Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Religion » Catholicism » Yesterday 4:21 am

Greg wrote:

Extraordinary Form

Just passing by, and I figured I could add this -- Extraordinary Form doesn't mean it's a "supermass", but is exactly "down to earth" to its meaning, e.g. "out of the ordinary". I often have sedevacantist friends making the mistake.

Introductions » An atheist, and (unsurprisingly) a hard materialist » 1/12/2018 7:02 pm

Hi, just a question you could perhaps develop here, because it would be a clarification of your intro.

You said, in the "Do we really have a natural explanation of consciousness/qualia?" thread, that

surroundx wrote:

There is no unified materialist conception of matter.

Would you thus develop on what you mean when you say you're a materialist ?

Thanks !

God bless,


Introductions » An atheist, and (unsurprisingly) a hard materialist » 1/05/2018 8:32 pm

Hello and welcome !

I dig you already. You sound like a hard materialist friend of mine, with whom I have tremendously good discussions and debates.

Though he'd tell me that he believes in a "kind of God", like a Spinozian view of the Substance you'd call for.

As long as you search Truth, we'll get on well !

... Er, I mean.

*takes a horribly high pitched voice* I mean, these classical theists, they just believe things without evidence. lol, so bigoted, it's so true that we know that we can't know ultimate reality, because science and bad philosophy, lol. Truth matters because I feel good.

or the

lol, I don't need evidence or thought about God. I feel God existing. And it feels good. That's all it counts.

These guys just piss me off.

God (or, in your case, Matter? ^^') bless,

Theoretical Philosophy » Stardusty Psyche's thread » 12/26/2017 6:01 am

I stand by grodrigues message.
And if my words towards SDP are harsh, so be it. His "new answer" is nothing but the endless repetition of his same punctured words. We provided enough rebuttals and answers in the ... 45 pages so far.
He shows no intention of debating. I'm done with it, and out of this thread.

Practical Philosophy » Is human life intrinsically valuable? » 12/25/2017 3:52 pm

lacktone wrote:

Intrinsically valuable is a question that cannot be validated to the objective sensitivity on a universal scale. Whatever argument is put forth defending it can and will be countered and no known measure can refute one or the other. In other words, any stance taken is opinion. A single answer is a utopian request.

This also means that what you're saying is equally opinion. We can discard the critic using the same argument.

Besides, we don't need objective measurement here to validate this. Values aren't measured.

Theoretical Philosophy » Stardusty Psyche's thread » 12/25/2017 3:26 pm

Ah, and forget your "ScienceDaily". Sciences publishes papers. You know, what's used in Universities.
Science journalism is usually as dork as your head. Or as your idol, Krauss.

Prefer real papers. Like, .

But in doing this, I'm perhaps assuming your reading comprehension.

Theoretical Philosophy » Stardusty Psyche's thread » 12/25/2017 3:14 pm

StardustyPsyche wrote:


He's spouting incoherent babble, and shows no interest or intention of rational debate or dialog.
He's vague at best, incompetent and false at worst.
He's not arguing at all, just repeating the same refuted nonsense all over. He's starting a new loop on his toilet thoughts. The only times he produces content is the ones we forced words out of his mouth.

What's the matter, frustrated because you have no rational rebuttals to my responses in #410?

First you complain I don't respond, and when I respond you get all mad.

Methinks the Frenchy doth protest too much.

Rather tired that I got no answer. This #410 post is just a pseudoanswer. You're like the average atheist ignoramus : you boast we're wrong and we don't understand corectly, and that we're stupid. But when you're asked to tell what you think, you run around and muddies the water.

There's nothing to reply in that #410, because it's empty. Void. You're like Krauss : you fuss over nothing, and fart so much out of it you can write books on the topic. At one times, it's just particles. At others, it's not. Then there are abstractions, then there are not. Then there are particles, but you, but not just you.

And you have the guts to come here and protest without reading.

So no. You didn't respond at all. You just did as you usually do : producing nonsense.

Now, I can picture why you enjoy the world so much. It sure feels good to be SP, pretending the world is just a dream, and then that he'll fade into nothingness with causation altogether. Though, out of that pathetically gratifiant worldview, I much prefer the real world.

You don't like arguing online. You like pestering people who gave lot of thought on their worldview because it makes you feel great, feeling that you too, did thought a lot. Guess what : you're flat wrong. Your whole idea of life is a fantasy, and it's a stupid fantasy.

Once you'll finish contemplating the nothingness of your navel, be t

Theoretical Philosophy » Stardusty Psyche's thread » 12/24/2017 7:22 pm

Just ban LouseDustyPsychotic already. He's spouting incoherent babble, and shows no interest or intention of rational debate or dialog.

He's vague at best, incompetent and false at worst.

He's not arguing at all, just repeating the same refuted nonsense all over. He's starting a new loop on his toilet thoughts. The only times he produces content is the ones we forced words out of his mouth. On an already too long thread.

If I was next to him IRL, I'd grab the heaviest dictionary I could find and mash his head with it, repeatedly, until he'd give arguments. Or fall unconscious.

So, admin, it's Christmas: do give us a present, a SDP free board. His objections are pathetic, and his behaviour is idiotic.

Theoretical Philosophy » Stardusty Psyche's thread » 12/23/2017 7:19 pm

StardustyPsyche wrote:

Yes, thanks for taking the time to at least summarize my position in a reasonable way.

You know, we're all trying to do this. At this point, RomanJoe is not summarizing your position, he's pulling words out of your mouth.

But fine. My two cents.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

However, to say the table does not "really" exist would take some fine parsing.  If somebody drops the table on my head I would not appreciate their defense being that the table does not really exist.

Rather than denying the reality of the table altogether I would say our perception of the table is a valid model or a valid approximation because such models converge on reality.  Our perceived boundary for the table and its actual details of boundary are very close. 

There's an interesting sentence here : "models converge on reality". That also hints you do think that reality is knowledgeable, or, at least, modelizable. True? If so, how do you validate a model? When you say that "this theory is more correct than this one", or "this model is better than this one", what do you mean? Which qualities of the model are important?

Given this last sentence, you can get a very vague approximation of what an AT would consider essence to be.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

The color of the table is a valid approximation in some sense but actually quite distorted in other ways.  There is a mapping of electromagnetic radiation wavelengths to our perceptions of color, but we don't think of various radio wavelengths are so very different, rather, on a continuous scale, whereas visible electromagnetic radiation on the same sort of scale appears to us to be vividly different.  And our perceptions can be wrong because a combination of red and green wavelengths can appear the same as a spectrally pure yellow wavelength.

Such comments smell like Democritus. The criticisms against your position can be the same as the ones Aristotle gave to the old atomist. I wou

Board footera


Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum