You characterized it as a “fight”. You are seeing me as attacking you when I am just trying to have a discussion, and you are the one who wants to “win the fight”. That’s Satanic philosophy. I am not a Saint by any means. I am probably just as bad a “sinner” as you in different ways. I just have no desire to fight fire with fire.

You characterized it as a “fight”. — Noah Te Stroete

No, as a matter of fact, you characterised it as a fight. I was merely following your lead. You said that you do not wish to fight me. Well, if you're scared of a fight, then why are you here? Debate and argumentation is a fundamental part of this forum, it being a philosophy forum.

You are seeing me as attacking you when I am just trying to have a discussion, and you are the one who wants to “win the fight”. — Noah Te Stroete

Relax. We're only fighting in a figurative sense. It's just words on a screen, I'm not literally going to punch your lights out or anything of that nature. :lol:

That’s Satanic philosophy. — Noah Te Stroete

:rofl:

I am not a Saint by any means. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, that was sarcasm.

I am probably just as bad a “sinner” as you in different ways. — Noah Te Stroete

I don't know about that. What's worse than fucking your own mother and then setting her on fire as a sacrifice to Satan?

I just have no desire to fight fire with fire. — Noah Te Stroete

So you choose instead to fight reasonable argumentation with evasion and fallacy? Okily dokily!

The way I see it, you pick and choose points I have made instead of taking what I have said as a whole. We don’t have to come to an agreement. I find your method of debate to be very hostile and sarcastic, hardly in the spirit of philosophy.

The way I see it, you pick and choose points I have made instead of taking what I have said as a whole. We don’t have to come to an agreement. I find your method of debate to be very hostile and sarcastic, hardly in the spirit of philosophy. — Noah Te Stroete

I break things down, analyse them, then share my analysis. I don't think that there's anything wrong with my method, and I think that it's a much better method for accuracy and staying on point. In my years of experience on forums such as this, those comments which don't take advantage of the quote-by-quote method are more likely to miss the point or digress or ramble on too long or a combination of the aforementioned.

I think that you've missed important things that I've said throughout our discussions, and maybe you wouldn't have done so if you'd have just quoted me more, so that it's right there, staring you in the face.

And yes, I'm sarcastic, because it amuses me. Don't be such a wet blanket. And yes, I'm hostile because you're my sworn enemy, as are all who dare to challenge me, and I will utterly destroy you. Hulk smash.

Taking my sentences one by one and replying to each of them is taking them out of context. I don’t find that effective for growth which I think is the point of philosophy. Philosophy isn’t for puerile amusement.

Taking my sentences one by one and replying to each of them is taking them out of context. — Noah Te Stroete

It is literally taking sections of your comment out of the surrounding text, but that doesn't necessarily distort the meaning, which is the only thing that matters when someone objects that something has been taken out of context. If you think that I've taken anything that you've said out of necessary context and thereby distorted the meaning in some important way, then the burden is on you to make that case. I don't accept that that's what I've done.

Above, for example, I've left out the following sentence where you describe what you take to be the consequences of what you allege of me. I've done so because I deny the allegation to begin with, rendering your stated consequences irrelevant to me. Hence, I saw little-to-no reason to address it, and by choosing not to include it in what I quoted, it is clear that my reply isn't directed at that, but only at the allegation itself.

Philosophy isn’t for puerile amusement. — Noah Te Stroete

I don't take lectures from just about anyone regarding what philosophy is or is not for. I make my own mind up. This is a philosophy forum, and I shall use it as I please within the parameters set by the staff. What can I say? I'm a liberal, and proud of it.

If you're working towards wisdom, then you should listen to what I have to say. I'm a wise old owl, as those who stick around here long enough find out. (Even if they don't like to admit it).

I don’t think it matters whether our universe is special or not. To me, God is a loving Presence, a Spirit akin to a Universal Consciousness that all of us can call upon for hope, peace, love, equanimity, patience, joy, and all of the loving virtues. It makes no difference how many universes there are. God is Present in all life-supporting worlds. — Noah Te Stroete

To me, that's pie in the sky romanticism, unsuited to the questioning, critical discussion, and rational argument associated with the philosophical method.

The emotion I feel, the reason I think, the wonder and awe of looking up at the cosmos, the fact that we are conscious and not not conscious, that life and consciousness are even possible, are all the evidence I need. — Noah Te Stroete

I find it depressing if you can't appreciate these natural wonders without attributing them to some imagined entity. I think that, for example, Darwin's work on the theory of evolution is much more wonderful, fascinating, and awe inspiring than the simplistic religiously influenced myths which were predominant beforehand. And it's sad that Darwin's work faced such fierce attacks from ignorant religious-minded folks. They have such a bad track record for attempting to hinder progress.

Philosophy isn’t for puerile amusement. — Noah Te Stroete

You're quite sure of that?

All that is needed for what? I might come across as a little blunt and forthright in manner, a little combative, a little sarcastic, therefore I'm exactly the kind of person who would start a war or commit an act of terrorism in the name of religion, money, power, or any other cause whatsoever? That's a bit of a stretch. — S

No, you’re not the kind of person to start a war. You’re inconsequential. You have no power. But, your tribalism is just what is needed to follow, say, a War on Terror.

What about the Soviet bloc?
— Noah Te Stroete

What about it? I know the history quite well, but what's your point? The wars of religion, the acts of terror inspired by religion, the religiously motivated oppression and persecution, punishment, torture, and extreme methods of execution, dwarf the examples of similar antireligious acts by perpetrators who were atheist. — S

The point was that any ideology can be cultivated to commit violence. The only necessary ingredient is the Politics of Difference. It just so happened that the differences among the warring factions of the past were religions. What about the Imperial Japanese? They didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor in the name of religion. They were cut off from their oil supplies. They didn’t invade China over religion. They were imperialists. The Nazis were also imperialists inspired by philosophy, a very destructive and ugly philosophy.

What can I say? I'm a liberal, and proud of it.

If you're working towards wisdom, then you should listen to what I have to say. I'm a wise old owl, as those who stick around here long enough find out. (Even if they don't like to admit it). — S

You’re a liberal in name only. I would better characterize you as an “asshole”.

To me, that's pie in the sky romanticism, unsuited to the questioning, critical discussion, and rational argument associated with the philosophical method. — S

It’s called metaphysics. You may have heard of it?

I find it depressing if you can't appreciate these natural wonders without attributing them to some imagined entity. — S

I find it depressing that you find your own mind to be the penultimate in the evolution of reality.

You’re a liberal in name only. I would better characterize you as an “asshole”. — Noah Te Stroete

Thanks! I believe I was made in God's image.

It’s called metaphysics. You may have heard of it? — Noah Te Stroete

It's called bad metaphysics, or wishful thinking.

Thanks! I believe I was made in God's image. — S

You probably think your puerile jabs affect me. You’re just a sad, little man.

It's called bad metaphysics, or wishful thinking. — S

And you are brave enough to submit your metaphysics to scrutiny?

And you are brave enough to submit your metaphysics to scrutiny? — Noah Te Stroete

Do you realise that I've posted over six thousand comments here? Over double that amount if you were to include the posts I made on the old forum which now no longer exists. I've exposed my metaphysics to scrutiny more times than I can possibly remember.

I’m asking you to to submit your metaphysics here for us to critique. Do you have a problem with that? What caused the Big Bang? Do you believe in a genesis explanation for reality? What is consciousness? Is it an accident, or is it a necessary ingredient of reality? Are you a physicalist or a dualist?

I’m asking you to to submit your metaphysics here for us to critique. Do you have a problem with that? What caused the Big Bang? Do you believe in a genesis explanation for reality? What is consciousness? Is it an accident, or is it a necessary ingredient of reality? Are you a physicalist or a dualist? — Noah Te Stroete

I answer whatever questions I feel like answering. Do you have a problem with that? If so, tough. :grin:

I don't have an answer to every question, some things are unknown, and some questions are poorly composed. But I'll tell you that no, I don't believe in a genesis explanation for reality or that consciousness is a necessary ingredient of reality.

I don’t claim to have knowledge either. I was stating pure beliefs. These beliefs help guide my actions, like the action of calling someone I believe to be a coward a “coward”, such as yourself.

Really? It’s 50/50 you mean? I doubt that. Source?

I don't believe in a genesis explanation for reality — S

So, you believe our universe always existed? That’s dumb as it goes against scientific consensus.

"...hope, peace, love, equanimity, patience, joy, and all of the loving virtues..." :lol: :ok:

Yeah, liberal virtues. Not your asshole virtues. I don’t have a problem putting an asshole in his place.

So, you believe our universe always existed? — Noah Te Stroete

That doesn't follow from rejecting a genesis explanation.

That’s dumb as it goes against scientific consensus. — Noah Te Stroete

My views are in line with the scientific consensus.

How doesn’t it follow? How did it begin then?

How doesn’t it follow? — Noah Te Stroete

I'm not your logic tutor. Go figure it out.

How did it begin then? — Noah Te Stroete

That's an example of the kind of poorly composed question I referred to. Do you know what a loaded question is? I don't assume a beginning, as that would be begging the question. And the Big Bang isn't a beginning in the sense that philosophers argue over.

You’re being evasive like a coward. Even Stephen Hawking believed in something that caused the Big Bang. You certainly aren’t well-read enough to know what he believed without knowing I would wager.

Even Stephen Hawking believed in something that caused the Big Bang. — Noah Te Stroete

Stephen Hawking and scientific consensus are not one and the same.