Grandpa Harley Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 He's flounced dear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 BTW, got this great Billet deux from the Rev this AM... I think I'm in with the chance of a shag here!I left because of The-Doctor's suggestion. One of the reasons for me coming to this board was to hone my communicational skills; invaluable, if I am to teach about the Bible on more than an individual basis. Your opinions don't matter to me; mainly, because you're not intelligent enough to garner my interest. Typical self-righteous fuck...reminds me of myself at that age... GH, considering that your opinions didn't matter to him he certainly spent an inordinate amount of time responding to your arguments... Plus, you seem to be the only one he sent a "good-bye" note to. I know I didn't get one (thank the FSM). Sounds like you "matter" a lot to him, I think you're right about the shag! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Plus, you seem to be the only one he sent a "good-bye" note to. I know I didn't get one (thank the FSM). Sounds like you "matter" a lot to him, I think you're right about the shag! Not exactly, he sent me a PM. I have no idea what he was trying to say other than he was thanking me for help on posting the little smiley faces (which he asked me about a long time ago). I guess I am just a soft touch for folks asking for help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Deva, you're just a warm and wonderful person... think he wanted to shag you too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Deva, you're just a warm and wonderful person... think he wanted to shag you too? Aww... I know you are too. You would add the shag part on though, you devil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Not exactly, he sent me a PM. Dammit! How come no one wants to shag me? Of course, I get love on YouTube... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Sending goodbye letters? LOL why not a goodbye post? Oh well... /waving bye lalala la life goes on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Deva, you're just a warm and wonderful person... think he wanted to shag you too? Aww... I know you are too. You would add the shag part on though, you devil! <Austin Powers> YEAH! BABY! </Austin Powers> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.B. Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Good thing I didn't read all the way throughthis thread before he left... anyone who tries to denigrate Dylan's lyrical skill within my earshot signs themself up for a serious ass-whipping. He actually called Gramps BENEATH HIM, intellectually! Holy shit! What a fucking idiot! I hope he reads this thread again soon, cause now that I've had a chance to see what he thinks of himself, I'd love to invite his punk ass to the Arena. Hey Rev... yoo-hoo... former fundie pastor here. Ordained and licensed and all that there shit. Care to go one-on-one while the rest lounge about and watch the carnage...? PM me, buddy. I'll wait. Your ass is, proverbially, grass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Okay, I am going to resurrect a thread here and I going into rather blindly. This is coming from my own experience. When I went back into the fold, I purchased two apologetics books just to see what apologetics was all about. One was entitled "Why I Am A Christian". In this text, some rather intelligent-minded souls put forth answers to questions like "Why I Believe Truth Is Real" and "Why I Believe In An Absolute Morality". Granted, I didn't read the entire book but I looked at how the reasons were formed and how the articles were structured. It really looked like a couple of philosophy textbooks I owned. Now, this may seem shallow, but I came away with the initial impression that this how reasoned cases are put forth in at least printed form. Now, we can challenge the presuppositions upon which the cases are founded all we want, but this is what I personally gathered. Christians believe rock-solidly that their belief system is axiomatic and logically coherent, thereby any case made from the Christian belief system is inherently free of flaw and immune to challenge. I am not trained in logic at all and my knowledge of philosophy is rather minor, but from a cursory look, these sophisticated articles have the aura of academic authority. So ,what does it take for somebody like me, somebody who doesn't have a background in logic and philosophy, to understand that such scholarly-looking articles may in fact not be rational at all? Since Christianity has a long history of contributions to philosophy, how should interpret this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 With right formulations and structures you can hide assumptions. Every logical argument starts with one or more assumptions, and the question is if you agree with them before continuing. Many arguments are logically coherent, but they are based on uncertain premises. p1) All blonds are stupid p2) Bob is blond c) Ergo, Bob is stupid It's a logical coherent argument and valid syllogism, but... the premise is something you might not agree with. There's no proof that "All blonds are stupid," so even if the structure is solid, the conclusion is wrong, because the premise is unsupported. This is a very clear case, but when you get to religious "logic" the way the premises are stated are in the same was as car salesman tell you that that rusted old Buick is a better buy. This is the same reason why people fall for advertising where only half the truth is told, and only with words to make you think it's something else. It all comes down to the problem of language, it isn't exact or absolute. Sophism (as in classical sense) is an art, and for those who can use it well, they can prove anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderer1 Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 I am not trained in logic at all and my knowledge of philosophy is rather minor, but from a cursory look, these sophisticated articles have the aura of academic authority. So ,what does it take for somebody like me, somebody who doesn't have a background in logic and philosophy, to understand that such scholarly-looking articles may in fact not be rational at all? IMO the most valuable thing for seeing through philosophical arguments is a good knowledge of science. Much philosophical argument is mental masturbation (not that there's anything wrong with masturbation) with little to no grounding in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 IMO the most valuable thing for seeing through philosophical arguments is a good knowledge of science. Much philosophical argument is mental masturbation (not that there's anything wrong with masturbation) with little to no grounding in reality. Yeah, I've noticed this too, all of my knowledge of logic and philosophy is self trained. I recently made a friend who majored in Analytic logic. Though he is not a theist, I've gotten into more heated arguments with him over certain points of logic than I have with Christians over religion in the last year. Our problem is that I'm always putting philosophy in practical terms. I'm really only interested in how and idea works in the real world, not hypothetical issues that seem pointless. We were debating the merits of religion, and he kept trying to talk about religion as some nebulous thing "Out there." I kept relating religion to the problems it actually causes in the real world and he wanted to talk about religion as a philosophical construct. I argued that you couldn't separate the two because relgious beliefs are constructed in the mind of each believer. He said that I had no business in philosophy if I couldn't separate the two. In the end we just stopped talking about it, to me it seems entirely impractical to argue about a belief in terms of a philosophical construct no real person actually believes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts