U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-31-2015, 09:15 AM
 
39,257 posts, read 10,922,331 times
Reputation: 5102

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I doubt neither Mystic's sincerity, nor that he 's sincerely wrong.

I've seen Deepak's enormous ego on full display in a number of disgusting ways, though, which make me doubt HIS sincerity and make me unwilling to equate Mystic the person with Deepak the person ... so to be clear, the analogy (ahem) here is between the beliefs and the rationale for them, not between the persons.
I don't doubt Mystic's sincerity. I also doubt not that his ego could beat Deepak's two falls out of three.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-31-2015, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,756 posts, read 5,548,323 times
Reputation: 5407
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Because you are an atheist and the truth is important?
That's what I like to tell myself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2015, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,104,852 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I don't doubt Mystic's sincerity. I also doubt not that his ego could beat Deepak's two falls out of three.
Yeah that occurred to me after I posted that, it's not like Mystic is ego-free, or incapable of that special brand of disdain that academics have for the unwashed, uninitiated masses who can't possibly understand their lofty thought-processes. But ... and I know this is just me being judgmental ... something about Deepak's affectation with bejeweled glasses frames sort of sent me over the top. I picture Mystic in a dignified smoking-jacket with patched elbows in front of a wall of books, but as his Synthesis has not hit the NY Times bestseller list yet, he lacks the manicured nails, fancy accessories or phalanx of people to do his Twitter posts for him and thus gets a bit of a pass from me ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2015, 01:18 PM
 
40,181 posts, read 26,806,349 times
Reputation: 6058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
QEDI am NOT Deepak Chopra and have no desire to bamboozle anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
So I believer that you are sincere, but your arguments don't in fact seem to have any more substance that Deepak's, if you argue that using incorrect physics just as an analogy to indicate a purported greater reality.
Bamboozle it seems to me would incorporate a desire to deceive. I have no such desire. I have never argued for using incorrect physics and the physics I used was NOT wrong. I argue for using correct physics DIFFERENTLY. The formulations are NOT incorrect. They are a given and established with great rigor. It is the purpose to which they are put that differs in my Synthesis. You do not like the purpose to which they are put to form my ONTOLOGY. Yet no one has proffered an alternate ONTOLOGY . . . just a different USE of the physics AS physics. Morbert doesn't believe in ONTOLOGY . . . so he continues to misrepresent my USE of the accurate physics formulations.
Quote:
At best it makes it a belief without any sound evidence rather than a hypothesis based on wrong evidence.
And before you start stiffing and blinding, I should point out that it doesn't impress that (so it seems) you initially denied that your physics was wrong at all and now you seem to be saying that it wasn't intended to be right but just an analogy of some sort of reality beyond physics.
The physics I used was NEVER wrong, Arq. The USE that I put the accurate formulations to was different from the USE to which they are put in physics. That would only be wrong IF I were teaching physics. But I am supporting an ONTOLOGY with correct physics . . . that as yet has NOT been countered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2015, 07:31 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,703,808 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I am NOT Deepak Chopra and have no desire to bamboozle anyone.
The evidence appears to suggest otherwise - that you seem to wilfully misuse analogy not to highlight the meaning of a point - but to create bridges over the chasms where actual science fails to support the conclusions you want to be true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2015, 08:00 AM
 
39,257 posts, read 10,922,331 times
Reputation: 5102
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Bamboozle it seems to me would incorporate a desire to deceive. I have no such desire. I have never argued for using incorrect physics and the physics I used was NOT wrong. I argue for using correct physics DIFFERENTLY. The formulations are NOT incorrect. They are a given and established with great rigor. It is the purpose to which they are put that differs in my Synthesis. You do not like the purpose to which they are put to form my ONTOLOGY. Yet no one has proffered an alternate ONTOLOGY . . . just a different USE of the physics AS physics. Morbert doesn't believe in ONTOLOGY . . . so he continues to misrepresent my USE of the accurate physics formulations.The physics I used was NEVER wrong, Arq. The USE that I put the accurate formulations to was different from the USE to which they are put in physics. That would only be wrong IF I were teaching physics. But I am supporting an ONTOLOGY with correct physics . . . that as yet has NOT been countered.
That you continue to overlook our remarks that you are not intending to bamboozle as you really believe that you are right, is symptomatic of the problem. You engage in what is obvious to all as faulty arguments, not so much because we know they are wrong, but because you insist that the arguments are sound.

It is absolutely like the way a creationist argues and we can all see it. That said, I noted the speculative elements and the faulty reasoning, and never mind the evasiveness blanketed by scathing contempt (I'm mot holding a grudge old mate, just explaining) but I couldn't comment on the physics as I have no expertise here.

However, I know a man who does, and I have had separate confirmation from three sources, all confirming that your physics is wrong and was wrong from the start.

Who am I going to believe?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2015, 02:12 PM
 
40,181 posts, read 26,806,349 times
Reputation: 6058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Bamboozle it seems to me would incorporate a desire to deceive. I have no such desire. I have never argued for using incorrect physics and the physics I used was NOT wrong. I argue for using correct physics DIFFERENTLY. The formulations are NOT incorrect. They are a given and established with great rigor. It is the purpose to which they are put that differs in my Synthesis. You do not like the purpose to which they are put to form my ONTOLOGY. Yet no one has proffered an alternate ONTOLOGY . . . just a different USE of the physics AS physics. Morbert doesn't believe in ONTOLOGY . . . so he continues to misrepresent my USE of the accurate physics formulations.The physics I used was NEVER wrong, Arq. The USE that I put the accurate formulations to was different from the USE to which they are put in physics. That would only be wrong IF I were teaching physics. But I am supporting an ONTOLOGY with correct physics . . . that as yet has NOT been countered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
That you continue to overlook our remarks that you are not intending to bamboozle as you really believe that you are right, is symptomatic of the problem. You engage in what is obvious to all as faulty arguments, not so much because we know they are wrong, but because you insist that the arguments are sound.
Intent is a necessary element of bamboozle . . . so to use it about my explanations is wrong. Continuing to use it is either lying or a deliberate attempt to denigrate and defame.
Quote:
It is absolutely like the way a creationist argues and we can all see it. That said, I noted the speculative elements and the faulty reasoning, and never mind the evasiveness blanketed by scathing contempt (I'm mot holding a grudge old mate, just explaining) but I couldn't comment on the physics as I have no expertise here.
Trying to continually associate me with Creationists is a similar defamatory attempt. Creationism has been soundly shown to be a fraud . . . which I am not. I am neither a Creationist nor a fraud. Continuing to use such associations makes your motives equally suspect in my eyes.
Quote:
However, I know a man who does, and I have had separate confirmation from three sources, all confirming that your physics is wrong and was wrong from the start.
Who am I going to believe?
The man you are probably relying on does not believe there IS an ontology revealed by the physics . . . so ANY ontology would be seen as wrong that did not simply explain the physics, period. My ontological conclusions and the analogies used to explain them have been the entire problem . . NOT the physics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2015, 01:41 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,703,808 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Intent is a necessary element of bamboozle . . .
Not so sure this is true. The charlatan may also be bamboozled themselves and may not realise they are bamboozling at all.

There is also the "liars for Jesus" phenomenon too. Where people are happy to use lies and bamboozlement - if they firmly believe that the conclusions at the end of them are true. That is to say - they have no intent to bamboozle but to lead people to their "truth" - but their faith in that truth means that they are happy to use dishonest means to get people to it. The Truth itself - for them - justifies the means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2015, 03:15 AM
 
39,257 posts, read 10,922,331 times
Reputation: 5102
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Intent is a necessary element of bamboozle . . . so to use it about my explanations is wrong. Continuing to use it is either lying or a deliberate attempt to denigrate and defame. Trying to continually associate me with Creationists is a similar defamatory attempt. Creationism has been soundly shown to be a fraud . . . which I am not. I am neither a Creationist nor a fraud. Continuing to use such associations makes your motives equally suspect in my eyes.The man you are probably relying on does not believe there IS an ontology revealed by the physics . . . so ANY ontology would be seen as wrong that did not simply explain the physics, period. My ontological conclusions and the analogies used to explain them have been the entire problem . . NOT the physics.
You are just making things worse for yourself, old son.

You are misrepresenting or twisting what I posted THREE times. You are insisting that intent is necessary part of bamboozlement, when I made it clear that the way I was using it (whatever the def is - if there is one) could be unintentional as you believe it yourself, but are fooling yourself (because you are wrong) and therefore are unwittingly trying to fool others.

Then, you are trying to pull a pretty obvious trick by making my comparison of you with creationists an attack on your expertise or knowledge. It was pointing up that a refusal to see pretty obvious faults in thinking was the similarity and the denigration goes no further than that. In any case a denigration implies a false accusation, and the comparison, old mate is only too true.

Thirdly you ignore that I mentioned three independent persons ("I have had separate confirmation from three sources," though the problem might be that you speed read and missed this) confirming separately your incorrect science, so 'the man' is either a bad mistake or again part of the problem. An obvious bit of bamboozlement that it seems you must be aware of, but I give you benefit of doubt that you are doing it almost unconsciously in an effort to prop up your case which you know is True on faith.

I wish I didn't have to dissect you like this as you are a good soul, but it is as hard to get you admit even the possibility that you are wrong in your work even if you did (by experience) have the right answer as a creationist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2015, 03:29 AM
 
39,257 posts, read 10,922,331 times
Reputation: 5102
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Intent is a necessary element of bamboozle . . . so to use it about my explanations is wrong. Continuing to use it is either lying or a deliberate attempt to denigrate and defame. Trying to continually associate me with Creationists is a similar defamatory attempt. Creationism has been soundly shown to be a fraud . . . which I am not. I am neither a Creationist nor a fraud. Continuing to use such associations makes your motives equally suspect in my eyes.The man you are probably relying on does not believe there IS an ontology revealed by the physics . . . so ANY ontology would be seen as wrong that did not simply explain the physics, period. My ontological conclusions and the analogies used to explain them have been the entire problem . . NOT the physics.
You are just making things worse for yourself, old son.

You are misrepresenting or twisting what I posted THREE times. You are insisting that intent is necessary part of bamboozlement, when I made it clear that the way I was using it (whatever the def ot - if there is one) could be unintentional as you believe it yourself, but are fooling yourself (becasue you are wong) and therefore are unwittingly trying to fool others.

You are trying to pull a pretty obvious trick by making my comparison of you with creationists an attack on your expertise or knowledge. It was pointing up that a refusal to see pretty obvious faults in thinking was the similarity and the denigration goes no further than that. In any case a denigration implies a false accusation, and the comparioson, old mate is only too true.

Thirdly you ignore that I mentioned three independent persons confirming separately your incorrect science, so 'the man' is either a bad mistake or again part of the problem. An obvious bit of bamboozlement that it seems you must be aware of, but I give you benefit of doubt that you are doing it almost unconsciously in an effort to prop up your case which you know is True on faith.

I wish I didn't have to dissect you like this as you are a good soul, but it is as hard to get you admit even the possibility that you are wrong in your work as a creationist, even if you did (by experience) have the right answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top