Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2016, 10:05 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
There. Unless Shane has a persuasive reason for continuing, this one is finished. I haven't commented here while in the Ring but there's one thing that I'd like to address.

(16-02-2016 01:59 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  I dont believe for a second that this guy is no theist

I do. Some of his terminology had inescapable connotations that I'd have preferred to avoid but other than that he used none of the typical theistic arguments.

Unless I'm badly mistaken, Shane's claim to agnosticism is honest enough. They're rare, but every now and then we get these gnostic agnostics. That sounds like a contradiction in terms because it is. They take an inordinate amount of pleasure in telling atheists that they can't be certain that God doesn't exist. Several days later, having had the definition of an agnostic atheist explained to them, repeatedly, they invariably find it necessary to point out all the other things we can't possibly know.

I think that the last one we had was Brownshirt. Shane has been significantly less offensive in almost every way possible but the philosophical stances are unmistakably similar.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
28-02-2016, 10:22 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 07:35 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Lastly, stop repeating the lie that "i am only certain of my own existence".

Here's a little hint sport .. your signature (which you now deny ??? )
"I am certain of nothing except my existence."

You tell SO many lies, you can't even keep them all straight,
even when they're staring you in the face.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
29-02-2016, 12:27 AM (This post was last modified: 29-02-2016 12:39 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 10:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 07:35 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Lastly, stop repeating the lie that "i am only certain of my own existence".

Here's a little hint sport .. your signature (which you now deny ??? )
"I am certain of nothing except my existence."

You tell SO many lies, you can't even keep them all straight,
even when they're staring you in the face.
This argument is a follow up of your claim that I am a solipsist.
I do not believe I am the only thing that exists, but it is the only thing I can be certain of as far as my own perception would allow.
You keep making that statement as if to say that i reject the existence of anything outside the self, when in fact i claim that anything I personally experience falls within my existence and therefore within my certainty of it's existence. This has been well established in my "what am I" thread.
As a Skeptic I do not fully reject/accept any logical claims.
My signature demonstrates my world view with regards to truth.
My certainty does not lie at the apex of the certainty spectrum. That would be an absolute certainty with regards to an objective reality. It is the main reason why I mention the certainty spectrum in my signature.
My certainty is bound within the limits of what I perceive therefore I am unable to make any "is" claims with regards to objective reality.
Even my own existence fails to meet the requirements of absolute certainty beyond my own perception.
I have no absolute certainties about anything & I am not a Solipsist.
Stop trying to convince people that I am, whilst dishonestly trying to make me a solipsistic hypocrite as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-02-2016, 12:52 AM (This post was last modified: 29-02-2016 12:55 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 10:05 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  There. Unless Shane has a persuasive reason for continuing, this one is finished. I haven't commented here while in the Ring but there's one thing that I'd like to address.

(16-02-2016 01:59 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  I dont believe for a second that this guy is no theist

I do. Some of his terminology had inescapable connotations that I'd have preferred to avoid but other than that he used none of the typical theistic arguments.

Unless I'm badly mistaken, Shane's claim to agnosticism is honest enough. They're rare, but every now and then we get these gnostic agnostics. That sounds like a contradiction in terms because it is. They take an inordinate amount of pleasure in telling atheists that they can't be certain that God doesn't exist. Several days later, having had the definition of an agnostic atheist explained to them, repeatedly, they invariably find it necessary to point out all the other things we can't possibly know.

I think that the last one we had was Brownshirt. Shane has been significantly less offensive in almost every way possible but the philosophical stances are unmistakably similar.
Actually I am an Agnostic Agnostic more than a Gnostic Agnostic as far as my world view is concerned.
Even the one thing I am most certain about fails to meet the requirements of absolute certainty from an objective stand point.
My very existence I cannot prove to be absolutely true beyond this thing I call perception.
I have long since come to terms with this ultimate failure in my quest for truth.
Truth is no longer something that I seek. The logic of others is what interests me. I seek the logic behind all claims presented to me and question the ones that I cannot follow the logic in them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-02-2016, 12:57 AM (This post was last modified: 29-02-2016 01:41 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 01:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I assure you the story is true.


I have no reason to believe you, and every reason to doubt you.



(28-02-2016 01:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  But even if it wasn't the truth why would you insinuate someone's dishonesty based on your own personal experience rather than reputation of the individual?


What, don't like it when your own epistemology is turned on you?

I don't fucking know you. All I know is that you're kind of acting like an ass on an internet forum and are using personal anecdotes in support of your position. Now in the past this has far more often then not turned out that the person using the personal anecdotes was full of shit, and I've experienced this personally.

What, don't like me using personal experiences as a gauge for my skepticism? Is my crimping of your stated technique somehow now invalid because you don't like it's conclusions?



(28-02-2016 01:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Would you accuse Obama of being dishonest if he said he found monkeys in your back yard?


I don't trust politicians on principal, and short of substantial evidence in support of such simian shenanigans, I think anybody (Obama included) making such claims is being dishonest. I now enough about my own fucking backyard to know that it would take exceptional circumstances to get monkeys back there. Thus I'd demand exceptional evidence before accepting such a claim as true, and in light of a lack of such evidence, the only reasonable conclusion is that the person is being dishonest.



(28-02-2016 01:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Any story would do but a true one requires no imagination to prove & would be much easier to use as reference to the topic.


Except that nobody here has any reason to take your claim that the story is 'true' at face value, least of all yourself given your own admitted militant agnosticism. If the doctor you were so critical of for his misdiagnosis told you the same story, and you applied your own rules accordingly, you shouldn't believe him either.

So why should you be surprised that I don't believe you? You haven't provided any evidence of your claim that the story is truthful, so why should I take you at face value? You, who is skeptical of the most learned people in the most specialized fields backed up by the most up-to-date evidence available? And you want me to just take your word in an internet fight? Are you fucking high?




(28-02-2016 01:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What would you prefer no personal anecdotes & no references that would help the audience better conceptualize the points being raised?


I'd prefer evidence. You know, or else I can't be swayed from my skepticism of your claims. How about I test your story? Do you have the contact information for that doctor? Can we set up a double-blind experiment to test how well he/she can distinguish makeup from real allergic reactions? Do you have a video or audio transcript of the session where this misdiagnosis took place?

I mean, without being able to personally test the validity of your claim myself, I'm afraid that I'm resigned to being very skeptical of your claims. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
29-02-2016, 01:38 AM (This post was last modified: 29-02-2016 02:32 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(29-02-2016 12:52 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I seek the logic behind all claims presented to me and question the ones that I cannot follow the logic in them.

Oh really. The *logic" of saying BOTH, ..... the CONTRADICTORY :

"Lastly, stop repeating the lie that 'i am only certain of my own existence' AND
'I am certain of nothing except my existence.' "


That "logic" ?
So you're only interested in the illogic of others, and not your own demonstrably illogical/contradictory statements, which you refuse to recognize ?
THAT is intellectual dishonesty.

Facepalm

Fuck.

(BTW, logic is necessary, but not sufficient. There are multiple logical systems that are logically correct, but in fact do not obtain, in reality.
Worshiping *logic* as THE way to lead anyone to truth, as you do, is one of THE misguided notions fundamentalist theist apologists constantly make.)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-02-2016, 02:02 AM (This post was last modified: 29-02-2016 02:18 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(28-02-2016 10:05 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  There. Unless Shane has a persuasive reason for continuing, this one is finished. I haven't commented here while in the Ring but there's one thing that I'd like to address.

(16-02-2016 01:59 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  I dont believe for a second that this guy is no theist

I do. Some of his terminology had inescapable connotations that I'd have preferred to avoid but other than that he used none of the typical theistic arguments.

Unless I'm badly mistaken, Shane's claim to agnosticism is honest enough. They're rare, but every now and then we get these gnostic agnostics. That sounds like a contradiction in terms because it is. They take an inordinate amount of pleasure in telling atheists that they can't be certain that God doesn't exist. Several days later, having had the definition of an agnostic atheist explained to them, repeatedly, they invariably find it necessary to point out all the other things we can't possibly know.

I think that the last one we had was Brownshirt. Shane has been significantly less offensive in almost every way possible but the philosophical stances are unmistakably similar.

Well, i was a bit quick with my assumption, but now i see and completely agree with your evaluation of him. What pissed me off at some point wasnt his scepticism or insistence of being agnostic, but the (demonstrable) fact that the does not understand the very things he is sceptical of. He just lacks the intellectual equipment.
There is hardly anything more annoying to me than people who think they are way smarter than they actually are.

The quasars for example. when i read this link, i went "Dammit, no redshift? But the Quasars are riding on the cosmic expansion at the very egde of the obsevable universe, they should have an insane redshift. And i bet i read on many occasions they do! So either everything about my understanding of cosmology is utterly wrong, or there is something wrong with his article."
I was sceptical, and i pretty much knew that until now i was right about my understanding of cosmology. I just didnt adress it here, since you would do so in the debate, and because i was still sceptical enough of myself (until i had time to backcheck) to keep my mouth shut before i probably embarrass myself.
I am by far not the cleverest guy in town but i know at least roughly where my limits are. If i can do that, why cant he?

At the end you boiled it down very precisely: He questions the theories of the most clever scientists, but accepts some pop science at face value.

He is committing the very fallacy he accuses the rest of the workd of: unjustified certianty. His uncertainty is certain, as weird as it sounds. He is obsessed with uncertainty. Hence you are absolutely correct with your analysis:

gnostic agnostic Bowing

Edit: reading one of his latest replies he comes up with:
Quote:Actually I am an Agnostic Agnostic more than a Gnostic Agnostic as far as my world view is concerned.
Even the one thing I am most certain about fails to meet the requirements of absolute certainty from an objective stand point.
My very existence I cannot prove to be absolutely true beyond this thing I call perception.
I have long since come to terms with this ultimate failure in my quest for truth.
Truth is no longer something that I seek.

Give this thread 3 more pages and he will admit to being an agnostic agnostic agnostic.

I actually start to pity him, since he went so far down the masturbatory rabbit hole of trying to do science by being a philosopher, sit down and think real hard and come to the conclusion that he may not exist.
I think its best for him to leave this forum, go out in the nature with his wife and kids, and get back a grip on reality as it most probably (99,99999999% i am not 100% certain :considerSmile exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
29-02-2016, 05:03 AM (This post was last modified: 29-02-2016 06:02 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(29-02-2016 01:38 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-02-2016 12:52 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I seek the logic behind all claims presented to me and question the ones that I cannot follow the logic in them.

Oh really. The *logic" of saying BOTH, ..... the CONTRADICTORY :

"Lastly, stop repeating the lie that 'i am only certain of my own existence' AND
'I am certain of nothing except my existence.' "


That "logic" ?
So you're only interested in the illogic of others, and not your own demonstrably illogical/contradictory statements, which you refuse to recognize ?
THAT is intellectual dishonesty.

Facepalm

Fuck.

(BTW, logic is necessary, but not sufficient. There are multiple logical systems that are logically correct, but in fact do not obtain, in reality.
Worshiping *logic* as THE way to lead anyone to truth, as you do, is one of THE misguided notions fundamentalist theist apologists constantly make.)
As in the context of a Solipcist. It's probably not properly worded but it's a repetition of your constant claim that my world view is that of a solipcist. If that isn't what you were once again insinuating then you weren't repeating the lie.
I see that post as a direct attempt to call me a Solipcist while at the same time accuse me of being a hypocrite. If you don't deny this then you are repeating a lie.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-02-2016, 05:10 AM (This post was last modified: 29-02-2016 06:08 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(29-02-2016 02:02 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 10:05 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  There. Unless Shane has a persuasive reason for continuing, this one is finished. I haven't commented here while in the Ring but there's one thing that I'd like to address.


I do. Some of his terminology had inescapable connotations that I'd have preferred to avoid but other than that he used none of the typical theistic arguments.

Unless I'm badly mistaken, Shane's claim to agnosticism is honest enough. They're rare, but every now and then we get these gnostic agnostics. That sounds like a contradiction in terms because it is. They take an inordinate amount of pleasure in telling atheists that they can't be certain that God doesn't exist. Several days later, having had the definition of an agnostic atheist explained to them, repeatedly, they invariably find it necessary to point out all the other things we can't possibly know.

I think that the last one we had was Brownshirt. Shane has been significantly less offensive in almost every way possible but the philosophical stances are unmistakably similar.

Well, i was a bit quick with my assumption, but now i see and completely agree with your evaluation of him. What pissed me off at some point wasnt his scepticism or insistence of being agnostic, but the (demonstrable) fact that the does not understand the very things he is sceptical of. He just lacks the intellectual equipment.
There is hardly anything more annoying to me than people who think they are way smarter than they actually are.

The quasars for example. when i read this link, i went "Dammit, no redshift? But the Quasars are riding on the cosmic expansion at the very egde of the obsevable universe, they should have an insane redshift. And i bet i read on many occasions they do! So either everything about my understanding of cosmology is utterly wrong, or there is something wrong with his article."
I was sceptical, and i pretty much knew that until now i was right about my understanding of cosmology. I just didnt adress it here, since you would do so in the debate, and because i was still sceptical enough of myself (until i had time to backcheck) to keep my mouth shut before i probably embarrass myself.
I am by far not the cleverest guy in town but i know at least roughly where my limits are. If i can do that, why cant he?

At the end you boiled it down very precisely: He questions the theories of the most clever scientists, but accepts some pop science at face value.

He is committing the very fallacy he accuses the rest of the workd of: unjustified certianty. His uncertainty is certain, as weird as it sounds. He is obsessed with uncertainty. Hence you are absolutely correct with your analysis:

gnostic agnostic Bowing

Edit: reading one of his latest replies he comes up with:
Quote:Actually I am an Agnostic Agnostic more than a Gnostic Agnostic as far as my world view is concerned.
Even the one thing I am most certain about fails to meet the requirements of absolute certainty from an objective stand point.
My very existence I cannot prove to be absolutely true beyond this thing I call perception.
I have long since come to terms with this ultimate failure in my quest for truth.
Truth is no longer something that I seek.

Give this thread 3 more pages and he will admit to being an agnostic agnostic agnostic.

I actually start to pity him, since he went so far down the masturbatory rabbit hole of trying to do science by being a philosopher, sit down and think real hard and come to the conclusion that he may not exist.
I think its best for him to leave this forum, go out in the nature with his wife and kids, and get back a grip on reality as it most probably (99,99999999% i am not 100% certain :considerSmile exists.
If you were following the "What am I?" thread you would realize we already found a label that best describes my world view. Akademic Skepticism.
Also why would I throw away a label that fits perfectly in exchange for one that fits a bit less such as gnostic/agnostic agnostic. I only make reference to agnositicism because it is a word most of you here can relate to.
Science has its roots in philosphy as are most of the things man has developed. This was also discussed in the "What am I?" thread.
http://Www.xefer.com
This mental fappery that you are somehow opposed to is unquestionably the cause of modern civilization and also the basis of new innovations resulting from thought experiments engaged by a process of logic. Logic is classified in the realm of Philosphy or would you have us deny this based on your own biases?

Just as you are mistaken in your assumption that I was a Theist you are also mistaken on many other details about me.

What is even more astounding is that you incorrectly harp on the character of an individual rather than the actual message that is being delivered in an attempt to address the message. Once again denying Logic the proper course for determining validity.

You will soon realize as have Paleophyte that I do not target the character of an individual in order to win an argument or deliver a counter argument.
What exactly is this statement "I know my limits" supposed to mean, with regards to knowledge?
There is no limit on knowledge as far as I can tell. What you learn today will always be superceded by what you learn tomorrow. Your "knowledge limit" anecdote seems to indicate that because you feel dwarfed in knowledge when approaching a seemingly more "knowledgeable" topic or person you would yield before any knowledge they present to you rather than question it's validity. Therein lies our biggest difference. I do not limit my knowledge base due to some unspoken humility. I do not fear to ask why, when the process of logic has too many assumptions in it's presentation. Pride has no place when you have a burning desire to seek knowledge.

As with all your messages I am guessing your next reply will once again target the character of the poster rather than the actual messages and concepts being delved into.
Prove me wrong?
To Troll or not to Troll?
My money is on the Troll.

P.S. Why doesn't Bucky in his insatiable appetite for correcting the grammatical errors of others not throw a fit after seeing the way you write? I personally have no issues with grammatical inconsistencies and errors on these public forums as most responses occur at the spur of the moment. Yet it only further proves my point that Bucky will troll those he has a personal bias against for no other reason other than self gratification.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2016, 01:21 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(29-02-2016 12:52 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Actually I am an Agnostic Agnostic more than a Gnostic Agnostic as far as my world view is concerned.

Gods below you are fuckin' stupid.Facepalm

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: