blogs at twenty paces!!!
The hubris of some bloggers...
So I left him this comment:
After Action Summary: Poor Arthur has lost the plot. He started out trying to posit a "fourth position" but he has failed to sufficiently differentiate his position from that of agnosticism, and therefore, after the invocation of Occam's Razor, he found his throat had been metaphorically cut from ear to ear. Now all he does is slag off at agnostics and hurl ad hominem about willy nilly. He doesn't have the honesty and strength of character to recant. That's what I call intellectual dishonesty. I also call it piss-weak atheism.
Bzzzzt... You lose, Arthur... Next !!!
For The Record: Arthur is now playing the victim to his blog audience. First he warns me (on his blog) not to make a nuisance of myself (thereby virtually silencing me), then he comes over here and tries to continue the debate he squibbed out on over there. So I tell him to bugger off and that I'd be happy to continue the debate where it started i.e. on his blog.
Next (after being told to bugger off), he posts another rant here, which I duely deleted. Then, lo and behold, he starts waffling on his blog about how he's apparently now "made an enemy", and how I've deleted his comment (forgetting, of course, to tell his readers the full contextual shebang. ) But will he open up the debate again on his blog? No way, yeronner, he knows he's stuffed and he dare not enter into further debate because he knows now what awaits him...
So I left him this comment:
Arthur, firstly let me say how ecstatic I was to notice that you had visited my blog. However, ecstasy soon turned to horror when I read this blog post.Honour demands it !!! ;-)
I hereby put you on notice that I shall deconstruct the sophistry underpinning your central argument in due course - if I really have to.
The rules of engagement compel me to offer you one chance, and one chance only, to publicly recant and admit to your shameful use of sophistry.
If you have not done so within twenty four hours of your original post i.e. 6.20am Monday morning Perth time, I shall post my deconstruction of your argument here.
Tally Ho, Old Chap !!!
After Action Summary: Poor Arthur has lost the plot. He started out trying to posit a "fourth position" but he has failed to sufficiently differentiate his position from that of agnosticism, and therefore, after the invocation of Occam's Razor, he found his throat had been metaphorically cut from ear to ear. Now all he does is slag off at agnostics and hurl ad hominem about willy nilly. He doesn't have the honesty and strength of character to recant. That's what I call intellectual dishonesty. I also call it piss-weak atheism.
Bzzzzt... You lose, Arthur... Next !!!
For The Record: Arthur is now playing the victim to his blog audience. First he warns me (on his blog) not to make a nuisance of myself (thereby virtually silencing me), then he comes over here and tries to continue the debate he squibbed out on over there. So I tell him to bugger off and that I'd be happy to continue the debate where it started i.e. on his blog.
Next (after being told to bugger off), he posts another rant here, which I duely deleted. Then, lo and behold, he starts waffling on his blog about how he's apparently now "made an enemy", and how I've deleted his comment (forgetting, of course, to tell his readers the full contextual shebang. ) But will he open up the debate again on his blog? No way, yeronner, he knows he's stuffed and he dare not enter into further debate because he knows now what awaits him...
posted by The Editor at
3:31 PM
8 Comments:
Yes, Ron, we really do have to wait that long. Or even longer...
But you should not be losing any sleep over this. I'm a bit concerned about that...
The fact that I will be delivering the Ludwig Wittgenstein Recantation Lecture for 2006 at the West Australian Philosophical Society need not concern you... ;-)
Perhaps, while you are having trouble sleeping, you might like to read "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert M. Pirsig. He deals with the brutal nature of philosohical debate. It's a bloodbath, really, Ron, it really is...
If you are having trouble sleeping, I'm up. I can chat with you via email. Or the phone. Ring the mobile, you won't be waking anyone else up, and I'll ring you right back if you like...
Dispense with the hubris and get on with it, Gerry! :)
Can someone pleeeaaase Define 'god' for me so that I try to follow this, and also know what I'm supposed to believe/not believe in?
Davo... shhhhhhh... We don't trot out the 'define god' caper until we can get them show some proof for the non-existence of the god they say doesn't exist. THEN, we say "Oh... THAT god... OK, now prove THIS one doesn't exist." Ad infinitum. Eventually they become agnostics or they top themselves. That's what happens when you try to run with an unsubstantiatable assertion.
A foregone conclusion, me old mate. It's how you drive Philip Adams, and any other sophist, stark raving nuts.
I'd love to do a TV debate with Philip Adams on this topic, with Andrew Denton as moderator. What fun that would be!!!
Philip Adams is/was an entertaining thinker and writer, put shit on him at yer peril. Who knows, Gezz. Will attempt walking your tightrope while straddling many eggs.
Well, Davo, this debate has done one thing. It has shown me how slippery atheists are prepared to get in order to escape the trap of having to prove that god does not exist or withdraw their assertion. They invented a new term called "weak" atheism, which, surprise surprise, "accidentally" is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from agnosticism (a term they they seem to avoid like the plague). But this is not a bit of flimflammery, is it...
They look like ducks, walk like ducks, quack like ducks, but don't call them ducks... They're "weak" ducks, an entirely different species to duck...
Hmmm.... And I'm expected to take them seriously?
What? The Python quote? 'Twas all in jest, old boy!
after the invocation of Occam's Razor
Hmmm. Let's see now.
Ockham's Razor: "Plurality should not be posited without necessity."
Weak atheism: There being no evidence that God exists, there is no reason (or need) to posit God's existence.
I can't see the difference. Can you?
Arthur, get back to your blog. I will not debate it with you here when you have deliberately chickened out of the debate on your blog. Wanna debate it? Start by answering the swag of unanswered questions/requests I put to you on your blog. Don't kill the debate there and then flounce over here chucking around cryptic and unintelligible gibberish. Now piss off. If you want to continue the debate, let's do it where it's still languishing, incomplete, a festering sore upon the gods of logic, YOUR BLOG!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========