I knock Grady down pegs because he's... well... Grady. He has a lot of undeserved arrogance. I think you're overconfident in your position, but I can't be sure because it's too hard to nail down. But if you're a little cocky here and there, it isn't a big deal because you're a smart guy. How it seems to me though, is that your position is hidden behind a lot of obfuscation and sophistry. When I ask for clarity on something you've said you only do so begrudgingly. When I ask about one topic you redirect to another one. When I pry too much you tell me to look it up myself.Well, I'm sorry, but you come across to me as a saboteur rather than simply being jerky, as if you have to prove of your mental mettle if you can somehow slice and dice your opponent's comments and/or arguments and essentially take him down a peg or three. Isn't this kind of what you implied in your comment to Todd over in Gradyll's thread?
If it can't be deduced, then it isn't known. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be believed.Why would I talk "trash" about deductive logic. I've never said it was trash. If anything, I've stated that it has its time and place but that it shouldn't be relied upon exclusively like Descartes did, no matter how brilliant the person using it may be (again, such as Descartes, or in similar respects, perhaps yourself.)
I don't assume it, you've given enough clues for me to conclude inductively that you aren't interested in that conversation. After all the times I've asked in so many different ways, did you notice that you haven't once confirmed that you are interested? You've offered compromises as to just how far you'll explain things. But you never get into any conversation too deeply. Even with Silmarian who's read all the same kinds of books you have, I've seen you two comment repeatedly that "Someday we'll have that conversation". But you never do.****sigh**** I very much do not appreciate the assumptive comment you made above about how you think I "just didn't want to have a conversation with someone who hasn't done all the reading." WRONG-O!!! What I want to sense in some way is that my interlocutor at least gives a "care" about what I'm saying, whether he agrees with it or not. Otherwise, I feel I'm just wasting my time with a covert scoffer who merely wishes to play mind and semantic games over and over again.
You know I argue around here for sport, so in a way it's a "game" to me. But I do my best to play by the rules of logic, even if you think I rely too heavily on deduction. I don't play semantics. And the only time I'm playing "mind" games is when I'm rude to folks that I think are rude. Just because I get annoyed when it seems you're trying to divert our conversation down rabbit trails doesn't mean I think you're a jerk and I'm trying to make you look stupid. When folks want to have a discussion and explain things to me, I gain a better understanding, even if I don't agree that I should believe that position is the right one. How many times have you seen me argue for the reasonableness of Christianity versus the other atheists? I'm on the side of good reason, I'm not here to score cheap points.
Yes, I use "deductive cuts" to challenge other viewpoints. Most viewpoints have some fatal flaw when you get down to it, that's why I'm a hard agnostic.Moreover, you often come across as one who attempts to ply his trade of deductive cuts upon my general statements, vanilla type statements intended to cover some ground, otherwise we'd be going through dozens upon dozens of pages of intensive and detailed writing which, honestly, unlike gradyll, I don't have time for. Besides, it's not like you're in need of remedial attention or like you're someone who needs a play-by-play recount of every itty-bitty detail in order to come to some kind of concrete understanding.
Upvote
0