You don’t know what you’re talking about, unfortunately. I have no interest in the simplistic formulations of Darwinists. — Xtrix

Very good argument! Totally irrefutable, and iron-hard! Because you gave an opinion of your own state of mind. You gave no reason why we should or would believe you... you gave your private opinion.

You are the laughing stock of this forum board, and the new members are getting a good grounding of your inability to focus, argue, and think reasonably.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, unfortunately. I have no interest in the simplistic formulations of Darwinists.
— Xtrix

Very good argument! Totally irrefutable, and iron-hard! — god must be atheist

Oh, you mean like this:

That may very well be because RD was right. — god must be atheist

Also a great argument.

You gave no reason why we should or would believe you... you gave your private opinion. — god must be atheist

True. Given that you did the exact same thing, I figured it was appropriate.

You are the laughing stock of this forum board — god must be atheist

Oh no! :fear:

Coming from you, this is devastating.

Sorry, but it wasn't the "poor newbie" who brought rationalism and empiricism into this discussion. — Xtrix

Yes, true. But I was trying to apply the KISS principle, that categorisation is standard in all intro to philosophy University courses, sure it can be critiqued, but for new students, best to just go with it in my view.

Yes, true. But I was trying to apply the KISS principle, that categorisation is standard in all intro to philosophy University courses, sure it can be critiqued, but for new students, best to just go with it in my view. — Wayfarer

I disagree with you, but fair enough.

The kid on the island can figure out that (for instance) he can get the fruit of a tree by shaking the tree, instead of climbing up on it. — god must be atheist

Agree. The brain can help us to make the right action when we have to reasoning. Nevertheless, I think the experience is also important here. Most of humans learn because previously they failed doing something. Probably the brain of the kid interpreted the good choice was shaking the tree because previously climbing the tree was dangerous and then he was hurt in the floor.
What I want to say is that sounds difficult (not impossible) that the brain quickly gives to you the most reasonable action instead of exploring all circumstances previously.

My source of information was not Richard Dawkins but the history of education of which I have several books. You really do not know about Aristotle, the church, and Scholasticism, do you?

Very good argument! Totally irrefutable, and iron-hard! Because you gave an opinion of your own state of mind. You gave no reason why we should or would believe you... you gave your private opinion.



You are the laughing stock of this forum board, and the new members are getting a good grounding of your inability to focus, argue, and think reasonably. — god must be atheist

I think you have confirmed my opinion. Heaven knows there is a lot I do not know and I don't fault others for not knowing something. But when one is not all-knowing and is trying to impress us with the idea that he is all-knowing, a correction might need to be made, especially when we are dealing with newbies who want to learn. I don't think philosophy is about being all-knowing but rather is about questioning what we think we know. Your point about making a good argument is an important one. :cheer:

And I can pry open a can of paint with a screw driver, although I shouldn't because it may wreck the tool. And that my bias: Aristotelean rationalism, such as it is, for the support of religion an abuse of Aristotelian rationalism. But on this I welcome correction. Please correct. — tim wood

It is about inductive and deductive reasoning. Bacon challenged the ancient authorities and this became a very important social movement radically changing our relationship with "authority" and social organization! Democracy could not happen without the change brought about by Bacon. Aristotle is deductive reasoning. Bacon and those who followed are inductive reasoning and empiricism follows. Before the change brought in by Bacon we did not have the consciousness, the questions, that promote science, empiricism, and change. That is the modernism that took us out of the dark ages. For about 2 thousand years, people did not challenge "authority" and did not expect change.

Inductive reason is relatively new and totally changed our relationship with authority and opportunities in life. In the past, we thought God controlled everything. Martin Luther thought God chose who would-be masters and who would serve, and that was determined by birth. Crazy isn't it? Philosophy led to radical changes in how we understand life and our social/political organization.

You might notice the Bible begins with linage and you might remember the Jews and Greeks had a war when the Greeks conquered the Jews and then hired people to do jobs on merit rather than the Jewish rules of positions being controlled by birth. It is pretty amazing Christians accepted the social/political order of Democracy considering the Bible is about kings and slaves, not democracy. My point being Bacon and inductive reason truly brought us into a new age.

My source of information was not Richard Dawkins but the history of education of which I have several books. You really do not know about Aristotle, the church, and Scholasticism, do you? — Athena

I never once said your source was Richard Dawkins. I never once stated that Aristotle (or Plato) weren't influential in the development of the church.

Shows your level of reading comprehension as well, I suppose. Not a shocker.

Your linear view of the history of philosophy is embarrassing.