Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe sole thing required "for the creation of the universe" is space alone;
[b]For the time being our science shows clearly that the concept of an intelligent God is not required neither for the so called "creation of the universe" nor for the mental ability of every sentient being of our planet.
Riiiiight.
Current science shows us that "an intelligent God" is not required, but it also tells us that "something" is required. ...[text shortened]... .
Spontaneuous action.
Infinite regress.
Don't really know, but it couldn't be God![/b]
😵
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI hate to break it to you, but BB makes more sense through his ragged Grecian English than you do with your baseless, costive expostulations. Not only that, but he's honest. Sophist sums you up -- and dismisses you -- succinctly.
[b]A honest interlocutor reacts not the way you do react, but it is well knon that a sophist has not the slightest problem to do whatever in order to serve his personal interests
I guess it's safe to assume that English is not your primary language. That being said, if you're not certain how the words are supposed to be used, it's better not to use them at all. Your efforts otherwise lend nothing to the conversation than adding confusion.[/b]
I'm beginning to believe that the sophists were the forerunners of the modern troll, what do you think?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI have long held the belief that Socrates was an total spam merchant. I loathe his smug trolling of every conversation he comes across. He's like GB in a toga.
I hate to break it to you, but BB makes more sense through his ragged Grecian English than you do with your baseless, costive expostulations. Not only that, but he's honest. Sophist sums you up -- and dismisses you -- succinctly.
I'm beginning to believe that the sophists were the forerunners of the modern troll, what do you think?
Originally posted by StarrmanChiton. Please.
I have long held the belief that Socrates was an total spam merchant. I loathe his smug trolling of every conversation he comes across. He's like GB in a toga.
I thought Socrates busted the sophists' balls. So is there a difference between a sophist and a troll?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSorry, consider me fashionably corrected.
Chiton. Please.
I thought Socrates busted the sophists' balls. So is there a difference between a sophist and a troll?
Well, he was accused of being a sophist, so maybe there's a venn diagram here between Socrates and sophist.
Originally posted by StarrmanSocrates and the Sophists are looking the same to you because Socrates was following their basic string of thoughts in order to decompose it by means of elenchus. The Sophists were declaring that they were teachers, and on the other hand Socrates was promoting his personal educational method (elenchus) that it was producing as much confusion (to his Sophist interlocutors) as the argumentative techniques used by the Sophists to their interlocutors.
Sorry, consider me fashionably corrected.
Well, he was accused of being a sophist, so maybe there's a venn diagram here between Socrates and sophist.
The Sophists were following a relativistic philosophy well expressed by Protogoras (“Man is the measure of allthings&rdquo😉. But Protogoras was talking about the individual “Man” instead of “Humanity” whilst Socrates was doing the opposite -so Socrates was discarding the possibility that, ie, the water can be hot for him and at the same time cold to him or to somebody else. So Socrates could not accept the Sophists’ moral relativism for individuals, cultures and governments, and he was decomposing their theories by means of elenchus.
As you see, although Socrates’ and Sophists’ interests and methodologies were close, the fundamental disagreement over the nature of virtue makes your (and everybody else’s) conflation of Socrates and the Sophists untenable
😵
Originally posted by black beetleNo doubt Starmann's statement stems from laziness.
As you see, although Socrates’ and Sophists’ interests and methodologies were close, the fundamental disagreement over the nature of virtue makes your (and everybody else’s) conflation of Socrates and the Sophists untenable
😵
That aside, do you think sophists were like Internet trolls?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes and no!
No doubt Starmann's statement stems from laziness.
That aside, do you think sophists were like Internet trolls?
No, because them Sophists were making big money thanks to their sophisms, however the Internet trolls they are considered merely ridiculous no matter how hard they try to present their sophisms as "absolute truth".
And yes, because when a Sophist was finally classified by the Athenians as such, he was considered as ridiculous as an Internet troll
😵
Originally posted by black beetleAs Bosse said, I was being lazy for the lulz value.
Socrates and the Sophists are looking the same to you because Socrates was following their basic string of thoughts in order to decompose it by means of elenchus. The Sophists were declaring that they were teachers, and on the other hand Socrates was promoting his personal educational method (elenchus) that it was producing as much confusion (to his Sop ...[text shortened]... f virtue makes your (and everybody else’s) conflation of Socrates and the Sophists untenable
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleI missaply nothing. Your primal post at this thread is pure nonsense and you are unable to back it up.
edit: “As has been the case repeatedly, you missapply what has been clearly stated. Go back and read my posts. My words challenged your grasp of the concept of religion if you consider my approach (as you said) "religionist."
I missaply nothing. Your primal post at this thread is pure nonsense and you are unable to back it up.
edit: “A relig s not the slightest problem to do whatever in order to serve his personal interests.
😵
And that answers my post… how, exactly?
Define religion as you understand it and explain what exactly are you following.
Laughable. Right out loud laughable.
You actually quote my definition of what constitutes a religion, and then brazenly challenge me to define religion. Brilliant stroke of deflection, sir. Brilliant.
What I follow is Christianity, as defined in the New Testament. It is not a religion, but a relationship with the Creator of the universe. Unlike religion, which has certain physical and psychological and/or emotional demands upon its adherents, Christianity informs us that the God of Creation cannot be approbated by the works of man. Rather, He Himself has done all of the work; He alone gets all of the glory. We simply either believe or reject the gift of salvation.
The religion of a scientist is irrelevant to his scientific contribution.
Unless, of course (and as has been the one of the main thrusts of this entire thread), that said belief system is the impetus behind such contribution.
According to your way of thinking, one could also claim that "...the astronomers Pedro Ferreira from the University of Oxford, Dr Richard Massey from the University of Edinburgh and the Oxford anthropologist Dr Gisa Weszkalnys (which are all fans of Manchester United) they pay homage to the original expedition led by Sir Arthur Eddington (a fan of Manchester United) and they celebrate the 90th anniversary of one of the key discoveries of the 20th century, which is the theory of relativity by Einstein (who was too a fan of Manchester United). All thesse brilliant scientists are motivated by their wish to explore and to explain the working of creation in order to further express their love and adoration of Manchester United."
Perhaps you are privy to more insight than the rest of us. I, for one, was completely unaware that any of the folks mentioned dedicated all of their scientific endeavors to Manchester Unlimited. Who knew? Blackpool would have made more sense, but, hey, to each their own, right?
I will try again in order to confuse you not: a honest interlocutor reacts not the way you do react, but it is well known that a sophist has not the slightest problem to do whatever in order to serve his personal interests.
😵
Oh, now I see.
Why didn’t you just say so in the first place?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThanks for breaking your assessment with such professionalism and compassion. An upright man, you are.
I hate to break it to you, but BB makes more sense through his ragged Grecian English than you do with your baseless, costive expostulations. Not only that, but he's honest. Sophist sums you up -- and dismisses you -- succinctly.
I'm beginning to believe that the sophists were the forerunners of the modern troll, what do you think?
Feel free to dismiss me and my clearly inferior intellect at will. However, let it be noted still that for all of the self-claimed sophist-ication (will you look at that? I made a pun) from the opposing side, none to this point have been able to respond to the opening salvo.
Funny, that.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHKeep telling yourself that.
Feel free to dismiss me and my clearly inferior intellect at will. However, let it be noted still that for all of the self-claimed sophist-ication (will you look at that? I made a pun) from the opposing side, none to this point have been able to respond to the opening salvo.