FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-23-2002, 07:23 AM   #131
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Thumbs down

Once again The Loneliest you have demonstrated your inability to address my arguments as they are written in favor of falsely accusing me of what that you are most guilty.

Quote:
Originally posted by The Loneliest: That remark was not a claim about the rationality of theism. It dealt with the behavior of atheists.
And my question was not directed toward your remark, it was directed at you. Hence my stating:

Quote:
KOY: And just exactly what would "rational" theism be? Just out of curiosity. I'd like to get your words on this so that I don't make the same mistakes you do.
You keep throwing the word "rational" around pretending that this is somehow an argument against my proper use of the word "cult." You have repeatedly accused me of not being able to gauge the comparative rationality of different "religions" and different "theists" all the while implying that there is something rational about theism. It was to this implication that my ancillary question was directed.

If all you were doing was falsely accusing me of an argument I have never made, then my apologies.

Now, if it isn't too much trouble could you address my actual arguments instead of redirecting once again to an argument I never made?

Quote:
MORE: There are good objections to theism,
Again, your grasp of the obvious has been sufficiently established. Please try in your next post to address the arguments instead of making such unnecessary proclamations.

Quote:
MORE: but frequently one sees atheists employing weak arguments against it instead.
One also awaits an argument, instead of your unsupportable vagaries. This isn't the summary to your community college thesis paper is it?

Quote:
MORE: This could be because of some prejudice they harbor towards religion or simply a lack of knowledge about the topic.
Argument yet? Anytime soon? These casual, unsubstantiated observations of yours are just riveting, I admit, but I'd rather you presented something cogent instead of these rhetorical musings.

Quote:
MORE: Just as some theists are more reasonable that others, there are more and less reasonable atheists.
The question was "what would rationaltheism be," not whether or not some people froth at the mouth and others do not, but since we've gone so remarkably beyond any argument I ever made, you go girl!

Quote:
MORE: If you are honestly interested in rational forms of theism,
I am not. I am interested in discovering what "rational" theism is in your words, not rational forms of theism. A comparative discussion of cult dogma is a complete waste of time, considering the fact that they are all based on the idea of a super natural creature with mystical powers magically blinking everything into existence.

Your attempts to redirect my arguments into your own terminology have been fascinating, but entirely masturbatory, so let's try and put this all back on track, shall we? Indoctrinating others into worshipping a fictional creature is what a cult does. Do Swinburne or Plantinga indoctrinate people into worshipping a fictional creature?

If the answer is no, then kindly stop referring to them.

Do Swinburne or Plantinga ultimately believe that a fictional creature factually exists and is in turn responsible for creating all existence as alleged by one or more previously established mythologies and indoctrinated in some manner by one or more cults formed around those mythologies?

If the answer is yes, then, arguably, they are cult members.

For the third time, if you are a member of the KKK, then you are a member of the KKK. It does not matter whether or not you are a member of the most comparatively "rational" branch of the KKK or that you do not participate in the same manner as other more militant members of the KKK. You are still a member of the KKK.

I have made this valid analogy in several different forms now to help explain my position and you have never addressed it or countered it. I ask you now to address it and demonstrate how the analogy is not applicable and does not serve to illustrate precisely what I've been arguing for the past three or four pages since this nonsense began.

If Swinburne or Plantinga support, live and/or teach the doctrines of the KKK, then they are, arguably, KKK members, are they not? Comparing them to other KKK members and saying things like, "Well, they're not as KKK-ish as other members," is simply childish evasion and not an answer to the question.

Quote:
MORE: then I would direct you to people such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga. But you are clearly not interested in that.
Please tell me, oh lord, what I am or am not interested in! It's so much easier than offering cogent counter-arguments, isn't it?

Here, let me pre-empt you so that you know what it's like. You are not interested in discovering the truth. You are only interested in obfuscating the truth through childish equivocation, redirection, redefinition and cowardly hiding behind pious declaration of what you think other people's motives are, because you consider yourself god, which is why you fight so hard against any slight; any nuance that would equate your beliefs with those "lesser" creatures out there. Only yours are the "rational" beliefs based on fictional characters and only you have the power of the lord almighty to discern what is or is not in the minds of all men. Only you have prescience!

Quote:
MORE: You would prefer to label all religious people cultists simply because you know the religious posters here will be offended by the reference.
As you are so found of pointing out, that's your opinion and you're surely welcome to it.

I on the other hand have stated precisely what my intentions are, but you're god, so I guess your egomania supersedes the need for counter-argument, right?

No wonder you keep after this pointless non-issue! You believe you're god and that I'm personally slighting you. Why didn't I see it before?

Oh, that's right, because I was too concerned with presenting detailed deconstruction of my own arguments in order to demonstrate precisely what my argument was and how legitimate it is and that the application of the term is correct on every level.

And since you cannot refute that or offer a single compelling counter-argument, you childishly lash out with false accusations because you're a self-deluded, mind reading faux deity who feels the sham of his own inner aggrandizement threatened by my proper use of the term that exposes your lies and calls a spade a spade!

You have so carefully hidden behind semantics all of these years to support your delusions that when someone comes along and says, "No, that's white. Not 'off-white,' or 'eggshell,' or 'cream,' or 'Caucasian. It's just plain 'white,'" your carefully constructed house of cards comes tumbling down, exposing you for the fraud you are to your own self!

That's the hell of it! You've been a fraud to your self and instead of admitting it and thanking me for showing you that mirror, you scramble and shake in the background, desperately rewriting the argument over and over and over again so that the piercing light of truth does not expose your darkness; the darkness of deliberate self-delusion.

Those other institutions are cults! Those other proselytizers are cult members! Not me. Not the things I believe in! No, no, no! It must be that you, Koy, are the cult member! Yes! J'Accuse! You are the one who makes unsupported proclamations based on your biased opinion, because you hate, hate, hate! You see the beauty of my delusions and you hate that I can so easily delude myself into thinking that there is a qualitative difference on a fundamental level between someone who actively indoctrinates and someone who passively indoctrinates!

I can't counter your arguments, this is true, but I can cast false aspersions upon you and label you a small and petty man, ridiculing your arguments! It matters not that I haven't addressed your arguments, just so long as I can make it seem as if you are evil in your intentions and vile in your motivations! Yes! That will do. That will do.

Why do you say that I am insane? It was his heart, I tell you! The beating of his telltale heart!

And Poe wept...

Quote:
MORE: Calling all religions cults is no different than some crazy fundamentalist calling Catholicism a cult.
Catholicism is a cult.

Quote:
MORE: Your interest is denigration of the religious (Christians in particular) not correct usage of terminology.
That's an oft repeated and unsupported accusation. I (and others) have asked you at least six times now to demonstrate how I am using the terminology incorrectly.

You have not. Instead, you have repeatedly resorted to this childish bullshit in a pathetic attempt to cast pious aspersions upon my character like a good little cult member.

Here's another example:
Quote:
MORE: I suppose it is to be expected. Every group has members that become zealous and seek to demonize those outside the group.
You mean, the way you've been doing with your attempts to compare certain "rational" cults with other, more "irrational" ones? The way you've demonized Koresh while lauding Swinburne, even though they both (presumably) base their beliefs on the same source and live(d) their lives accordingly?

Please continue. You're a perfect study in Freudian projection and with everything you post you merely support my arguments.

Quote:
MORE: You see it among different Christian demonimations, political parties, and even sports teams at times. It seems that "freethinkers" can even fall into this trap.
I haven't seen it, but I'll take your word for it and keep a sharp eye out for it.

In the meantime, now that you've posted the same childish evasion tactic twice in a row, could you please go back to my posts and directly address my arguments so that you can offer detailed counter-argumentation?

Trying to read my mind and falsely accusing me of what you are most guilty in order to justify your unsupportable and undeserved piousness has been just a whole bunch of fun to be sure, but now I'd like to engage in the purpose of these threads: debate.

I have painstakingly detailed every single possible angle of my argument and am awaiting just one counter-argument that would address the KKK analogy and the fact that you cannot demonstrate how I am using the term incorrectly.

Your character assassination has been enjoyable as well (especially since I'm a keen student of Freudian projection), but if you'd like to continue to masturbate, I suggest you do it in private.

It's grown exceedingly tiresome here.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 01-23-2002, 09:18 AM   #132
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 96
Post

Koy,

One need not be a mind reader or a god to see when someone is trying to insult someone. As for your usage of "cult", I have pointed out that you are not using it as the majority of the public uses it or as social scientists use it. So you are ignoring the popular usage of the term and a more technical usage of the term. Moreover, you are using the KKK as an analogy. If you are only interested in the correct application of the term "cult", why would you use such an inflammatory analogy? I'll use my amazing grasp of the obvious and point out that the intent is to insult.

The real difference between us, Koy, is that I can disagree with the theists without having to caricature their position. People like Swinburne and Plantinga are not dogmatic. They (along with many other theistic philosophers) give carefully thought out justifications for their positions. Do I think they are correct? No. Will I dismiss their positions as dogmatic belief in a magical creature? No, as that would be simply asinine.
The Loneliest Monk is offline  
Old 01-23-2002, 11:12 AM   #133
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
One need not be a mind reader or a god to see when someone is trying to insult someone.
No, one must only be a self-important blowhard.

Now, was I trying to insult you or accurately describe your consistent tone as you evade the argument?

Quote:
MORE: As for your usage of "cult", I have pointed out that you are not using it as the majority of the public uses it or as social scientists use it.
No, you have "pointed out" that I'm not using the colloquial, demonizing meaning of the term as you allege the majority of the public uses it. As for social scientists, you have also alleged that I am not using it in the manner they would based upon your belief, which is entirely irrelevant to whether or not I am using it correctly in my application based upon the legitimate, as-yet-unrefuted reasons I have provided.

You have offered no counter-argumentation as to the proper usage of the term in this regard; only personal judgment calls declaring what my intent is, directly contradicting what I have explained to you over and over again what my intent is.

In other words, you're offering nothing salient, just your personal opinion, the same thing you've accused me of doing.

So, once again, if someone is offended by the truth (i.e., the proper application of the term "cult"), then that is not my concern, yet you seem to be arguing that it is supposed to be my concern for some unknown reason and the fact that it is not is somehow grounds for your childish dismissive tone, false accusations and obvious redefinition of my arguments into your own duplicitous summary judgment.

Quote:
MORE: So you are ignoring the popular usage of the term and a more technical usage of the term.
Alleged by you, yes, I am just as you are ignoring the proper use of the term and all of the reasons I have provided for using the proper use of the term.

Quote:
MORE: Moreover, you are using the KKK as an analogy.
There's that remarkable grasp of the obvious again.

Quote:
MORE: If you are only interested in the correct application of the term "cult", why would you use such an inflammatory analogy?
To get the point across? If you are a member of the KKK, it doesn't matter that you are a comparatively benign member of the KKK, you're still a member of the KKK.

That is what is analogous to my position that if you are a member of the christian cult, it doesn't matter that you are a comparatively benign member of the christian cult, you're still a member of the christian cult.

There. See how analogies work to illustrate the argument?

Now, you are supposed to deconstruct that analogy in order to demonstrate why it is not applicable and does not serve to demonstrate my position, if you can.

It is painfully clear, however, that you cannot, so you should try to be a mensch at some point in your life and concede that the analogy is valid and serves well to illustrate what I have been talking about and how such an analogy serves perfectly to illustrate the legitimate application of the proper, dictionary definition of the term "cult" that I have been championing.

Quote:
MORE: I'll use my amazing grasp of the obvious and point out that the intent is to insult.
Unsubstantiated and irrelevant personal opinion.

The intent is to correctly label a cult for what it is so that equivocators such as yourself do not continue to hide behind semantics as a means to pretend that white is black.

If you can't deal with that, then boo hoo for you. Whether or not you're insulted by the truth is not nor ever will be my concern, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the truth and that the term is properly applied.

Quote:
MORE: The real difference between us, Koy, is that I can disagree with the theists without having to caricature their position.
You just did. You characterized their "position" by labeling them "theists."

Quote:
MORE: People like Swinburne and Plantinga are not dogmatic.
Then there is no need for you to bring them up, now is there?

Quote:
MORE: They (along with many other theistic philosophers) give carefully thought out justifications for their positions.
Well, what do you know? I've done the exact same thing here repeatedly.

Quote:
MORE: Do I think they are correct? No.
Then you feel they are incorrect.

Quote:
MORE: Will I dismiss their positions as dogmatic belief in a magical creature? No, as that would be simply asinine.
I see. You feel they are incorrect, yet "dismissing their positions as dogmatic belief in a magical creature" would be "asinine."

Well, considering the fact that you have already asserted that their beliefs are not dogmatic, then you are quite right that it would be "asinine" to dismiss them as "dogmatic," wouldn’t it? Try to call upon that marvelous grasp of the obvious once more and STOP FALSELEY ACCUSING ME OF ARGUMENTS I'VE NEVER MADE OR INTENTIONS I DO NOT HOLD.

Your opinion on this matter is worthless. Demonstrate that I am not applying the term properly or that my justification for applying the term properly is in error or piss up a rope, to put it delicately.

Better still. Since the only observation you have made in this entire pointless screed has been your own opinion, let's end this simply and without fanfare.

Here, I'll do it for you:

Quote:
Everybody still paying attention: The Loneliest's personal opinion is that I'm using the term "cult" with which to insult people, directly contradicting what I have expressly told him was my intention. That is the sum total of his participation here. Everybody got that now? Good.
End of pointlessness.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 01-23-2002, 11:28 AM   #134
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 2,210
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
<strong>No, one must only be a self-important blowhard.</strong>
Of all the things that amuse me on the II forums, I think unintended irony is my favorite.

Bookman
Bookman is offline  
Old 01-23-2002, 11:38 AM   #135
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Talking

Not nearly as amusing as when poeple misapply simple terminology!

It was intentional and not "irony," Bookman, but thanks just the same.

I always find it ironic when people misapply the word "irony."

What you meant to say is, "Of all the things that amuse me on the II forums, I think the pot calling the kettle black is my favorite."

That is not, however, an example of "irony."

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 01-23-2002, 11:54 AM   #136
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Posts: 2,210
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
<strong>Nnot nearly as amusing as when poeple misapply simple terminology!

It was intentional and not "irony," Bookman, but thanks just the same.

I always find it ironic when people misapply the word "irony."

What you meant to say is, "Of all the things that amuse me on the II forums, I think the pot calling the kettle black is my favorite."

That is not, however, an example of "irony."

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</strong>
That you implied that LM was a self-important blowhard when it is apparent to me that the label is much more suited to you strikes me as ironic - a contrast between your intended and the apparent meaning, but you've a curious way of looking at words. No doubt there's a nuance of the One True Meaning of irony that I've missed.

Bookman

P.S. If you're going to pick liguistic nits, you may want to check your spelling.
Bookman is offline  
Old 01-23-2002, 12:29 PM   #137
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Question

Quote:
Originally posted by Bookman:
That you implied that LM was a self-important blowhard when it is apparent to me that the label is much more suited to you strikes me as ironic
It is not, that's the point. It's an example of the pot calling the kettle black, perhaps, but it is not "ironic."

Quote:
MORE: - a contrast between your intended and the apparent meaning, but you've a curious way of looking at words.
No, I would say that it is abundantly clear that it is you, sir, that have the curious way of looking at words as is evident by your weasel attempt here. My calling LM a "self-important blowhard" is not a contrast between my intended and apparent meaning at all.

As I stated before, what you meant to say is that it's an example of the pot calling the kettle black, but that is not "irony."

No wonder you had such a hard time recognizing the reasons people should use the proper meanings of words.

Quote:
MORE: No doubt there's a nuance of the One True Meaning of irony that I've missed.
No doubt.

Quote:
MORE: P.S. If you're going to pick liguistic nits, you may want to check your spelling.
And you might want to take a remedial English comprehension course if you're going to so grossly misapply terms.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 01-23-2002, 02:52 PM   #138
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 96
Post

Koy,

How is referring to someone as a theist a caricature of their position?
The Loneliest Monk is offline  
Old 01-23-2002, 06:25 PM   #139
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
<strong>Koy,

How is referring to someone as a theist a caricature of their position?</strong>
You're right, it isn't (unless they're an atheist, of course). I thought you said characterize. My lysdexia. I misread your post. Perhaps I need to take that remedial English comprehension course with Bookman.

It just goes to show you how important it is to correctly apply the proper definition of terms used in a debate.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 01-23-2002, 10:20 PM   #140
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Buggered if I know
Posts: 12,410
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
It is not, that's the point. It's an example of the pot calling the kettle black, perhaps, but it is not "ironic."
Not quite correct.
There's far more to it than that.
As for Bookman calling it ironic, I think I see Bookman's point quite clearly, and I agree with it.
That makes Bookman's usage not only correct within the dictionary sense, but also within the intersubjective sense within this small situation.


Quote:
No, I would say that it is abundantly clear that it is you, sir, that have the curious way of looking at words as is evident by your weasel attempt here.
Weasel, huh?
Bookman was completely upfront, coherent and consistant. How does that make his phrasing a "weasel attempt"?
Nonsense, and this looks like abuse for the sake of abuse.

Quote:
My calling LM a "self-important blowhard" is not a contrast between my intended and apparent meaning at all.

As I stated before, what you meant to say is that it's an example of the pot calling the kettle black, but that is not "irony."
Nope, there's a further extension also possible.

Quote:
No wonder you had such a hard time recognizing the reasons people should use the proper meanings of words.
Not a logical argument, but an ad hominem.

Quote:
And you might want to take a remedial English comprehension course if you're going to so grossly misapply terms.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]
Koyaanisqatsi, you might want to take a remedial course in logic.
Your own definitions appear quite idiosyncratic on occasion; and properly defining terms within a particular discussion does not necessarily mean adopting your own definitions.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>
Gurdur is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:28 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.