crazy-tiger Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I've been playing with a Christian on Weirdcrap.com... Some of you may know of him, he goes by the name GADFLY. At the moment, he's making a shit load of claims and assertions without bothering to provide any proof. I called him on this and informed him that it doesn't matter how many times he asserts something, you need to back it up with some proof... His reply to that? GADFLY: No matter how many times you assert it, you need to back THAT up with some proof Is it just me, or is there one HUGE problem with that? (or just a huge problem with this twit? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Java Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Isn't Gadfly Goldstein? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 This is one of the reasons why I've been putting together a paper about the most basic foundations of epistemology. Because people ask stupid-ass questions like that including "Well why do I have to believe in the Law of Non-Contradiction? HUH?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 Isn't Gadfly Goldstein? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If it is, he's doing a damn good job of keeping his personas seperate... I think that Gadfly is a less polished version of Manata. (it's incredible just how identical their arguments are...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valgeir Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 People THAT stupid are the kind that I feel no sympathy towards- whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Gadfly is the reason I don't enjoy WC as much as I use to. He ruins any topic by turning it into a flame war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 This is one of the reasons why I've been putting together a paper about the most basic foundations of epistemology. Because people ask stupid-ass questions like that including "Well why do I have to believe in the Law of Non-Contradiction? HUH?" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good god, are there some people who actually wonder why they have to believe that the Law of Non-Contradiction is valid? I would've thought that Aristotelian logic is more or less self-evident once you understand it. Matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Yes. Yes there are people that believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 It's my opinion that it takes an act of sheer desperation in order to actually abandon logic in order to justify theism, as Manata and his ilk have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 It's my opinion that it takes an act of sheer desperation in order to actually abandon logic in order to justify theism, as Manata and his ilk have. Well, they're basically believers in irrationalism and mysticism, even if they know it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 This is one of the reasons why I've been putting together a paper about the most basic foundations of epistemology. Because people ask stupid-ass questions like that including "Well why do I have to believe in the Law of Non-Contradiction? HUH?" Oh my. Oh my Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Good god, are there some people who actually wonder why they have to believe that the Law of Non-Contradiction is valid? I would've thought that Aristotelian logic is more or less self-evident once you understand it. Matthew To me, there is no such thing as mind-body dualism outside of materialism. The material univerise encapsulates all in other words. If you can't presume atomism (which is a silly and unnecessary thing to do in itself) then you have no way to even make a metaphisical claim to begin with. Christ, I should be working. Sorry. I just dont feel like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts