My most formidable adversary ever.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2011, 12:24 AM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
(05-05-2011 03:20 PM)MasterRottweiler Wrote:  He says that philosophy and metaphysics is the only way to really prove things that empirical science dont, because philosophy is objective and reasonably true, also he is attacking our intelectual vanity since most of us didn't study philosophy, he basically says that all empirical sciences are irrelevant comparing them with philosophy. but anyway thats not the point.
As a student of philosophy, I can honestly say that I have yet to come across an objective philosopher or system of philosophy. It ALWAYS relies on one or more assumptions. Descartes started out better than anyone else with his "cogito" argument...and then fudged a proof for the existence of god to be able to go from there.

Something something something Dark Side
Something something something complete
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2011, 02:04 AM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2011 02:27 AM by MasterRottweiler.)
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
Oh wow...

I've been reading his replies to another related post, (I am still waiting his counter-arguments to the logical counter-arguments for Aquinas 5-ways), and my guesses were right; he is trying to be antagonistic.

Quote:"@Admin: You are talking to a philosopher, I know the philosophic schools that you mentioned, and I STUDY THE ONLY SCIENCE KNOWN AS PHILOSOPHY... Do you think that in other sciences there are not different schools? Just because Edison and Tesla had different opinions does not mean that they used diferent kinds of physics... BTW, I used less words in my post than this one, but they were more convincing for one reason; they are TRUE, if not, lets see if you can prove them wrong (Aquinas argument) by using only reason... If you dont believe that the mind is capable by itself of proving things, then your are the weak-minded guy..."

Quote:"@RandomUser:...Believe me I have the authority, just imagine that you are talking to Nietzche, Carlin, or even better; Richard Dawkins, then you will be able to believe it without questioning it..."

Just wow... gotta love how theists love to mention Dawkins for their own arguments. Still no response to the logical counter arguments posted by another atheist...

@Observer: Yes it is spanish language since I am from Mexico and the forum is mexican, I will translate his answer if/when he post it. Peace.

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2011, 02:40 AM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
If he thinks philosophy is the key, he should try Nietzsche (cfr God is dead, we killed him). I doubt he'd like his conclusion, though Tongue

"Infinitus est numerus stultorum." (The number of fools is infinite)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2011, 03:46 AM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
Philosophy is always based on ideas and opinions and can never truly be "objective".
Science may rely its goals on a philosophy but its conclusions are based on facts and evidence that are the same regardless of human opinion.

Quote:If you dont believe that the mind is capable by itself of proving things, then your are the weak-minded guy
This is just so fucking arrogant it makes me want to punch the guy.
Yes we use our minds to prove things , but we don't use just our minds , we use evidence. EVIDENCE !!!!!!

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2011, 04:27 AM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
(06-05-2011 03:46 AM)gaglamesh731 Wrote:  we use evidence. EVIDENCE !!!!!!
Watch out for the trap in front of you Gaglamesh! Evidence is concieved trough perception and perception is Philosophy. MasterRotweiler's intellectual masturbator is indeed resourceful. He keeps forgetting what Cfhmagnet mentioned however: EVERY philosophy is biased from the start only because the philosopher is never a blank slate!

@MasterRottweiler
Funny how that man admits he believes in the flying spaghetti monster.
1: He says taet TFSM is just a different name for the "necessary being" or God
2: He provides evidence for that "necessary being"
3: A=B & B=C thus C=A

Perhaps you can ask him where he defines the difference to watch him cringe. Smile
If he answers your questions that is. Mostly types like that give "not home" when you confront them.

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2011, 02:16 PM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
@observer
Quote:Watch out for the trap in front of you Gaglamesh! Evidence is concieved trough perception and perception is Philosophy. MasterRotweiler's intellectual masturbator is indeed resourceful. He keeps forgetting what Cfhmagnet mentioned however: EVERY philosophy is biased from the start only because the philosopher is never a blank slate!
Thanks , I did step right into that one.

So in short all philosophies are imperfect. Still I feel that a philosophy that draws conclusions from facts rather than find facts on already made conclusions is superior.
Is that more ok ? Confused

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2011, 04:43 PM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
Well its now 5:40 pm and no response from our philisopher, yesterday another atheist posted the logical counter arguments for Aquinas proofs, and he has not responded yet...

@Observer; Aparently yes he is resourceful indeed, lol I triggered the very same logical trap like Gaglamesh lol.

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2011, 05:15 PM
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
(06-05-2011 04:43 PM)MasterRottweiler Wrote:  lol I triggered the very same logical trap like Gaglamesh lol.
*opens visor revealing though looking steel blue eyes*
*points plasma rifle up and talks in a low raspy voice*

"Stay close rooky. You are not in the materialistic world anymore. You are on the "Philosophy" deck now. Normal rules of engagement don't apply here."

(I've been watching too much lame sci-fi movies. Big Grin Besides... I'm not a veteran nor a pro Confused)

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2011, 10:58 PM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2011 01:22 AM by MasterRottweiler.)
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
UPDATE:

Apparently we got another response from our beloved philosopher (no response on the logical counter arguments for Aquinas 5-ways).

Quote:"@RandomUser: "How can I tell that the necesary beaing exists?" Are you taking the fact that the limited capacity or the poor data from a miserable scientist (which is still a human being) is not enough to explain this phenomenon? Its like saying: We do not know why things happen this way, we will continue investigating.

Again, something's wrong with your eyes... ¿How can I tell? I can tell that because of the exposed reasonings explained in my post... READ IT!

You call it faith for some reason... Maybe is because of your intelectual myopia or may be its because you are so close-minded to accept the overwhelming truth before your eyes, faith is something else (again, check your concepts and please for god sake READ!!)"

Again, WOW, his arrogance level its over 9000!

Interestingly enough this is his first comment on the logical counter arguments post. I dont know if this guy is a hack, a very talented troll, or he's just taking his time to respond to the logical counter-arguments, but in any case I will keep you informed. Peace

PS. Which one is the most common answer from Aquinas defenders about the arbitrary denial of infinite regress? In case he mention this, I want to be one step ahead Big Grin.

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2011, 03:33 AM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2011 03:46 AM by daemonowner.)
RE: My most formidable adversary ever.
I prefer the scientific explanation.

"If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you will always get something" - Lawrence krauss

With the scientific explanation presented, any effort comparable to Aquinas' becomes an argument from ignorance.
@Master A very common argument is that god is outside time and space, so he doesn't play by our rules. I would ask him how he knows which god it is, how the god exists, how a being not comprimised of matter can be considered existing and can create things and why we shouldn't accept the scientific explanations presented in Lawrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing.
Likely his responding argument will take the form that we have no explanations other than an uncaused sentient being known as God and so Aquinas must be right and his God exists. Of course, it is trivial to point out that that is an argument from ignorance.

The ball's in his park. We have presented an argument and counter arguments to his argument. He can no longer claim that his option is the only game in town, but instead he must support his arguments and counter our explanation.
(05-05-2011 05:06 PM)MasterRottweiler Wrote:  because he is the type of person who uses ad-hominem attacks only because you dont "understand" things from his perspective.

"He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak."
- Michel de Montaigne

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: