User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 106

  1. #41
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Ahem. If I may interupt the debate?

    I can smell a great big rat...

    Let's see: noob copypast (ahem) posts a tl;dr "take" on a topic which turns out to be a regurgitation of Pascal's Wager, but doesn't mention it. Simulatedworld (ahem) goes on to expand upon Pascal's Wager (despite Kalach having done so in an interesting and succinct way) and uses Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot argument, without making specific reference to the fact - a crime as bad as (so-called) copypaste's original faux pas.

    Set 'em up and knock it down, eh? It's been done better than this, don't you think?

    You have failed, simulatedworld & copypaste. And you, sir, are an idiot.

  2. #42
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    You have failed, simulatedworld & copypaste. And you, sir, are an idiot.
    Wait, making an argument that's similar to one that's been made before is considered failing? How exactly does that follow?


    My take on the whole matter is that one can define a god, a panel of gods, or the Godhead in many, many different ways, and theism, atheism, and even agnosticism are tied to those definitions. The word "god," I believe, comes from some Greek word for "that which we sacrifice to." Kind of nebulous and not well-understood as it is. To say one is an atheist or agnostic seems to conjure up or presuppose a particular definition for a particular deity, but a coherent, unifying definition for the deity which is denied or unknown does not and probably cannot exist.

    But, yeah, for all intents and purposes, I know what someone means when they say that they're atheist or agnostic. Personally, I can't help but launch into the root of the problem as I see it when someone asks me what my beliefs are, though.

    Someone else out there has arrived at that very conclusion, too, but I'm not saying who. I don't want to be called a failure

  3. #43
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Seems like this thread is now argueing for the sake of arguement. :P
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  4. #44
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greed View Post
    I don't want to be called a failure
    Well you are a epic failure success because you can't simply have to try harder to read a simple paragraph and derive an iota of meaning from it.

    Have a nice day.


  5. #45
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    Ahem. If I may interupt the debate?

    I can smell a great big rat...

    Let's see: noob copypast (ahem) posts a tl;dr "take" on a topic which turns out to be a regurgitation of Pascal's Wager, but doesn't mention it. Simulatedworld (ahem) goes on to expand upon Pascal's Wager (despite Kalach having done so in an interesting and succinct way) and uses Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot argument, without making specific reference to the fact - a crime as bad as (so-called) copypaste's original faux pas.

    Set 'em up and knock it down, eh? It's been done better than this, don't you think?

    You have failed, simulatedworld & copypaste. And you, sir, are an idiot.
    Ummmm...so is there actually a logical problem with Russell's Teapot, or are you just stirring up trouble?

    I really don't understand the problem here. I didn't read the entire thread; I just read the OP and responded, and I'm obviously not trying to plagiarize the teapot or hide the fact that I wasn't the first person to think of that.

    So, being that Pascal's Wager is a poor argument and Russell's Teapot is a good one, I don't see how you could equate the two posts at all. Are you really arguing that my post fails just as badly because I didn't mention the argument I was using by name? Are you joking?

    I think we've found the NT version of Victor. This is going to be FUN!

    Good try, though.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #46
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Ah, there are liberal religious people that have no interest in their holy book's definitions on how to live. Even conservative denominations no longer adhere to racism, suppressing women, and certain dietary laws.

    I don't believe in the tooth fairy version of God that people have created. That doesn't make me an atheist. I still believe a higher power is possible, but I'm unable to say whether it's definitely true or not true.
    That'd be atheist - literally 'without theistic belief'. You'd be classified as an agnostic atheist. The best way to see how this is true - what theistic belief do you hold? A lack of belief, even if uncertain, is still a lack.

  7. #47
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I really don't understand the problem here. ..Are you joking?
    No. I don't joke when I call you a spammer or a plagiarist.

    The convention is to quote the argument. If that argument is Russell's Pizza, you should say as much from the start. Not purvey it as yours - as you have done. It's not big and it's not clever.

    There is no worse crime than stealing another man's laurels and claiming them as your own. Both you and copypastey are guilty.

    Don't wheedle back here all doe-eyed with a "what did I do wrong" expression on your biscuit-arsed face.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I think we've found the NT version of Victor. This is going to be FUN!
    Not for you it isn't, sunshine.

  8. #48
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    ^ I didn't purvey it as mine. Seriously, that's ridiculous. You're not even taking issue with the argument itself! You're complaining that I didn't label it as Russell's Teapot and pretending that that was intended as an implication that I was the very first person in the history of humanity to come up with that criticism for Pascal.

    The implication that I came up with it first is so ridiculous that I didn't think anyone would be stupid (or antagonistic) enough to claim that I intended it, but here you are again to prove me wrong.

    I mean seriously, type Pascal into wikipedia and you'll come up with Russell. This is basic philosophy 101 material; who exactly do you think I'm trying to fool, here? You assume I'm just hoping against hope that everyone will just happen to have not heard of Russell's Teapot and that I can take credit for it?

    (And by the way, copypaste sounds as if he simply hadn't heard of Pascal. Read the tone of his post; he's going through this thought process for the first time. I doubt very seriously that he found out what it was called, intentionally plagiarized it and posted it as a question to atheists on a message board hoping that he'd be given credit for being the first person to think of it. That's really, really effing stupid to even suggest.)

    Honestly, that's just retarded. I never took credit for it; I just summarized it without mentioning its formal name. Go look for nonexistent conspiracies elsewhere, kitty.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    That'd be atheist - literally 'without theistic belief'. You'd be classified as an agnostic atheist. The best way to see how this is true - what theistic belief do you hold? A lack of belief, even if uncertain, is still a lack.
    Really?


    A∑the∑ist: Free Dictionary
    One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


    Athe-ism: Merriam Webster
    A: a disbelief in the existence of deity
    B: the doctrine that there is no deity


    Atheist: Google Search


  10. #50
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    Well you are a epic failure success because you can't simply have to try harder to read a simple paragraph and derive an iota of meaning from it.

    Have a nice day.

    The fact that your point is inherently flawed doesn't mean that I don't know what you mean. It just means that your statement is flawed.

    You also forgot to mention that your point was made before by The Raconteurs. For God's sake, try citing your sources next time, you plagiarist!

Similar Threads

  1. Being social for it's own sake - a few questions for you and a backstory
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-20-2010, 05:15 AM
  2. [NT] Questions for INTJs and ENTJs
    By MoneyTick in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-02-2010, 11:33 PM
  3. A question for Atheists
    By BlackCat in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 04-27-2009, 06:49 PM
  4. Question for ESTJ and ENTJ males:
    By Brendan in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-08-2008, 03:46 PM
  5. Question for guys and gals --
    By CzeCze in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-03-2007, 02:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO