Eray (to someone who shall not be named): You are a substance dualist who doesn t have the integrity to admit so. No doubt you are an agnostic that s the sameMessage 1 of 3 , Jul 24View SourceEray (to someone who shall not be named):
You are a substance dualist who doesn't have the integrity to admit
No doubt you are an agnostic that's the same kind of stupidity.
All dualists are creationist idiots. Period.
Eray, let's say you are right that creationism somehow follows from agnosticism (that seems unlikely to me, but let's assume it's true anyhow). Many of your arguments seem to include as a suppressed axiom that if S believes P, and Q follows from P, then S believes Q. Is that right? (Because that also seems false to me.)
Because, I take it when you say that somebody "is" a creationist, you don't just mean that creationism follows from something they've said, you also mean that they "believe in" creationism. And, generally, people have a fairly good sense about what they believe, even if they're wildly confused about what follows from what they believe.
Agnostics are idiots who claim not to be creationists, but *are*
Unfortunately, this is true.
Likewise, [he who shall not be named] is a dualist, but claims not to be one.
It doesn't matter what they think they believe in. It's a consequence of other claims they are committed to.
The funnier part is that it is true.
Agnostics are morons who don't have the guts to admit they are creationists.
There are a few oddballs (probably all creationists) who would agree with you that knowledge is closed under entailment. But nobody thinks that belief is closed under entailment except you. (Those who think knowledge is closed have to deal with belief by insisting that knowledge doesn't require belief, or something of that nature, because it's even obvious to THOSE creationist bastards that belief isn't closed to entailment.
I mean, maybe there's some lying, Clairian, moronic, Platonic, creationist who agrees with you (or will say that he does), but I even doubt that. You're on your own here, I think--A creationist of ONE.
Oh well it looks like you are crossposting, why didn t you keep that discussion to that list. It s true that I m attacking that list because I m so bored ofMessage 1 of 3 , Jul 24View SourceOh well it looks like you are crossposting, why didn't you keep that "discussion" to that list. It's true that I'm attacking that list because I'm so bored of SWM vs. everyone debates there. And I find it really odd that SWM can't admit he is a dualist.
The claim isn't that belief is closed under entailment.Rather, observations that are much simpler. There is no reason for someone to be a dualist unless he is a creationist.
And there is no reason for someone to be an agnostic, unless he is a closet creationist.Best,--
... I hope you don t mind. I prefer to discuss things pretty much anywhere else. ... Agreed. ... He doesn t like to go against Dennett, who he is very fondMessage 1 of 3 , Jul 24View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Eray Ozkural <erayo@...> wrote:
>I hope you don't mind. I prefer to discuss things pretty much anywhere else.
> Oh well it looks like you are crossposting, why didn't you keep that
> "discussion" to that list.
> It's true that I'm attacking that list becauseAgreed.
> I'm so bored of SWM vs. everyone debates there.
> And I find it really oddHe doesn't like to go against Dennett, who he is very fond of, so he takes Chalmersian positions and puts what he thinks is a Dennettian spin on them. Ends up with an inedible stuart stew.
> that SWM can't admit he is a dualist.
> The claim isn't that belief is closed under entailment.I take it agnostics are people who haven't been convinced of something or other. That being the case, a "reason" for their agnosticism might be a failure to have heard something, or understood something, as well as a belief that this something is incorrect (whether that belief is right or not). I suppose that if we were talking about some kind of Berkeleyan agnosticism with respect to rocks, it might be claimed that a reason is needed since the existence of a rock in front of you is as obvious as anything can be. But most philosophical positions aren't like that. A denial of agnosticism requires some sort of ethics of belief, including information indicating how one tells who has what the burden of proof and what that consists in for various types of beliefs. And that stuff tends not to be trivial. In sum, it's clearly false that the only "reason" one could be agnostic is that one is a creationist.
> Rather, observations that are much simpler. There is no reason for someone
> to be a dualist unless he is a creationist.
> And there is no reason for someone to be an agnostic, unless he is a closet
> Eray Ozkural
The dualism via creationism case is a bit stronger, since dualism isn't similar to agnosticism in (merely) implying an absence of belief in something. But here, what I think you really mean by "reason" is some kind of psychological cause. The claim, that is, might be that dualists are weak and needy. That they wouldn't be dualists unless they were afraid of dying or needed a deity or something. I'm more sympathetic to that claim, myself. But it's really a psychological speculation, since it's clearly false that everybody is REASONING from creationism to dualism. The best you might get there is that there's some kind of causal connection between the two.