gnidrologs (![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} gnidrologs) rakstīja, |
Šis komentārs man atgādināja vienu gandrīz nupat lasītu vārdu apmaiņu sakarā ar šo sarunu.
This is actually a common problem with Fedoras*. The debite where Craig ripped Harris to shreds was full of people in the comments claiming Craig was a retard or that he was talking nonsense, and that was just a question of understanding logic:
https://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011...a
Let alone metaphysics. Fedoras are really stupid people who think they are intelligent because they cannot actually conceive anything outside their levels of understanding, so whenever anyone speaks metaphysics it's all gibberish to them.
With that said, reading the comments, it seems the Jay's main contention is that it's just a matter of world views, which is true. The Matt guys talking about "evidence" of God, but what is acceptable evidence? Who defines it? According to what standards?
A common criticism i see in the comments is that in order to understand Jay you need a degree in philosophy and that if that's what it takes to believe in God, who can do it? That alone shows you the level of intellectual laziness of Fedoras. The fact that all their arguments are accepted by "faith" for they obviously don't realize that in order to justify their metaphysical truisms about the nature of what constitutes evidence, what reality is etc they'd also have to engage in heavy philosophical arguments, but they don't see that because the philosophical underpinning of their beliefs is something they accept a priori and something they believe to be self evident without feeling the necessity to prove any of it.
*ateisti (slengs atsaucoties uz populāro mēmi par eiforiskajiem ateistiem hūtēs)
Btw, tā Viljama kreiga un Sema Harisa debate uzskatāmi nodemonstrēja, ka pat runājot par tīri praktiskām lietām (morāle un tās piemērošana) pērlīšu zvejnieku un tauriņu ķērāju galdiņš ir gaužām plāns. Pat ja metafizika nespēj dot drošticamas atbildes uz visiem jautājumiem (jo cilvēka aģentūra), tad nominālismā bazētās uzskatu sistēmas doesn't even scratch a surface un ir praktiski nelietojamas.
This is actually a common problem with Fedoras*. The debite where Craig ripped Harris to shreds was full of people in the comments claiming Craig was a retard or that he was talking nonsense, and that was just a question of understanding logic:
https://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011...a
Let alone metaphysics. Fedoras are really stupid people who think they are intelligent because they cannot actually conceive anything outside their levels of understanding, so whenever anyone speaks metaphysics it's all gibberish to them.
With that said, reading the comments, it seems the Jay's main contention is that it's just a matter of world views, which is true. The Matt guys talking about "evidence" of God, but what is acceptable evidence? Who defines it? According to what standards?
A common criticism i see in the comments is that in order to understand Jay you need a degree in philosophy and that if that's what it takes to believe in God, who can do it? That alone shows you the level of intellectual laziness of Fedoras. The fact that all their arguments are accepted by "faith" for they obviously don't realize that in order to justify their metaphysical truisms about the nature of what constitutes evidence, what reality is etc they'd also have to engage in heavy philosophical arguments, but they don't see that because the philosophical underpinning of their beliefs is something they accept a priori and something they believe to be self evident without feeling the necessity to prove any of it.
*ateisti (slengs atsaucoties uz populāro mēmi par eiforiskajiem ateistiem hūtēs)
Btw, tā Viljama kreiga un Sema Harisa debate uzskatāmi nodemonstrēja, ka pat runājot par tīri praktiskām lietām (morāle un tās piemērošana) pērlīšu zvejnieku un tauriņu ķērāju galdiņš ir gaužām plāns. Pat ja metafizika nespēj dot drošticamas atbildes uz visiem jautājumiem (jo cilvēka aģentūra), tad nominālismā bazētās uzskatu sistēmas doesn't even scratch a surface un ir praktiski nelietojamas.
Nopūsties:
