|
Memories
Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: How to debate [Re: teknix]
#16569088 - 07/22/12 03:47 PM (11 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: You are making stuff up again, get a clue and stop talking to me.
Ignored
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: How to debate [Re: Maitreya]
#16569095 - 07/22/12 03:48 PM (11 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Maitreya said: You think you're God. My ancestors know me as Buddha...
Can we just agree to disagree that you're a simpleton assface?
|
purpleprint
Registered: 04/13/12
Posts: 166
Loc: Southeast U.S
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: How to debate [Re: Memories]
#16569110 - 07/22/12 03:50 PM (11 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Memories said:
Quote:
@ purpleprint, when debating many things here, the problem that is encountered is a lack of evidence. Many of the posters here will not take ideas that resemble some sort of scientific theory, lacking peer reviewed articles, seriously. A reductionist and skeptical viewpoint is the predominant stance of many of the regulars. If you post something here, prepare to have others try to tear it apart.
I see your view there, because backing up your claims is extremely important, for what is an idea or thought without a sound basis of knowledge. I do disagree with part of your sentiments here though.
I disagree because about the need for peer reviewed documents or sound testing data sheets because many of the discussions here involve the philosophical and esoteric. When having a debate on the design of an engine or the layout of a production plant opinions have very little relevance, though they can add to the discussion. In debates regarding scientific hypothesis or engineering/technical problems evidence should be the highest of priority.
I think the same applies conversely here. I think peer reviewed articles and studies of the psyche are very useful, but not a necessity when speaking of philosophy. I think we should hold each others perspectives with high regard wether they provide useful links or not.
-------------------- We are all luminous beings
Edited by purpleprint (07/22/12 03:53 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: How to debate [Re: teknix]
#16569111 - 07/22/12 03:51 PM (11 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Examples how not to debate:
Quote:
Maitreya said: Good from evil. One as mass, two as manifestation as sound or light.
Read a book or something. You're pathetic.
Quote:
Maitreya said: You think you're God. My ancestors know me as Buddha...
Can we just agree to disagree that you're a simpleton assface?
|
Memories
Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
This forum seems to be compromised of many skeptics. We don't believe in anything until there is solid evidence for it.
If you want to have discussion about things that aren't backed by tons of evidence, you should check out Spirituality and Mysticism.
I don't hold anyone's opinion in high regard until they prove themselves. Most posters are regurgitating false things they head somewhere else.
|
Maitreya
Vishnu.
Registered: 07/16/12
Posts: 219
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: How to debate [Re: teknix]
#16569158 - 07/22/12 03:56 PM (11 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I just thought of the perfect title for a children's book!
Teknix Begs the Question.
What will he claim next?
-------------------- Ye dharma hetuprabava hetun tesam tathagato hy avadat tesam ca yo nirrhodo evam vadi mahasramana.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: How to debate [Re: Maitreya]
#16569187 - 07/22/12 04:01 PM (11 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I hereby claim that you are going to the ignore list for continuously making unsubstantiated posts with the other guy.
Haters gonna hate.
|
Maitreya
Vishnu.
Registered: 07/16/12
Posts: 219
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: How to debate [Re: teknix]
#16569214 - 07/22/12 04:06 PM (11 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Fuck yeah, fuckyeah!
I've never been ignored by "God" before. So loving, so violent!
-------------------- Ye dharma hetuprabava hetun tesam tathagato hy avadat tesam ca yo nirrhodo evam vadi mahasramana.
|
purpleprint
Registered: 04/13/12
Posts: 166
Loc: Southeast U.S
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: How to debate [Re: Memories]
#16569221 - 07/22/12 04:07 PM (11 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Memories said:
Quote:
This forum seems to be compromised of many skeptics. We don't believe in anything until there is solid evidence for it.
If you want to have discussion about things that aren't backed by tons of evidence, you should check out Spirituality and Mysticism.
A forum for philosophical debate is of course going o be full of people just dumping their confusion and frustration without really putting much thought into it. However that does not change the fact that it is a discussion of philosophy.
Just because you have been bothered and seen many posts that annoyed you because of people posting ideas without sound logic or any basis that you can find does not mean that evidence should now be required for a philosophical discussion to be taken seriously in your eyes.
I say this because we are in a venue that disconnects the human aspect of interaction and instead of a face we have a screen. This allows people to more easily hurl insults and post claims without really putting much thought into it.
If you want discussions that can all be proven by science and math then perhaps you are the one in the wrong venue?
The only advice I could give is gain a better bullshit radar and try and not indulge people when they start to get childish or are just trying to " prove you wrong " such as teknix was doing
-------------------- We are all luminous beings
|
Maitreya
Vishnu.
Registered: 07/16/12
Posts: 219
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
|
Teknix is clearly insane.
A clear indication of how to avoid abuse of psychedelics.
-------------------- Ye dharma hetuprabava hetun tesam tathagato hy avadat tesam ca yo nirrhodo evam vadi mahasramana.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: How to debate [Re: Maitreya]
#16569252 - 07/22/12 04:15 PM (11 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
All of your thoughts, opinions, beliefs, ideologies, assumptions and accusations are on trial.
|
Memories
Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
I don't typically ask for evidence unless someone is proposing something like the stoned ape theory, as you did earlier.
Reasoning behind a claim is always necessary though.
|
purpleprint
Registered: 04/13/12
Posts: 166
Loc: Southeast U.S
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: How to debate [Re: Memories]
#16569315 - 07/22/12 04:32 PM (11 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
ah. yes, I am a huge fan of terence Mckenna. I want to be clear that I do not BELIEVE in the stoned ape theory, nor has it been any where near close to been proven. It is just what it says it is, a theory.
Do you know what the stoned ape theory accounts for? It is accounting for the unprecedented brain development of the humans. There has been no greater speed of evolution that is known than the development of the pre frontal cortex.
I admit the stoned ape theory is lacking in study, however do you know what the most accepted theory is in modern academia? It is the act of the throwing arm that is the cause! Yes the act of early hominids learning to throw and the hand eye coordination that is required that kickstarted the grandest evolutionary feat in knowledge today.
So yes the stoned ape theory is lacking, but even more lame IMO is the theory that is taught. but they are both just theories and even the one that is accepted does not hold much water with academics.
So the evidence is out there and I will try and find actual documents on Mckenna's work, but really hearing him explain the theory himself will do you better justice.
-------------------- We are all luminous beings
Edited by purpleprint (07/22/12 04:33 PM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
It is NOT a theory nor even a hypothesis.
--------------------
|
purpleprint
Registered: 04/13/12
Posts: 166
Loc: Southeast U.S
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
|
It fits pretty perfectly into the definition of theory as I understand it to be.
I'm not sure how one could claim it to not be a theory? It certainly is not a fact. It certainly is not some sort of scientific law.
If you think it's the most insane dumbass configuration of words ever spewed forth then that is your opinion. However I don't think your opinion is very critical as you do not seem to be putting much thought into what is classifiable as a theory.
It's not called the Stoned ape theory for no reason
-------------------- We are all luminous beings
Edited by purpleprint (07/22/12 05:05 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
A theory has been tested many more times then once and has independent lines of evidence for it from multiple sources and a variety of experiments.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Apparently you do not have dictionary access. Do I need to put lots of thought into common definitions?
theory: a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
--------------------
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻
Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
A "general principle" would be more in regards to a law then theory imo.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: How to debate [Re: teknix]
#16569573 - 07/22/12 05:18 PM (11 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Argue with Webster, not me.
--------------------
|
purpleprint
Registered: 04/13/12
Posts: 166
Loc: Southeast U.S
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
|
ah yes you are right then. I was wrong to think you misunderstood the definition of what a theory is.
I think you are not informed on how much peer reviewed and tested data went intoTerence Mckenna's work then. Several books are available on the topic. It has been studied by several Phd and high level biologist. The theory was put forth by an accomplished biologist.
This is no theory that was put out by some random person with no credentials. Far more accredited scientist have investigated this " theory " than us, so in that I think it validates it being considered a legitimate theory.
Again, wether or not you think this theory or I guess if you want to just call it a story is plausible or not is the real question. Call it whatever you like.
I for one have enough respect and knowledge of his work to consider it a theory. Not one I believe but one that makes more sense than others I have heard
-------------------- We are all luminous beings
|
|