That "something else" which is not god (rejecting, scientific, virtual)
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.
The post does not need to be a prose masterpiece to decipher the meaning of what he is trying to say.
I am quite good at teasing out the meanings of what people are saying in rather obscure posts (not to mention teasing out what they are Really saying when they swathe it with flummery), but Arach sometimes is incoherent even for me. You are welcome of course to provide explanatory commentary to his posts when others cannot understand them, as a more positive step than berating people for not putting in the effort to work out what he is trying to say, when you apparently don't have any such trouble understanding him.
Does dyslexia right itself when proofreading to make it easier to catch one's errors? It's an honest question. I don't know. But if letters are jumping around and reversing themselves, I am not sure there's a way to pause it for the proofreading exercise.
The International Dyslexia Association suggests using spell checkers beginning at around grade 5. I think the point is this, the auto spell checker on my computer underlines in red words that don't fit, then it's up to the writer to choose the best alternative. There's a spell and grammar checker called Ginger that is designed specifically for the dyslexic. In working with children with all sorts of learning disabilities, our goal was not to cure the disabilities -- that rarely happens. Instead, the goal was often to develop "work-arounds".
I only know this, every once in a while Arach will put out a fairly long post with few errors which is easy to read and interpret. My own personal belief -- a few good posts are more effective than many poor posts.
If I were Arach, my goal would be to write posts that people want to read. He often has good things to say.
Don't be coy. Since we seem to be the only species we know of that possesses the capability to infer a purpose to our very existence, does that imply an overarching purpose is endemic to our existence.
Except you are not inferring a purpose, you are implying a purpose based on teleology, a cognitive bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Any source for such a purpose would by definition qualify as our God.
Even if we are just a program in a scientific experiment we are not aware about?
I have no need for affirmation by this forum, Kara. Mensa and the Triple 9 society do that as does my Emeritus Professorship.
Yet you still rely on creationist arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I never suggested any such thing about my decades-long quest. You inferred it. You also infer the "superiority" NOT me.
No, you have told us this so many times
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Why is it, do you think, that you and your cohort in the atheist group rely so much on attacking your intellectual opponents personally rather than on the merits of their views?
For an intellectual, why do you need to rely on a straw man and ad hominem? We have refuted your views before.
You must have Arach on Ignore too, if you don't know that the problem is not spelling errors, nor yet his whacky "The hills are alive" hypothesis, or even his seething toxic bias against New atheism because he sees it as Liberal (which, like our old posting pal CC, is your problem, too), but because his posts can often be quite incoherent.
I won't even go into how your shoddy support for his posts shows up Your problem.
The "hills are alive" is not evidence that I am wrong. The term is evidence that you can't refute it with actual evidence. In fact, when you use actual science you know your position is less valid.
You believe atheist should just fall in line behind you.
The International Dyslexia Association suggests using spell checkers beginning at around grade 5. I think the point is this, the auto spell checker on my computer underlines in red words that don't fit, then it's up to the writer to choose the best alternative. There's a spell and grammar checker called Ginger that is designed specifically for the dyslexic. In working with children with all sorts of learning disabilities, our goal was not to cure the disabilities -- that rarely happens. Instead, the goal was often to develop "work-arounds".
I only know this, every once in a while Arach will put out a fairly long post with few errors which is easy to read and interpret. My own personal belief -- a few good posts are more effective than many poor posts.
If I were Arach, my goal would be to write posts that people want to read. He often has good things to say.
something more, not more gods is the best starting point for any no-god or god claim. any line of logic that are based on things like "the hills are alive" are less valid.
I keep repeating it because militant atheism keeps making it look like atheism is ""rejecting any and all gods" and they keep saying "we don't see any evidence". Those stances is a nonsensical as a man died and rose for our sins at this point.
"something more, not more gods" has the total weight of any chemistry, biology, and physics textbook.
The militant atheist position is an anti-god of gaps.
Does dyslexia right itself when proofreading to make it easier to catch one's errors? It's an honest question. I don't know. But if letters are jumping around and reversing themselves, I am not sure there's a way to pause it for the proofreading exercise.
does it matter here?
Phet hits the person he doesn't address the topic. That is more telling than I can't write.
so I missed the word college. And he pounces on me? he didn't address what I said. He immediately went of the attack to try and exploit a weakness. Phet should realize that I do bare care about missed words. I know what I don't know it doesn't change the validity of my base claim.
Maybe my parents did to good a job in teaching me we don't exploit people, we help them work on weakness. Until the shooting starts that is.
Now when people tell me I can't right I say "yeah, so what, how does that change that your position is clearly less valid?"
People here jump all over people for other things than what t the person actually said.
The "hills are alive" is not evidence that I am wrong. The term is evidence that you can't refute it with actual evidence. In fact, when you use actual science you know your position is less valid.
You believe atheist should just fall in line behind you.
Is this "hills are alive" concept something that you have some backup for in scientific literature? I just did a Google search on it and found virtually nothing. And I am not at all clear how that relates to spiritual "forces" that are not god.
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.
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.
You must have Arach on Ignore too, if you don't know that the problem is not spelling errors, nor yet his whacky "The hills are alive" hypothesis, or even his seething toxic bias against New atheism because he sees it as Liberal (which, like our old posting pal CC, is your problem, too), but because his posts can often be quite incoherent.
