You really do just make it all up as you toddle along. — universeness

-Either that or she is trolling everyone....including her gods. According to her. her gods fancy reason...but I can not really say the same for her arguments.
She even challenged the usefulness of sound arguments and logic in Philosophy.
So I am not sure she is for real...or we are just interacting with a new age caller of the Atheist Experience show lol.

@Hillary, is male!
We have had many exchanges.
He will employ stealth tactics but I don't think he is malevolent or is a TROLL (perhaps a little bit of a troll, at times).
I am personally convinced that he roleplays as a polytheist to attempt to annoy atheists as his real love is science but the science community has not returned his love/respect for them in an adequate fashion for him, so he is pissed off at them in general and cosmologists in particular.
He does and will continue to deny my conclusions about him and I do accept that these are merely my opinions based on my exchanges with him.

So your educated guess agrees with my first impression about him.
I am not sure that one can use so many fallacies in a sentence and not be a troll....but I could be wrong! Thanks for the info.

It's a very old internet story, isn't it.
You can be unfortunate enough to be exchanging/communicating with a seriously sinister character or an organised group with their own fixed, perhaps even nefarious agenda.
Imho, @Hillary is not in either of those categories and I think there are more sinister posters on this site than him but I do also think their numbers are very few.

Hi univeeeerse! Look at the kind reply an Israeli professor sent me, instead of asking a dollar like that Carroll asks, without guarantee of answering!



Dear Deschele,

 

Thank you for your kind and friendly mail.

If I have to guess, Rishons should be massless, but since the dynamics combining them into quarks and leptons is far from clear, it is truly an open question, even if the model is right.

I still believe, 43 years after 1979, that some version of this model must be right, and hope to live long enough to see it.

Fortunately, the decision is in the hands of mother nature and not in the hands of a public opinion poll.

Best wishes

 

Haim Harari

Something else not?

I think it's your incapacity of understanding gods and the reason they exist. Dawkins has the same problem. Like your hero Sagan. They are scientifically kind of uneducated and by hailing science try to be scientifically uprated. But they don't have the genius for it!

Atheist traitor! :lol:

Yes, a nice response, a good letter. Evidence that most established scientists will respond to questions from the public but they can't answer everyone who sends a question.

I think it's your incapacity of understanding gods and the reason they exist. Dawkins has the same problem. Like your hero Sagan. They are scientifically kind of uneducated and by hailing science try to be scientifically uprated. But they don't have the genius for it! — Hillary

Not exactly the best demonstration of a balanced, well-reasoned viewpoint.
You continue to post opinions which imo seem bitter and imbued with unfettered emotion.

I am personally convinced that he roleplays as a polytheist to attempt to annoy atheists as his real love is science but the science community has not returned his love/respect for them in an adequate fashion for him, so he is pissed off at them in general and cosmologists in particular. — universeness

No universeness... Nice rational interpretaion but that's not my reason to be polytheist. The fact that the physics community tramps on me is not the reason. Instead of them trying to develop my model ( Harari is a great help by the way) they withdraw in their safe conventional shells. I don't even try anymore. I have a fair part translated in math (the particle's geometric structure is quite difficult though, and virtual gravitons rotating in spacetime while forming it, indicates that something else from ordinary virtual fields, like the photon field, is going on; if a mass couples to virtual gravitons, the spacetime around the mass is curved, the metric changes, and this can only be described by gravitons if the act on space, so not only on other masses).

Atheist traitor! :lol: — Hillary

Oh, sorry! Were you enjoying your roleplay as a female irrational polytheist with @Nickolasgaspar?

No universeness... Nice rational interpretaion but that's not my reason to be polytheist. The fact that the physics community tramps on me is not the reason. Instead of them trying to develop my model ( Harari is a great help by the way) they withdraw in their safe conventional shells. I don't even try anymore. I have a fair part translated in math (the particle's geometric structure is quite difficult though, and virtual gravitons rotating in spacetime while forming it, indicates that something else from ordinary virtual fields, like the photon field, is going on; if a mass couples to virtual gravitons, the spacetime around the mass is curved, the metric changes, and this can only be described by gravitons if the act on space, so not only on other masses). — Hillary

Well, I did predict you would disagree. As I said to you before, you need to learn to love the cosmologists again and then you can stop scapegoating nonexistent gods or look to them for recognition of your scientific abilities.

Yes, a nice response, a good letter. Evidence that most established scientists will respond to questions from the public but they can't answer everyone who sends a question. — universeness

It's evidence that one of them answered. And be honest, wtf should you ask money for a question you not intend to answer? Carroll is just a nefarious atheist who is not interested in science and knowing but only in promoting his own fallacious ideas and he doesn't welcome ideas contradicting that! Like most of them. While it's all so clear. But who cares? I know Im right, and mr. Harari is on my side. At least he offers constructive critique.

Well, I did predict you would disagree. As I said to you before, you need to learn to love the cosmologists again and then you can stop scapegoating nonexistent gods or look to them for recognition of your scientific abilities. — universeness

Disagree with what?

Oh, sorry! — universeness

It's alright! I did no roleplay. I never said I am a woman. What makes you think Im a man? You assume I play polytheist roleplay or panto because you can't understand it and by calling it roleplay you try to make it understandable. :wink:

Disagree with what? — Hillary

With my description of some of your real reasons for some of the irrational posts, you make regarding theism.

It's evidence that one of them answered. And be honest, wtf should you ask money for a question you not intend to answer? Carroll is just a nefarious atheist who is not interested in science and knowing but only in promoting his own fallacious ideas and he doesn't welcome ideas contradicting that! Like most of them. While it's all so clear. But who cares? I know Im right, and mr. Harari is on my side. At least he offers constructive critique — Hillary

You should read what you type and think about from the aspect of an independent arbiter with no vested interest. In my opinion, you would be found to be bitter.bitter, bitter and perhaps even a little twisted.

Well, I did predict you would disagree. As I said to you before, you need to learn to love the cosmologists again — universeness

I like them all! All nice people, but so damned self-righteous, while being wrong! Try to tellem that!

It's alright! I did no roleplay. I never said I am a woman. What makes you think Im a man? You assume I play polytheist roleplay or panto because you can3understand it and by calling it roleplay you try to make it understandable. — Hillary

I won't indulge you with your roleplay hats on by taking the bait.

I live them all! All nice people, but so damned self-righteous, while being wrong! Try to tellem that! — Hillary

Your main battle is still with the man in the mirror!

With my description of some of your real reasons for some of the irrational posts, you make regarding theism. — universeness

The real reasons exist in your mind only. I know better than that. Don't you think I have taken distance once in a while, to myself? Of course, but gods are inevitable! I don't look at them in my daily life. Once in a while they visit me or whisper in my ear (schizophrenia!). But that's all. I live life like the gods. And so do you! So dance along brother Uni! Hellilujea!

Your main battle is still with the man in the mirror! — universeness

The man in the mirror is a parrot! It's a good looking parrot but everything I do or say he just reflects!

Your main battle is still with the man in the mirror! — universeness

Is it a man? It's a woman! I have grown my hair for two years now and have come in contact with my female side! We all have male and female sides. They are unimportant in science and my physical theories have even been called gay theories, no kidding!

You should read what you type and think about from the aspect of an independent arbiter with no vested interest. In my opinion, you would be found to be bitter.bitter, bitter and perhaps even a little twisted. — universeness

I'm not bitter at all. That's what you're projecting on me all the time, and I'm beginning to think it's you who is bitter and twisted WTF should I feel bitter. I just feel disappointed in those so-called hot shots you so religiously admire. Who in the hell asks money to answer questions, if you are lucky? That makes me feel bitter. They are not interested in knowing but only in money and promoting and advocating their own view. Which is even false... And, like I showed, Haim Harari doesn't feel himself superior.

Maybe you need to do the aboriginal walkabout. Keep walking until you meet yourself!

Don't underestimate the dreamtime, brother Uni! I know you have your reservations, but there I saw the gods busy in the eternal jungles of heaven. Tinkering, trying, clicking, probing, experimenting, etc. in a common effort to save the goddom from a terrible faith.

"Walkabout is a rite of passage in Australian Aboriginal society, during which males undergo a journey during adolescence, typically ages 10 to 16, and live in the wilderness for a period as long as six months to make the spiritual and traditional transition into manhood."

I wish I could live in the wilderness for ever! There is so little left though... Im gonna buy all that's left before I will be 50!

↪Nickolasgaspar

It's a very old internet story, isn't it.
You can be unfortunate enough to be exchanging/communicating with a seriously sinister character or an organised group with their own fixed, perhaps even nefarious agenda.
Imho, Hillary is not in either of those categories and I think there are more sinister posters on this site than him but I do also think their numbers are very few. — universeness

I will agree with you . He doesn't seem to be that bad. I am starting to think that he actually believes everything he writes!

Oh, sorry! Were you enjoying your roleplay as a female irrational polytheist with Nickolasgaspar? — universeness

This explains why he wasn't triggered that much by my "example". I rejected all his claims based on my Assumption that "women are inferior to men".
He demanded from me to justify this assumption and he tasted his own poison.
Since he feels like he doesn't have to justify his god assumptions...I don't really have to justify mine.
Now that I know he isn't a female....I need to find a new "excuse/assumption" for rejecting your unfounded assumptions!

This explains why he wasn't triggered that much by my "example". I rejected all his claims based on my Assumption that "women are inferior to men".
He demanded from me to justify this assumption and he tasted his own poison.
Since he feels like he doesn't have to justify his god assumptions...I don't really have to justify mine.
Now that I know he isn't a female....I need to find a new "excuse/assumption" for rejecting your unfounded assumptions! — Nickolasgaspar

I have little interest in engaging in stealth and roleplay. I endeavor to be as honest in the opinions and viewpoints I post as I can, even on a relatively anonymous site such as TPF. If others want to play dress-up then that's up to them. If you roleplay as a misogynist to counter @Hillary's tendency to obfuscate then I think two wrongs don't make a right.
This site has moderators. It's their task to decide where the red lines lay.
Anyone who is a chiseled misogynist/evanhellical/racist/ or general f***wit should be BANNED.
I am an advocate for individual freedom but I think this must be tempered. You cannot ever be free to shout 'I have a bomb in my pocket,' at an airport and then be free to leave the area peacefully after you shout soon after 'only joking.' You reap what you sow in this life, If @Hillary or you or any other poster on this website cries wolf too much then there will be a price to pay because you can't fool everyone always. Let's all keep it real and then we can all benefit from genuine exchanges of opinion and viewpoints. Leave fakery to complete f***wits like Donald Trump or Boris Johnstone supporters(only imho of course.). It's an individual moderator call but I would assume that any female member of this site would complain to the moderators if they thought a poster was a 'dyed in the wool,' misogynist. A small bitter & twisted flavour can be debated but a full bitter & twisted flavour is too much for the taste of most people I think.

Who in the hell asks money to answer questions — Hillary

I was paid a state teacher's salary for over 30 years!

If you roleplay as a misogynist to counter Hillary's tendency to obfuscate then I think two wrongs don't make a right. — universeness

-An example that is designed to "shock", provokes thinking and expose the gaps in an argument has nothing to do with the value of "right/wrong" or "role playing" or "hate speech". Its a tool that shifts the argument made by the interlocutor to a different topic where his previous biased do not apply.
After all I was pointing out again and again that it was just an example on why arbitrary assumptions can not be used as a basis for any philosophical inquiry.

-"Anyone who is a chiseled misogynist/evanhellical/racist/ or general f***wit should be BANNED."
-Even if I dislike hate speech, your statement has some issues.
Why are we ok banning mysogynistic/racist etc statements but claims that ignore objective knowledge and Basic Logic?
I mean those are part of the reason why misogynistic and racist ideas exist on the first place. Obviously for one to conclude to such ideas doesn't posses established knowledge or lacks the tools of Logic.
So why treating the symptoms, not the cause?
But this is an other conversation. My point is that an Example, independent of it bold content doesn't make one guilty of hate speech and it doesn't mean that he is involved in "role playing".
It is only a classic demonstration of the useful tool of Argument ad Absurdum

An example that is designed to "shock", provokes thinking and expose the gaps in an argument has nothing to do with the value of "right/wrong" or "role playing" or "hate speech". Its a tool that shifts the argument made by the interlocutor to a different topic where his previous biased do not apply — Nickolasgaspar

Sounds to me that you are trying to justify attempts to manipulate people by stealth. This is one reason why few of us trust politicians anymore. Even the ones who are in truth, genuinely trying to be part of the solutions.

After all I was pointing out again and again that it was just an example on why arbitrary assumptions can not be used as a basis for any philosophical inquiry — Nickolasgaspar

For what it's worth, I believe you, but if you practice 'trickery,' then you might get to like it too much if it achieves the results you personally desire. There are only very very rare cases in my opinion when the end justifies the means.

Even if I dislike hate speech, your statement has some issues.
Why are we ok banning mysogynistic/racist etc statements but claims that ignore objective knowledge and Basic Logic? — Nickolasgaspar

I have no problem regarding debate on exactly where the red lines should be. It's probably got to be on a case by case basis and it has to be related to such situations as those experienced within concepts such as the 'realpolitik,' of the times. I do think that viewpoints which I personally find abhorrent have to be aired and debated somewhere, somehow and by some people or else they fester and some compromised individual can 'explode' or become very resentful and hateful and can band together and create hate groups etc. I never said it is easy to accommodate all human varients of thought within a healthy and progressive 'society,' but that must remain the goal.
We are still left with the situation that we want to allow individual freedom, personal security and personal sense of significance but NOT ALSO allow your freedom to compromise someone else's freedom and sense of personal security and significance. Very hard to achieve for every person at all times on the whole planet.

So why treating the symptoms, not the cause? — Nickolasgaspar

We must do both! Education is the best tool for prevention and dialogue/debate is the best way to combat symptoms but we still can't let individuals go around inciting violence against others they don't like in a 'free for all.' If we had developed system of checks and balances in society that could allow for an individual to be as 'crazy sounding' as they liked but we could rely on the 'education,' level of the vast majority to be able to prevent such an individual from gaining any significant power and influence then we might be able to allow completely unfettered free speech but we just don't have such a reliable global human population. A crazy, narcissistic, fruit loop can currently become president of the united states, prime minister of Britain, or premier of Russia. The nefarious prove time and time again that you don't need to fool all of the people all of the time. Some of the people, some of the time, is good enough, for them to gain real power and influence.

My point is that an Example, independent of it bold content doesn't make one guilty of hate speech and it doesn't mean that he is involved in "role playing".
It is only a classic demonstration of the useful tool of Argument ad Absurdum — Nickolasgaspar

I think it's better to be honest with people, especially with those who you find out are being dishonest with you. Call them out and suggest they could become a better person than they currently are and then if you can and they are willing, then help them do so. Otherwise, do your best to protect others against them.

Sounds to me that you are trying to justify attempts to manipulate people by stealth. This is one reason why few of us trust politicians anymore. Even the ones who are in truth, genuinely trying to be part of the solutions. — universeness

-"Manipulate"!!! ? lol so according to your reasoning Pointing out the weakness in people's reasoning by replacing their flawed assumptions with an obvious false assumption that they care more is manipulation?
I won't answer my question because it is obvious that you are "seeing" things that aren't there.

I will help you a bit by saying this. I expose the problem of accepting assumptions without demanding objective verification by pointing to assumptions that most people would demand objective verification.
If that in your dictionaries qualifies as manipulation...sure.

For what it's worth, I believe you, but if you practice 'trickery,' then you might get to like it too much if it achieves the results you personally desire. There are only very very rare cases in my opinion when the end justifies the means. — universeness

-Why are you hiding behind generalizations? Trickery in arguments IS NOT the same with being dishonest of your demographic or your expertise. The first can easily be part of the tools of Logic and Philosophy provide, while the latter is just what cons do to gain things.
Just because both can be placed under the label of trickery...that only makes your claim a fallacy of Ambiguity, not a legit evaluation of my tactic to expose bad reasoning.

It's probably got to be on a case by case basis — universeness

-Yes and this is why I pointed out that "generalizations" are not helpful. i.e. I can construct a situation where killing an other individual can be the most moral thing to do. Does it mean that it was a trickery or the legal term (Murder) of killing other people should color all acts that have the same outcome?

-"We must do both! "
-Not really we allow ignorance and irrationality to be included especially in philosophy and we then get mad with people's ideologies....that is a fact.

I think it's better to be honest with people, especially with those who you find out are being dishonest with you. — universeness

Again that is an irrelevant statement. It doesn't support your wrong accusation of being dishonest because I exposed someone's irrational standards through a specific example on questionable values.

I don't know why do you insist with this patronizing attitude when you were ignorant of the details of my interaction and you reject to correct your critique after I provided all the necessary information of my simple technique.

I guess we are done here.