Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[FredLC]

The trouble with your rhetoric was that you were as guilty of doing what you accused agnostics of doing, this was the irony of the whole statmenet you somehow assumed it was consistent to say that God does not exist may not exist as it is to say you don't know then you said you replace one doubt based belief system with another and so on and so on, when in reality that's precisely what you did unless you of course have some overwhelming knowledge of Gods non-existance, or your a hard atheist.

Thus ultimately all you did was show that atheism and agnosticism are pretty much simillar and there is no reason to hold one more worthy than another which is pretty much my opinion, so in essence you agreed with me, essentially a philosophy has more merit than b philosophy as if somehow because you say it has it must do by definition, when in reality all you were doing was using hollow rhetoric to destroy your own point.

The irony is that people actually congratulated you for destroying any point you could have made, but then that's hollow an meaningless pseudo babble for you, some people will believe anything, you should know you're a lawyer

It's not what you say it's how you say it, sheep will follow any old crap as long as it's dressed up well.

And this here shows where you missed the point, Sidhe. Yes, it's part of my argument, and this agreed with you, that philosophically speaking, agnosticsim and atheism are in equal grounding.

But it's also true that, philosophically speaking, saying that humanity does not exist is in equal grounding to saying it does; saying this debate isn't happening is also in equal grounding to say it did. Philosophical debate leaves room for the unreasonable doubt to bloom, my friend.

I hence concluded that as we pragmatically accept our own existence, and pragmatically accept the information of our senses, we should also pragmatically accept that an opinion without experimental grounds should not be propelled.

Remember how many times I called for an pragmatical edge on the atheist worldview. That's it, as clearly as it could be.

But we are threadjacking. If you truly want to revive this debate, let's bring it to another thread, shall we?

Regards .

 

[Perfection]

The reason you are so well regarded on these boards is your habit of ending on a smiley. Everyone else ends on an ad-hom. It's sooooo off-putting.

Perhaps a small part, but I think it's more about his mind-blowing arguments. I mean they're just plain awesome! If God existed, and He made posts they'd be like FredLC's.

 

[azzaman333]

CFC is a more intellegent forum than your average forum, but calling a group of 100,000 people intellectual is a pretty silly thing to do.

 

[FredLC]

CFC is a more intellegent forum than your average forum, but calling a group of 100,000 people intellectual is a pretty silly thing to do.

Don't know. How many members does MENSA have?

Regards .

 

[azzaman333]

Don't know. How many members does MENSA have?

Regards .

Hopefully more than 100,000.

EDIT: Actually, I wouldn't call MENSA members intellectual, rather smart.

 

[Perfection]

CFC may not be composed of intellectuals, but CFC is smarter then MENSA, that's for damn sure!

 

[Sidhe]

And this here shows where you missed the point, Sidhe. Yes, it's part of my argument, and this agreed with you, that philosophically speaking, agnosticsim and atheism are in equal grounding.

But it's also true that, philosophically speaking, saying that humanity does not exist is in equal grounding to saying it does; saying this debate isn't happening is also in equal grounding to say it did. Philosophical debate leaves room for the unreasonable doubt to bloom, my friend.

I hence concluded that as we pragmatically accept our own existence, and pragmatically accept the information of our senses, we should also pragmatically accept that an opinion without experimental grounds should not be propelled.

Remember how many times I called for an pragmatical edge on the atheist worldview. That's it, as clearly as it could be.

But we are threadjacking. If you truly want to revive this debate, let's bring it to another thread, shall we?

Regards .

That's just it your premise is faulty as is your conclusion that it's just as easy to say humans don't exist or do? How's that? Well blow me you'be just ko'd existentialism as well, all in a days work for FredLC.

And you're right, sloppy philsophy aside, it belongs on another thread.

 

[The Last Conformist]

A few people here I'd call intellectuals, some are utter nutcases, and most are just regular dumbasses.

 

[storealex]

A few people here I'd call intellectuals, some are utter nutcases, and most are just regular dumbasses.

And which category would you fit in?

 

[The Last Conformist]

And which category would you fit in?

Utter nutcase. Why do you ask?

 

[Sidhe]

I'm a gibbering mental patient dumbass intelectual personally myself, with delusions of grandeur and multiple personality disorder, well on a good day that is. On a bad day I'm Perfection, seriously

 

[storealex]

Utter nutcase. Why do you ask?

Because I have yet to see you be an intelectual, you're not nutty enough to be a nutcase and you're too smart to be a dumbass.

 

[Zarn]

I can have much more intelligent conversations with my peers, regardless of their religion or political views.

This is why I do not debate here very often. That and you guys never have any idea of what I am saying, but I guess that is partially my fault.

 

[Perfection]

A few people here I'd call intellectuals

Come on, dude! I need names!

 

[Sidhe]

I'd say there were too many to list personally. I think a large proportion who come here are intelectuals but anyone really who is looking to learn soemthing beyond their own narrow minded button down world, in many forms, forums, books areas of study, interests is an intelectual and to be honest I think most people here would fit into that category. Are you asking who is intelligent or who is an intelectual, because that's not the same thing.

Oh great and now I'm talking to myself

 

[Bill3000]

Come on, dude! I need names!

I dunno. As much as I would like to actually label people to be intelletuals, is it really allowed in the forum rules? Part of the reason why we're evading naming people is the fact that we're trying to avoid the "no elitism" and "no personal attacks" rules in CFC - as much as I hate the former, (since elitism will exist regardless) it's still the rule...

 

[FredLC]

That's just it your premise is faulty as is your conclusion that it's just as easy to say humans don't exist or do? How's that? Well blow me you'be just ko'd existentialism as well, all in a days work for FredLC.

And you're right, sloppy philsophy aside, it belongs on another thread.

Not really no, the difference lies in empiricism, but I won't pursuit this debate in the wrong topic.

Regards .

 

[Sidhe]

Not really no, the difference lies in empiricism, but I won't pursuit this debate in the wrong topic.

Regards .

Empiricism and God do not mix and your right. But let me just say that if your comparing scientific empiricism with philosophy/theology your not going to find much of contingent philosophy. Which is why most great philosophers tend to be either or, as neither has any absolute answers, but with atheism you can at least have a different approach to ethics the nature of existence from an atheistic stand point.

So if your point is trying to bring science to what you believe, then it's a bit of a dead end, it's like trying to bring scientific experementation to the God question, you simply can't mix a scientific axiom with a philosophical belief, science doesn't do philosophy, philosophy might do science but it's not exactly scientific, and theology well then your on another level of divorce from rationality or logic, but since weak atheism is a belief system rather than a religion, because you have the same level of proof for your theory as does a theologian, you can't make consistent scientific claims about it.

Stating that something you can see and experiment on must be more worthy of merit does not mean that dark matter or black holes or life on planet zifnex 7 does not exist any more than God doesn't at least from a scientifc perspective, science can only work with proof and philosophy at least on the God question without it, so trying to be rational and scientifc about something philosophical/theological like this is an excercise in sophistry and futlility, as your rather verbose posit proved.

 

[Mirc]

No. A small subset of people on CFC are intellectuals. Most people in CFC are idiots.

Ditto, but I wouldn't really call the other ones idiots.

 

[Bill3000]

Ditto, but I wouldn't really call the other ones idiots.

I first became active on the OT to try to give pointers on debating, and failed miserably.