Author Topic: Naïve Immaterialism  (Read 6982 times)

Offline Berati (OP)

Naïve Immaterialism
« on: May 19, 2014, 05:45:59 PM »
This is my response to your question Casparov.
Quote
I am asking for proof. The sentence you have written is, "I have given you proof," which I cannot accept as proof. You neglect to reference this alleged "proof". You neglect to even hint at what this alleged "proof" may have been. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have proof in support of Materialism then provide it please. I am begging you!

You are not begging me, you simply refuse to answer me. You have failed to address anything I have said so far and just pretend it was never said. You want me to repeat myself, so here it goes… step by step. And keep in mind all of this has been presented to you before.
I'll only deal with one step at a time.


1)   I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is. (and thought = God)

This is an assumption. If you agree this is an assumption then you now have to allow that materialism is at least as a possible as immaterialism.
Agree or disagree?

« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 05:50:03 PM by Berati »
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Offline SGOS

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2014, 04:47:00 AM »
Why would a logical person even attempt to engage Casparov?  You know the outcome.  You will be flooded with word salad, gibberish, and ignorance.  He is beyond understanding and operates outside the confines of reason.  Nothing constructive will come of it.

Offline DunkleSeele

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2014, 05:25:22 AM »
^^^This. Casparov has shown nothing else than intellectual dishonesty, in the same fashion as the other religious fundies we use to get here. The fact that he abandoned the debate he himself asked for speaks volumes about him. A waste of good oxygen.

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2014, 07:44:56 AM »
Why would a logical person even attempt to engage Casparov?  You know the outcome.  You will be flooded with word salad, gibberish, and ignorance.  He is beyond understanding and operates outside the confines of reason.  Nothing constructive will come of it.
You're right but I want to try anyway.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2014, 09:02:34 AM »
Why would a logical person even attempt to engage Casparov?  You know the outcome.  You will be flooded with word salad, gibberish, and ignorance.  He is beyond understanding and operates outside the confines of reason.  Nothing constructive will come of it.

^ yeah. Pseudo intellectual quantum gish gallop ftw!

Offline Hijiri Byakuren

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • *
  • Posts: 5131
  • Total likes: 1739
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • The Lore Of Samsara
Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2014, 10:18:46 AM »
Why would a logical person even attempt to engage Casparov?  You know the outcome.  You will be flooded with word salad, gibberish, and ignorance.  He is beyond understanding and operates outside the confines of reason.  Nothing constructive will come of it.
This is pretty much why I only engage him with my copypasta "proof of no gods" post. I know it's annoying. That's the point.

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2014, 12:08:10 PM »
I like to educate people is why I do, but when it goes in one ear and out the other it is frustrating. I like the challenge, and it makes me put my thinking cap on so I don't get stupid.  :doh: Besides it is funny listening to their use of Slick Maneuvers.  :wink: Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2014, 12:29:10 PM »
I like to educate people is why I do, but when it goes in one ear and out the other it is frustrating. I like the challenge, and it makes me put my thinking cap on so I don't get stupid.  :doh: Besides it is funny listening to their use of Slick Maneuvers.  :wink: Solitary

I agree and since this thread was started as my personal response to Casparov I was hoping to avoid others pilling onto his responses.
Not that I mind input from others but I have my own plan and I would prefer not to get sidetracked.
 
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2014, 12:35:14 PM »
I agree and since this thread was started as my personal response to Casparov I was hoping to avoid others pilling onto his responses.
Not that I mind input from others but I have my own plan and I would prefer not to get sidetracked.

Why don't you just request a one-on-one debate?
 :jook:

(sorry, coundn't resist)

Also: Casparovs line of reasoning basically comes down to solipsism. And in solipsism no thing needs a - known - cause. Everything goes. It's a total cop out and completely useless. I don't understand why people give this shit so much time. A one-on-one debate for an issue that can be settled in one sentence? Follow up threads on this shit? Really?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 12:43:21 PM by Bibliofagus »
Quote from: \"the_antithesis\"
Faith says, "I believe this and I don\'t care what you say, I cannot possibly be wrong." Faith is an act of pride.

Quote from: \"AllPurposeAtheist\"
The moral high ground was dug up and made into a walmart apparently today.

Tornadoes caused: 2, maybe 3.

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2014, 06:29:15 PM »
Why don't you just request a one-on-one debate?
 :jook:

(sorry, coundn't resist)

Also: Casparovs line of reasoning basically comes down to solipsism. And in solipsism no thing needs a - known - cause. Everything goes. It's a total cop out and completely useless. I don't understand why people give this shit so much time. A one-on-one debate for an issue that can be settled in one sentence? Follow up threads on this shit? Really?

Sure, why can't the debate happen right here?
As to his line of reasoning... I agree with you, and yet Casparov cannot see it himself... and others (myself included) have still managed to get sidetracked into debates about scientific experiments which in the end have nothing to do with Casparovs beliefs.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2014, 12:52:23 PM »
^^^This. Casparov has shown nothing else than intellectual dishonesty, in the same fashion as the other religious fundies we use to get here. The fact that he abandoned the debate he himself asked for speaks volumes about him. A waste of good oxygen.
I see that he has abandoned the formal debate so I doubt I'll ever get a reply.
Of course, you are all correct in that it is a fruitless debate since Casparovs belief is purely faith based. I still like discussions with these types for the same reason a cat will use a dead unmoving post to sharpen its claws.

If there is one thing I can take away from this it's that Ghost for brains did try a crafty way of insisting for proof for a purely philosophical/ non falsifiable position. Many of us did in fact try to provide the proof but we should have instead referred him to the Demarcation Problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem   
Quote
"The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and nonscience,[1] including between science, pseudoscience, other activities, and beliefs."

Of particular annoyance was the total intellectual dishonesty and faking being polite.

"Oh please dear kind sirs... I only want to be open minded, I beg thee for evidence.:hang:

I can put up with the irrational arguments, missing the point, misinterpreting Quantum Interpretations for proven facts, etc... but that kind of fake politeness was extremely disgusting to have to tolerate.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2014, 01:06:55 PM »
Casparov was the most disingenuous person I have ever seen on any forum I have been on. I have never seen so many slick maneuvers from anyone else accept Deepak Chopra. And you are correct his fake sweetness was like eating caramel pancakes with syrup on them.  :sick: Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2014, 01:33:22 PM »
What if Casaprov is Deepak Chopra?

Offline Mr.Obvious

« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 02:27:54 PM by Mr.Obvious »
E = Mc²

In the end, we are all standing in the dark,
trying to figure out why we are here.
But let us not choose one direction
without proof of where it is headed.

Check your pocket for matches
so we can observe and learn together
as fast friends and relative idiots.

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2014, 02:48:38 PM »
Sure, why can't the debate happen right here?

No problem with me. :popcorn:

As to his line of reasoning... I agree with you and yet Casparov cannot see it himself...

Do you really believe that?

and others (myself included) have still managed to get sidetracked into debates about scientific experiments which in the end have nothing to do with Casparovs beliefs.

I'm quite clueless about why that is happening.
This forum used to be - a lot - more unfriendly and impatient towards bullshit like Casparovs'.
Quote from: \"the_antithesis\"
Faith says, "I believe this and I don\'t care what you say, I cannot possibly be wrong." Faith is an act of pride.

Quote from: \"AllPurposeAtheist\"
The moral high ground was dug up and made into a walmart apparently today.

Tornadoes caused: 2, maybe 3.