches philosophy. He regularly clips
:carefully constructed responses to his points down to
:single phrases or sentences and often interprets these
:statements incorrectly because of lack of context. He
:very often posts replies to points other people make
:that are pat blurbs that he has said repeatedly and
:which do not constitute an effort on his part to
:actually understand the other person's argument and
:which do not constitute an effort on his part to
:actually understand the other person's argument and
:craft a true response.
:Kronk: Skeptic is truly quite fascinating. A mode
:of thought governed by rules accepted on the basis
:of their authority sources, selectively exempted
:according to personal preference, and dogmatically
:defended against all sense and reason.
:Hugh Betcha: No, that's not what I mean, and it
:especially pisses me off when you keep acting like
:a ***** and saying that it is. If that's what I meant,
:I'd say it that way. Your wording implies that I
:believe that a god exists, and that I'm insisting
:that one does unless someone proves the negative.
:I've said no such thing. You must be brain damaged.
:I don't believe in any gods. I don't think it's
:likely that any gods exist. Can I possibly be any
:clearer, or do you need brain surgery before you'll
:ever understand what I wrote? Well Skeptic?
:Packman: Why don't you and Sniper just killfile
:Skeptic like most people have done? You're not
:going to talk any sense into him.
:Gorgo: You sir, do not know what you are talking
:about, the atheism web disagrees with you, basic
:reasoning disagrees with you, and even Huxley
:disagress with your assertion....now that I see that
:your arguments are truly imbecilic and naive, and
:that you fail to even recognize when you are plainly
:wrong, then I am forced to agree with their
:conclusions about you, Skeptic. <plonk>
:Michelle Malkin: Since when has taking things out of
:context and snipping all the actual meaning out of
:things ever stopped Skeptic? This is why I killfiled
:Skeptic long, long ago. Oh, yes, I also killfiled him
:because his messages were BORING.
:Raven: Next week's word is actually a phrase:
:"Intellectually dishonest, invincibly ignorant clueless
:troll". Which should be tattooed on Septic's forehead.
:--
:And you still have no idea what an argumentum ad hominem
:entails. Nor have you *ever* had anything relevant to say
:about anything, just a continual history of blatant dishonesty
:and a completely phenomenal ability to misinterpret
:practically any source you quote in support of your claims.
:--
:You're starting to remind me of "The Sage", from a few years
:ago, who seemed to delight in wasting everyone's time by
:making apparently deliberately erroneous claims about various
:aspects of physics in his posts, then arguing ad nauseam when
:people responded to correct them.
:--
:Here's a clue for you: if you find yourself changing nyms
:every week or so to avoid killfiles, odds are there's a good
:reason why people are killfiling you. Perhaps you don't
:understand logic quite so well as you think you do...?
:--
:.....You consistently and dishonestly selectively snip your
:opponents arguments to change their meaning entirely; you seem
:incapable of correcting yourself even when it's pointed out in
:painstaking detail exactly why you're wrong; you've changed
:handles to avoid killfiles over 100 times by Goldhammer's count;
:you accuse anyone who disagrees with your misunderstandings of
:logic of being atheist; you constantly regurgitate the same
:misunderstood quotes that neither mean what you think they mean
:nor support your position...shall I go on?
:Daneel: *****, Septic. You are a disgrace to any
:group you profess to be part of.
:Stoney: Septic, go ***** yourself, you lying sack
:of *****.
:--
:Septic is like that. He constantly snips and/or ignores
:posts/sections which shows him for the moron he is. Looks
:like he's in terminal meltdown with the barage of aliases.
:Most folks have shitcanned him for very good reasons.
:The Plasmatron:I think he (Skeptic) is a total kook
:suffering from a major case of cognitive dissonance.
:I could be wrong, but there's my theory open for comment.
:---
:What a pathetic and uninteresting fuckwad you are. When
:is the last time you got laid anyway? I'll bet you can't
:keep anyone awake long enough to have sex even if you got
:someone drunk enough to be willing. Hells bells, I have
:to wonder if you're even a human being, or if you're some
:sick joke running on a computer.
:---
:***** ***** rag.
:---
:Go blow a goat. You're a paranoid dipshit and no one
:wants to play with you.
:---
:Believe that if you like. Truth is you're just a boring
:kook. Kind of a shame you can't even manage to be a fun
:kook. Ah well.
:---
:His posts are *deadly* boring, expecially considering
:the level of interesting ***** we've come to expect from
:other kooks. Some poor bugger could seriously lapse
:into a coma or something checking up on this *****.
:At the very least I want his posts tested on some lab
:rats before any humans are invited to read 'em. Sure
:it's cruelty to animals, but better them them us.
:Alex Hunsley: Skeptic is actually one of the only
:posters I've ever seen in alt.atheism who passes the
:UnTuring Test - i.e. the postings appear to be computer
:generated, but are probably written by a human. The
:UnTuring test is one of the cornerstones of AS
:(Artificial Stupidity), for which Skeptic is our best
:model currently.
:Richard Harlos: This is UseNet, Skeptic. No one has
:the right to tell you that you *should* just shut up
:and leave. However, I think that for all the time
:you've been allegedly citing "principles of reasoning,"
:somewhere along the way you've confused "actual logic"
:with "your beliefs."
:---
:Despite the number of different approaches that many
:people have attempted to take in order to show you the
:otherwise glaringly obvious errors inherent in your views,
:you stubbornly refuse to consider -- much less acknowledge
:that anyone other than you may possibly have a legitimate
:perspective on the matter.
:---
:That serves as a strong indictment that you're behaving
:consistent with the implications of the description,
:"invincibly ignorant."...
:---
:I don't respect your lack of reciprocation in dialog, nor
:do I find any glimmer of hope that you're really trying
:to understand. Instead, I find you to appear quite
:deliberately ignorant of all that you do not wish to
:believe, and otherwise detrimentally deficient both in the
:understanding of logic and in the correct application of
:those principles about which you seem minimally aware.
:jwk (to Muddy/Skeptic): Was I talking to you mud hole?
:I don't want to get into one of your drawn out, worthless,
:quibbling arguments. Especially since you always seem to
:apply different definitions to everything than the rest of
:humanity. Just go away......plonk
:Fred Stone: It's a terrible judgement on my lack of a life
:when I spend any time at all replying to Muddy (Skeptic).
:He's hardly even worth getting up a good flame.
:---
:I might get into boring dead end threads but at least
:I can manage to come up with different topics. Muddy
:(Skeptic) only knows one song. Drag every thread around
:to his version of BoP. Duh. One string on his violin
:and too deaf to care that he's out of tune.
:---
:You're a *fermenting* sack of weasel *****. You've been
:lying out in the sun and the rain while the maggots crawl
:and burrow in their nice warm sack of decaying excrement.
:The sack glistens horribly as it sweats vile beads of
:putrefying ooze. Every once in a while, the putrid gas at
:the bottom of the sack bubbles up and you vomit forth more
:vile stench to waft queasily over alt.atheism, Septic.
:Andrew Bromage: Whoever says "it sucks to be you" to
:Muddy (Skeptic) isn't looking at it from the right
:perspective. Being that oblivious is probably quite fun.
:Paul Murray: My bottom line is that I enjoy
:picking up bad logic. I spent a lifetime being
:a victim of christainity, so these days I try to
:be more careful. Everyone needs a hobby or two....
:I'm beginning to suspect that you (Boggs/Skeptic)
:may be a xtian plant attempting to make scepticism
:look bad by shoddy argumentation.
:Abner Mintz: By the way, you may want to ignore any
:posts from Muddy Boggs (Skeptic) - his main interest
:is attacking people, and he's just sizing you up for
:weaknesses rather than looking to discuss things with
:you. If you get involved in an exchange with him, he
:will just quote the same passages from logic texts at
:you over and over in hopes of bludgeoning you into
:submission. The texts rarely if ever support his attacks.
:Terry Austin (To Boggs/Skeptic): Your claim, retard,
:you support it. I'll happily assume you're just
:another retard who can only masturbate while posting
:to Usenet. Pathetic *****......Liar. As expected.
:Have a biscuit. Suck some *****. Have mommy give you
:another *****. You'll feel better. And it will keep
:you off of Usenet for a while....You should have died
:of stupidity at birth, and the universe fucked up....
:Because that's not what was being discussed above, and
:because that would be a mentally retarded view. That's
:why you want me to say that - it would be easy to
:refute. However, that's not what I said, and you are a
:lying, masturbating piece of ***** to imply that I did.
:You are, in short, a liar.
:Scot McDermid (To Skeptic/Boggs): All you did was
:snip out the points in my last post. Just like you
:do each time. "Argumentum ad snippage?" <plonk>.
:Digital Man: Yes, if someone asserts that Muddy Boggs
:has no intelligent brain cells, I would require that
:person to provide some evidence. Put another way, if
:someone asserts that " 'Muddy Boggs has intelligent brain
:cells' is false," I would still need evidence. I wouldn't
:assume that that proposition is true until proven false.
:I would assume it was false until I read a few of your
:posts. NOTE: That was not an Argumentum ad hominem. I am
:just saying that for me, reading a few of your posts is
:enough evidence to convince me that the proposition in
:question is true. Had I never read any of your posts, I
:would have to assume that the proposition in question
:was false.
:David Balfoort (to Boggs/Skeptic): What's this "your
:side" nonsense. And why did you snip the rest of my post?
:While you're explaining the meaning of things to everyone
:else, go look up the word context. What, are you dense?
:The whole post is pasted below for contextual purposes.
:Brain Henderson (to Art/aka Skeptic): You're right,
:there is nothing to debate. You've been proven completely
:wrong, you're just too damned stupid to realize it.
:Bob Harris (to Skeptic/Muddy): And the funniest one
:of all...go back through my posts and tell me exactly what
:case it was that you presume I made for god.
:"God": Remain clueless oh Muddy boy, remain ignorant.....
:Muddy, you should commit suicide. Life ain't worth living
:as a confused person.
:---
:I don't expect you to understand this. I know you are
:going to repeat that stupid paragraph of Huxley again,
:Dummy Boggs. So go ahead, continue to remain ignorant.
:KarenK: As you once again snipped the majority of my post
:(including supporting documentation) and ignored all
:straightforward and honest requests for information......
:I can only conclude that you are indeed a troll and have
:no interest in intellectual discussion. I've no time for
:this sort of gaming. Play the games with someone else.
:Ta ta, Muddy.
:Scientia: Wow. You really are hard-headed. No matter how
:much effort many of us put into moving the conversation
:into some meaningful exchange, it always comes back dart
:board game of alleged fallacies, and you the dart thrower.
:--
:Ultimately, you seem driven to have everyone agree with
:you, while having no conversation of any substance at all.
:Let's just all cut and paste fallacy allegations, and
:forego any real attempts at conversation, Muddy (Boggs).
:Earle Jones (speaking to one of Skeptic's many
:recent incarnations): Hey Art, Art2, Arno, etc. It is
:not an ad hominem attack to refer to you as a blithering
:idiot ***** troll, since you are indeed a blithering
:idiot ***** troll.
:Steve Makohin: I have read a number of accusations that
:TJ (Skeptic/Boggs) is an "idiot", or worse. I give
:virtually everyone the benefit of the doubt. TJ has
:squandered his opportunity. It appears from TJ's writing
:that he is MUCH more interested in sharing his ill-informed
:opinions with others rather than _learning_ something. And
:_that_ is the classic Greek definition of the term "idiot"
:(one who cannot learn from others).
:--
:He's a piece of work, for sure. I have a pet theory that
:The Poster Formerly Known As Skeptic is put up to his
:activity by a band of roving Theist Fundamentalists with
:the sole purpose of demonstrating, through "guilt by
:association," how inane atheists are.
:JessHC (To Skeptic): No, you don't know. His argument, and
:the argument of many atheists that you ignore because you
:can't admit you're wrong, is that the true/false value of
:"X exists" is indeterminable at present, and probably forever.
:Until X has been proven to either exist or not exist, no
:statement *either way* can be made about its existence.
:Therefore, since it is impossible to demonstrate, there is no
:certain way to claim that "any X does not exist." The
:statement "gods might exist" merely concedes the fact that it
:is impossible to prove no gods exist; it is not a claim that
:gods exist, or a statement of belief in gods.
:Torkel Franzen: There are those who claim that Skeptic
:is an invisible pixie who cannot exist. There are those who
:claim that he is an idiot. They are all wrong. He is a great
:and awe-inspiring loon, a monument of the Internet. He
:deserves being worshipped as a minor deity himself....He is
:clearly a god, if ever there was one. He has supernatural
:powers, of causing otherwise sane people to rant and rave
:uncontrollably for months and years. Admittedly, this does
:not amount to omnipotence by any means, so Skeptic qualifies
:only as a minor deity.
:Chris S.: What the hell are you talking about!? I'm an
:atheist! I agree with your general philosophy (something
:I'm starting to reconsider). I just happen to disagree
:with your semantics.
:Courageous (To Dixit/Skepticus/aka Skeptic): Another
:element of your vapidly repeated mantra. "You theists", you
:say. I am emphatically not one.
:--
:You are a vacuum headed dunderhead. Anyone with a half a neuron
:in their head could figure out that I am not arguing in favor
:of any such thing. I rank your talent for sarcasm up there with
:your ability to read and comprehend philosophers like Russell.
:Dim wit. No go away, and make sure to take your meds.
:Christopher A. Lee: But septic pretends anybody who points out
:the flaws in his "arguments" is arguing the theist position.
:It's his troll-theme.
:Pastor Njygaard (to Skeptic): Nonono, Skippy. It's you, you
:see. You are the one with the great big honkin' problem here. It's
:obvious that you need your genitals placed between a truck and a
:hard place for your own good. Now try to act like a good boy and
:stop being a pustulent sore on the labia of mother earth, or we
:shall have to take steps.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
