tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post114939944980008626..comments2023-09-26T02:09:58.787+10:00Comments on diogenesian discourse: blogs at twenty paces!!!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1149579274802633722006-06-06T17:34:00.000+10:002006-06-06T17:34:00.000+10:00Arthur, get back to your blog. I will not debate i...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, <B>YOUR BLOG!</B>The Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884172849865230486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1149572879731311002006-06-06T15:47:00.000+10:002006-06-06T15:47:00.000+10:00What? The Python quote? 'Twas all in jest, old boy...What? The Python quote? 'Twas all in jest, old boy!<BR/><BR/><I>after the invocation of Occam's Razor</I><BR/><BR/>Hmmm. Let's see now.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://skepdic.com/occam.html" REL="nofollow">Ockham's Razor</A>: "Plurality should not be posited without necessity."<BR/><BR/>Weak atheism: There being no evidence that God exists, there is no reason (or need) to posit God's existence.<BR/><BR/>I can't see the difference. Can you?Arthur_Vandelayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00659697967914477025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1149510200289911632006-06-05T22:23:00.000+10:002006-06-05T22:23:00.000+10:00Well, Davo, this debate has done one thing. It ha...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...<BR/><BR/>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... <BR/><BR/>Hmmm.... And I'm expected to take them seriously?The Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884172849865230486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1149508984410212882006-06-05T22:03:00.000+10:002006-06-05T22:03:00.000+10:00Philip Adams is/was an entertaining thinker and wr...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.Davohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02785126939071213905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1149487443154049232006-06-05T16:04:00.000+10:002006-06-05T16:04:00.000+10:00Davo... shhhhhhh... We don't trot out the 'defin...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. <BR/><BR/>A foregone conclusion, me old mate. It's how you drive Philip Adams, and any other sophist, stark raving nuts.<BR/><BR/>I'd love to do a TV debate with Philip Adams on this topic, with Andrew Denton as moderator. What fun that would be!!!The Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884172849865230486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1149469511548022232006-06-05T11:05:00.000+10:002006-06-05T11:05:00.000+10:00Can someone pleeeaaase Define 'god' for me so that...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?Davohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02785126939071213905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1149468186184320022006-06-05T10:43:00.000+10:002006-06-05T10:43:00.000+10:00Dispense with the hubris and get on with it, Gerry...Dispense with the hubris and get on with it, Gerry! :)Arthur_Vandelayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00659697967914477025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6732615.post-1149425699286830112006-06-04T22:54:00.000+10:002006-06-04T22:54:00.000+10:00Yes, Ron, we really do have to wait that long. Or ...Yes, Ron, we really do have to wait that long. Or even longer...<BR/><BR/>But you should not be losing any sleep over this. I'm a bit concerned about that...<BR/><BR/>The fact that I will be delivering the Ludwig Wittgenstein Recantation Lecture for 2006 at the West Australian Philosophical Society need not concern you... ;-)<BR/><BR/>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...<BR/><BR/>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...The Editorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03884172849865230486noreply@blogger.com