Value of Thought

Originally posted by lemon lime
You can 'prove' almost anything you want to see proven using selective evidence.

Do you think, on this thread, FreakyKBH has succeeded in 'proving' the earth is flat by "using selective evidence"?

Originally posted by lemon lime
If it isn't self explanatory then I'm sorry, but I have better things to do than use up a few pages here in what undoubtedly would be a futile attempt to expain this.

People who pretend to lack time to explain their 'pearls of wisdom' usually don't actually have any pearls of wisdom.

Originally posted by twhitehead
People who pretend to lack time to explain their 'pearls of wisdom' usually don't actually have any pearls of wisdom.

Trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with you and FMF is an exercise in futility...

I didn't say I lack the time, I said I have better things to do. I also have better things to do than to constantly remind careless readers what I actually said.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with you and FMF is an exercise in futility...

When, on page 20, you said "It's always a treat to see self defined intellectuals underplay the value of thought. Someone once told me thinking is over rated, and so I said "That's what I thought"... He didn't get it, and I didn't bother trying to explain it" ~ to no one in particular, and apparently about nobody in particular ~ was that an example of what you think is a contribution to an "intelligent conversation"

Originally posted by FMF
When, on page 20, you said [b]"It's always a treat to see self defined intellectuals underplay the value of thought. Someone once told me thinking is over rated, and so I said "That's what I thought"... He didn't get it, and I didn't bother trying to explain it" ~ to no one in particular, and apparently about nobody in particular ~ was that an example of what you think is a contribution to an "intelligent conversation"[/b]

That doesn't make sense. What makes you think I thought I was making a contribution to an intelligent conversation? You're like the opposite of a mind reader... you can't seem to figure out what someone is thinking even after they tell you.

Originally posted by lemon lime
That doesn't make sense. What makes you think I thought I was making a contribution to an intelligent conversation? You're like the opposite of a mind reader... you can't seem to figure out what someone is thinking even after they tell you.

Well it was your first post on the thread and it wasn't addressed to either me or twhitehead.

Originally posted by lemon lime
You're like the opposite of a mind reader... you can't seem to figure out what someone is thinking even after they tell you.

So have you told anyone yet who the "self-defined intellectuals" are on this thread?

Originally posted by FMF
Well it was your first post on the thread and it wasn't addressed to either me or twhitehead.

If (as you say) it wasn't addressed to either you or twhitehead then why am I hearing from both you and twhitehead?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I didn't say I lack the time, I said I have better things to do.

Same difference.

Trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with you and FMF is an exercise in futility...
Yeah. It takes two to Tango. It doesn't help that you give up before even trying. Give it a shot someday, maybe you are smarter than you realize.

Originally posted by lemon lime
If (as you say) it wasn't addressed to either you or twhitehead then why am I hearing from both you and twhitehead?

Because this is a debate and discussion forum and you posted on this thread.

Originally posted by lemon lime
And I'll return the favour by giving you a 'clue'. You said, "We just have too much evidence for this to be worth arguing with." That's why I haven't bothered to get involved in this particular debate. And hopefully [b]this also answers FMF's follow up question after my answer to his first silly question.[/b]

There's an interesting problem with that. Had we not argued with Freaky's flat earth theory he could claim that we were not able even to disprove a flat earth theory. What you are doing is attempting this pincer movement to criticize us for arguing against something obviously wrong. So we have this damned if you do and damned if you don't thing. What I wanted to know was what the underlying point was (assuming he doesn't actually think the Earth is flat), this is still not forthcoming. My main purpose in posting for the last 20 odd pages has been to try to get Freaky to stop attempting to defend flat earths and tell us the point he was trying to make.

Originally posted by DeepThought
My main purpose in posting for the last 20 odd pages has been to try to get Freaky to stop attempting to defend flat earths and tell us the point he was trying to make.

The problem Freaky has, is that his point is rendered invalid if he fails to demonstrate that the flat earth is a reasonable proposition. He thought (incorrectly) that nobody had any way of verifying that they earth is spherical and that we could easily all be mistaken. His hope was to then say 'well you could also all be mistaken about God not existing!'.
If he now admits that that was the plan, then he opens himself up to the obvious counter argument that we have in fact got good reasons to think the earth is a sphere and probably also have good reasons for thinking God doesn't exist.
He underestimated the scientific and practical knowledge many of us have and thought we were as confused as he is about geography.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem Freaky has, is that his point is rendered invalid if he fails to demonstrate that the flat earth is a reasonable proposition. He thought (incorrectly) that nobody had any way of verifying that they earth is spherical and that we could easily all be mistaken. His hope was to then say 'well you could also all be mistaken about God not existing!' ...[text shortened]... nd practical knowledge many of us have and thought we were as confused as he is about geography.

I suspect something like that. It's a waste of time since the shape of the earth is empirically determinable, whereas the question of the existence of God cannot be resolved by observation. So if he was trying that there's a built in category error.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I suspect something like that. It's a waste of time since the shape of the earth is empirically determinable, whereas the question of the existence of God cannot be resolved by observation. So if he was trying that there's a built in category error.

You frequently like to say that. But it is not however true.

It's perfectly possible to prove god's non-existence beyond reasonable doubt via observation.

God's don't have special "get out of science free cards" despite what so many agnostics think on the subject.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I suspect something like that. It's a waste of time since the shape of the earth is empirically determinable, whereas the question of the existence of God cannot be resolved by observation. So if he was trying that there's a built in category error.

The existence of God as defined by most theists is most definitely empirically determinable (and I have empirically determined he doesn't exist).
I am not certain what you mean by 'category error' but I doubt that it is the correct phrase even if you were correct that Gods existence was indeterminable.