rigorousintuition.ca

JackRiddler wrote:

vanlose kid wrote:^ ^

fresh flame bait from the critical thinker. anyone?

*

Truthfully, I think it's a fair picture of how many of those with a theist-mystical "conspiracy" orientation on this board (not you) have been strawmanning those with more materialist, skeptical or non-theist orientations. True here, and on the "peak oil" thread, among others.

to be honest i think both sides have to some extent been making use of the same tactics. it reflects the contemporary status or form of debate in the US. i think i mentioned this upthread. AD tends to step in with this stuff once things begin to settle down a bit. cf., WR's intervention above.

*

JackRiddler wrote:

vanlose kid wrote:^ ^

fresh flame bait from the critical thinker. anyone?

*

Truthfully, I think it's a fair picture of how many of those with a theist-mystical "conspiracy" orientation on this board (not you) have been strawmanning those with more materialist, skeptical or non-theist orientations. True here, and on the "peak oil" thread, among others.

not including VK, we have, on this thread:
Laodicean
Searcher08 and
Myself

So.. "most" of us must equal at least two of the list above.

I have been trying to make a simple point: that bias exists, and we ought not to be so "positive' about what we think we know.

It's a difficult topic for a person to address and because of high-pitched emotions it got out of hand. I don't think it is fair to pin it on one side or the other.

FFS

*

to clarify my response to JR: i wasn't addressing strawmanning but rather going over the top due to anger, exasperation etc., arising from insistent provocation and baiting.
AD doesn't strawman so much as paint people in odious colors in order to burn them. only he calls it critical thinking.

edit: e.g. if someone felt offended or provoked by the trite simplifications of his critical cartoons that person has obviously outed themselves as being nazi-loving right-wing christian hate mongers who read icke and worship rajneesh. it's a tactic.

*

barracuda wrote:

You have asked:
What can I do to assist a more constructive thread at RI?

I respond:
Confusion is the fallow from which comprehension grows.

Canadian_watcher wrote:

JackRiddler wrote:

vanlose kid wrote:^ ^

fresh flame bait from the critical thinker. anyone?

*

Truthfully, I think it's a fair picture of how many of those with a theist-mystical "conspiracy" orientation on this board (not you) have been strawmanning those with more materialist, skeptical or non-theist orientations. True here, and on the "peak oil" thread, among others.

not including VK, we have, on this thread:
Laodicean
Searcher08 and
Myself

Odd. I would include myself on a list of the "theist-mystical "conspiracy" orientation", but apparently one doesn't qualify unless one meets some mandarin criteria which seems to be limited to a support of your personal perspective.

bro, you actually know what

barracuda wrote:..."theist-mystical "conspiracy" orientation"...

means?

*

Cuda, Im hearing you sounding frustrated and a bit sad about all this - is that in the right ballpark?

vanlose kid wrote:bro, you actually know what

barracuda wrote:..."theist-mystical "conspiracy" orientation"...

means?

*

Don't tell me it's about choosing sides and forming teams of forum members, 'cause I know that ain't it.

barracuda wrote:Don't tell me it's about choosing sides and forming teams of forum members, 'cause I know that ain't it.

haven't a clue. was thinking you could explain.

*

I sometimes think that the universe is in so much pain it keeps fracturing itself into different personalities to escape from itself and i also understood this to be the message of voyage to arcturus altho im not sure about that, it was a confusing read! its not an orthodox view tho so im not promoting it

Searcher08 wrote:Cuda, Im hearing you sounding frustrated and a bit sad about all this - is that in the right ballpark?

Yeah. We spent fourteen pages sweeping Intelligent Design in to the wastebin, somethng I'd assumed most people here would already be well clear of, and now, because of that, I and others here have been lumped into some kind of materialist category, and the meat of the thread has really yet to be even discussed at all.

vanlose kid wrote:

barracuda wrote:Don't tell me it's about choosing sides and forming teams of forum members, 'cause I know that ain't it.

haven't a clue. was thinking you could explain.

*

No idea either, but it sounds a hell of a lot more fun and interesting than "those with more materialist, skeptical or non-theist orientations".

*

Alvin Plantinga: Science & Religion - Where the Conflict Really Lies



Alvin Plantinga addressing quite a few of the issues raised in this thread re science, faith, evolution etc.

one point i'd like to make is that the arguments of Dawkins et. al., are philosophical. they may reference scientific facts, but facts, all facts are contingent. things could be otherwise. extrapolating from the facts to conclusions such as God does/doesn't exist is just that, extrapolation.

evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. facts can't do that. which is why, in a sense, Creationism and Blindwatchmakerism are on a level. they are metaphysical add-ons. you either believe one or the other. and you can marshal the same facts in support of one or the other. which argument convinces you is the argument that convinces you. that's it.

a common human question is "why is there anything and not nothing?" this is not a scientific question. (a hardcore devotee of scientism might say that the question is meaningless or that person asking it isn't functioning properly. some find that satisfactory. others don't.)

anyway, it's long but interesting. and clarifies a lot of the muddle. WR mentioned something about the deplorable state of scientific knowledge. something of the same sort could be said about philosophical knowledge and the distinction between the logic/metaphysics and science/facts.

*

RI is whittled down to a small group. This is not so much a philosophical debate but an exercise in solidifying family roles.

Just don't get too rigid. You can't really know anyone well enough through this limited medium.

Now excuse me for psychoanalyzing.

^ ^

there you go.

*

Searcher08 wrote:
Cuda, Im hearing you sounding frustrated and a bit sad about all this - is that in the right ballpark?

barracuda wrote:
Yeah. We spent fourteen pages sweeping Intelligent Design in to the wastebin, somehtinng I'd assumened most people here would already be wee clear of, and now, because of that, I and others here have been lumped into some kind of materialist category which has really yet to be even discussed at all.

See, I think the problem is the seed for this type of stamp, label and discard people who disagree with you form of discourse
was planted along time ago. Some members see simple disagreement with their conclusions as a form of bullying, disparagement and
devaluing. To continue to disagree threatens them and they get more personal and belligerent in the name of a good cause.
Those who go along in the name of that good cause will find that as the causes get more and more idiosyncratic they suddenly don't
quite muster anymore and they too must be stamped and discarded.

Just my 2cents. Feel free to disagree