Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 09:56 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 10:04 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
A deity which exists *necessarily* (as even one of our youngest members diddo (15) was bright enough to get, Germy), is SUBJECT to Reality's laws, thus cannot be its creator. When you decide to go to school, Germy, maybe sign up for Philosophy for Older Dolts.

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
23-05-2014, 10:17 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:55 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No there doesn't. Reality has been proven to be non-intuitive. Your unexamined assumption is probably the most common assumption of those who really don't know any Physics.

reality is non-intuitive =/= infinite regress

Reality being non-intuitive is a matter of debate. Even if I grant that it is non-intuitive it is a non-sequitur to say that therefore, infinite regress.

This right here is a prime example of why he will never be worth the time to debate. He is far to willing to dishonestly misrepresent an argument. He Strawmans so damn much I half expect his best friend to be made of bloody Tin.

Why debate him if one knows beforehand he's going to be consistently dishonest?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
23-05-2014, 10:42 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 09:54 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  If you have some evidence to back up your claim then do so. Otherwise, you just are beginning to sound like Taq.

r.a.i. appreciates the compliment. Cool
[/quote]

Hey, if he's going to troll and be deliberately intellectually dishonest to rule people up, he's going to get exactly those things he finds repugnant directed back at him.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
23-05-2014, 11:10 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 10:17 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:55 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  reality is non-intuitive =/= infinite regress

Reality being non-intuitive is a matter of debate. Even if I grant that it is non-intuitive it is a non-sequitur to say that therefore, infinite regress.

This right here is a prime example of why he will never be worth the time to debate. He is far to willing to dishonestly misrepresent an argument. He Strawmans so damn much I half expect his best friend to be made of bloody Tin.

Why debate him if one knows beforehand he's going to be consistently dishonest?

You can pin someone down on intellectual dishonesty in a satisfying way, which many people have done. I think what is most frustrating is that Jeremy has the leisure to be able to pick and choose the arguments he wants to address. When he reaches a dead end with one person, there is always another post he can try and poke wholes in. It is very frustrating, because arguments with him never seem to reach any kind of conclusion, it becomes just an endless cycle or rehashing the same topics over and over again. He refuses to ground himself with any kind of positive assertion complete with evidence, reasoning, and rebuttals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
23-05-2014, 11:11 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
[Image: i-451f5356ad30f214361cd29fda6a4963-debatingrules.jpeg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 11:20 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 11:10 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 10:17 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  This right here is a prime example of why he will never be worth the time to debate. He is far to willing to dishonestly misrepresent an argument. He Strawmans so damn much I half expect his best friend to be made of bloody Tin.

Why debate him if one knows beforehand he's going to be consistently dishonest?

You can pin someone down on intellectual dishonesty in a satisfying way, which many people have done. I think what is most frustrating is that Jeremy has the leisure to be able to pick and choose the arguments he wants to address. When he reaches a dead end with one person, there is always another post he can try and poke wholes in. It is very frustrating, because arguments with him never seem to reach any kind of conclusion, it becomes just an endless cycle or rehashing the same topics over and over again. He refuses to ground himself with any kind of positive assertion complete with evidence, reasoning, and rebuttals.

And that is the agony and the beauty of internet forums. We're not going anywhere, he may or may not stick around. Either way his arguments continue to get unraveled and his resolve will not last. They never do, that's the thing about fairy tales vs. reality.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like evenheathen's post
24-05-2014, 02:22 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 11:10 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  You can pin someone down on intellectual dishonesty in a satisfying way, which many people have done. I think what is most frustrating is that Jeremy has the leisure to be able to pick and choose the arguments he wants to address. When he reaches a dead end with one person, there is always another post he can try and poke wholes in. It is very frustrating, because arguments with him never seem to reach any kind of conclusion, it becomes just an endless cycle or rehashing the same topics over and over again. He refuses to ground himself with any kind of positive assertion complete with evidence, reasoning, and rebuttals.

Indeed and one wonders why he is here if he refuses to listen to any points raised or change his position, he's claims he isn't trying to convert people and he also claims to be doing his own 'research' even though he is just repeating himself and getting the same answers back again and again and therefore isn't learning anything new.

A plausible explanation is that he is here to make new atheists doubt themselves which is why he posts videos of atheists who have become Christians. It exploits pack instinct. Seeing one of your own kind, someone you would otherwise identify with, make a choice that you wouldn't is disturbing. It's one reason why atheists get demonised by Christians.

Why he's doing this though would be to reaffirm his own faith. He wants to reinforce his belief that atheists are wrong and that he is right. He probably does not like what atheists represent and therefore resents their existence. Seeing people that he would otherwise identify with reject the concept of God probably disturbs him. He is effectively trying to attack us.

Laughing at him is probably the worst thing for him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
24-05-2014, 03:12 AM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
Seth of TTA talks about ridicule being an integral part of indoctrination, self-imposed or otherwise, and often bemoans the ridicule of Carl Sagan and others: Not for anything about the content of his work, which he didn't view until much later; but because of a groupthink mentality that Sagan was deserving of ridicule for ~~Reasons~~ without having a clue what Sagan's work was about.

Jeremy is absolutely looking for confirmation bias reinforcement. I have no doubt crude belittlement is somehow twisted to reinforce <'We' are Bad People>, <He is Good>, and that he's subconsciously actively seeking out the abuse that will reinforce <All non-Christians are Bad People>, while excusing his own trolling behavior as for this amorphous, nondescript "research" he's conducting.

He believes, at some level, that he's not only learning more about about "the way atheists think," but learning how to better evangelize to them. He's not interested in learning anything about the worldview of the secular to actually accomplish this, but has apparently been "cargo cult" imitating an author/pastor he idolizes:

http://www.heritagebooks.org/the-brokenh...vangelist/

And discounts his failure to evangelize here as "practice" for real-world scenarios he probably hasn't worked up the gumption to actually try out. As a white, middle to upper class male in his mid to late 20's, I'm sure he believes he's successful among his peers repeating memorized arguments like-minded people would find compelling.

What's worrisome is the detachment from reality with all the self-rationalization he's doing. "Look at this compelling argument" becomes "oh, I have no interest in convincing you," or "I'm only doing research to see how you would react."

It's very sad. And it makes for very poor discussions.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
24-05-2014, 03:45 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 03:12 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  He's not interested in learning anything about the worldview of the secular to actually accomplish this, but has apparently been "cargo cult" imitating an author/pastor he idolizes:

http://www.heritagebooks.org/the-brokenh...vangelist/

So is that Jeremy's own book? Is he here desperately trying to develop ways to convince atheists that they are wrong so that he can write it up as a book and make money? Hence his excuse of being here to conduct 'research' (into how to convert us) rather than being here in order to convert us?

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 04:10 AM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
Dunno. It's possible, but there's no reference to the author as "E. Walker," and I highly doubt any pastor, let alone an author would be reduced to copypasta Wiki entries. The WLC copypasta is likely, though.

And it's not as if you're going to get an unbiased review of something released by http://www.heritagebooks.org/ online.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: