Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Dr. Craig reveals his "true colors."

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 9:45:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yup, this is right: Dr. Craig is guilty of violating copyright laws! See the video to the right for proof.

So much for "academic honesty."
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 9:54:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 9:45:34 AM, Microsuck wrote:
Yup, this is right: Dr. Craig is guilty of violating copyright laws! See the video to the right for proof.

So much for "academic honesty."

I am wrought with grief. Not William Lane Craig....wait this video is by thunderfoot.... Oh! Another character assassination attempt.

This guy marginalizes himself by his constant and endless attacking William Lane Craig.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 10:00:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here is a review of Thunderfoots own stealing of youtube users work, which your video above accused Craig of.

Silliness. Youtube is not an academic arena and Thunderfoot has a personal mission to destroy Craig. Not a valid source.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 10:08:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 9:45:34 AM, Microsuck wrote:
Yup, this is right: Dr. Craig is guilty of violating copyright laws! See the video to the right for proof.

So much for "academic honesty.":

This is much ado about nothing... I want my 6 minutes back.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 10:11:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 10:00:36 AM, Gileandos wrote:
Here is a review of Thunderfoots own stealing of youtube users work, which your video above accused Craig of.

Silliness. Youtube is not an academic arena and Thunderfoot has a personal mission to destroy Craig. Not a valid source.:

Absolutely. This Thunderf00t character is an Izbo type, who apparently has nothing better to do with his life than scouring the internet to find ways to discredit Christians that threaten his worldview.

His arguments are usually asinine and pithy.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 12:38:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 10:11:16 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/25/2012 10:00:36 AM, Gileandos wrote:
Here is a review of Thunderfoots own stealing of youtube users work, which your video above accused Craig of.

Silliness. Youtube is not an academic arena and Thunderfoot has a personal mission to destroy Craig. Not a valid source.:

Absolutely. This Thunderf00t character is an Izbo type, who apparently has nothing better to do with his life than scouring the internet to find ways to discredit Christians that threaten his worldview.

His arguments are usually asinine and pithy.

In other words, his arguments are factually accurate but becaue you dont like him they are fallacious. mmmmnow thats ad hominem
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 12:48:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 12:38:13 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 10:11:16 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/25/2012 10:00:36 AM, Gileandos wrote:
Here is a review of Thunderfoots own stealing of youtube users work, which your video above accused Craig of.

Silliness. Youtube is not an academic arena and Thunderfoot has a personal mission to destroy Craig. Not a valid source.:

Absolutely. This Thunderf00t character is an Izbo type, who apparently has nothing better to do with his life than scouring the internet to find ways to discredit Christians that threaten his worldview.

His arguments are usually asinine and pithy.

In other words, his arguments are factually accurate but becaue you dont like him they are fallacious. mmmmnow thats ad hominem

Craig's arguments are garbage, especially the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Craig only knows how to present arguments well, that doesn't mean his arguments are good.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 1:10:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In other words, his arguments are factually accurate but becaue you dont like him they are fallacious. mmmmnow thats ad hominem:

No, IOW I'm saying that people like Thunderf00t and Izbo are cut from the same cloth as the fundamentalists they excoriate. Secondly, his argument is petty and inconsequential.

Also, please note that because I'm pointing out how petty Thunderf00t is being does not de facto mean I'm defending WLC or his beliefs.

Stick that in your peace pipe and suck it. :)
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 2:19:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This seems really petty. Criticising craig for this especially seems absurd, and I'drather folk just concentrated on debating the topics at hand.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 3:31:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 12:48:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/25/2012 12:38:13 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 10:11:16 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/25/2012 10:00:36 AM, Gileandos wrote:
Here is a review of Thunderfoots own stealing of youtube users work, which your video above accused Craig of.

Silliness. Youtube is not an academic arena and Thunderfoot has a personal mission to destroy Craig. Not a valid source.:

Absolutely. This Thunderf00t character is an Izbo type, who apparently has nothing better to do with his life than scouring the internet to find ways to discredit Christians that threaten his worldview.

His arguments are usually asinine and pithy.

In other words, his arguments are factually accurate but becaue you dont like him they are fallacious. mmmmnow thats ad hominem

Craig's arguments are garbage, especially the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Craig only knows how to present arguments well, that doesn't mean his arguments are good.

Yea craig is clown agreed. and so are many on here.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 3:41:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 2:19:21 PM, unitedandy wrote:
This seems really petty. Criticising craig for this especially seems absurd, and I'drather folk just concentrated on debating the topics at hand.

It actually, it seems, helps Craig more than it hurts him.

I mean, if this is the best he can get on Craig, then I cry "FAIL!"
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2012 3:46:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Personally, I think both are miserable failures; even I can argue better for Atheism than thunderf00t--he is another izbo10. I normally detest most of what thunderf00t has to say because it is full of ad hominems, but I thought this one was quite interesting. Just wanted to get your thoughts on it.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 1:33:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/25/2012 12:48:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/25/2012 12:38:13 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 10:11:16 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/25/2012 10:00:36 AM, Gileandos wrote:
Here is a review of Thunderfoots own stealing of youtube users work, which your video above accused Craig of.

Silliness. Youtube is not an academic arena and Thunderfoot has a personal mission to destroy Craig. Not a valid source.:

Absolutely. This Thunderf00t character is an Izbo type, who apparently has nothing better to do with his life than scouring the internet to find ways to discredit Christians that threaten his worldview.

His arguments are usually asinine and pithy.

In other words, his arguments are factually accurate but becaue you dont like him they are fallacious. mmmmnow thats ad hominem

Craig's arguments are garbage, especially the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Craig only knows how to present arguments well, that doesn't mean his arguments are good.

Lol. You should debate him about that sometime. Tell him why it's garbage. Maybe all of the atheists that have previously debated him missed something that you didn't.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 6:59:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Craig is just not a philosopher, he is repeating arguments that have long been refuted. Its as if he is not even aware of the history of philosophy. You have to remember theologins don't like real philosohpers, his doclarate of philosophy is from a theologin school. Which is an extreme and obvious conflict of interest. Secondly philosophers don't really go around actually calling themselves doctors.
For all PHD's stands for doctor of philosophy. The people who believe in him do just that only, believe in him. They are people who are already have a very low standard of knowledge. THere is nothing about what he tries to demonstrate which is even close to a Christian god. They don't even realize how far and unrelated to that notion of anything his argument attempt. They are not made to convince practiced non-theologin philosophers. I believe in god like entity and in Teleology. But not by deception and not by lowering my standards of knowledge so low, that there is no difference between simply expecting something.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 8:21:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 1:33:23 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 2/25/2012 12:48:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/25/2012 12:38:13 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 2/25/2012 10:11:16 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/25/2012 10:00:36 AM, Gileandos wrote:
Here is a review of Thunderfoots own stealing of youtube users work, which your video above accused Craig of.

Silliness. Youtube is not an academic arena and Thunderfoot has a personal mission to destroy Craig. Not a valid source.:

Absolutely. This Thunderf00t character is an Izbo type, who apparently has nothing better to do with his life than scouring the internet to find ways to discredit Christians that threaten his worldview.

His arguments are usually asinine and pithy.

In other words, his arguments are factually accurate but becaue you dont like him they are fallacious. mmmmnow thats ad hominem

Craig's arguments are garbage, especially the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Craig only knows how to present arguments well, that doesn't mean his arguments are good.

Lol. You should debate him about that sometime. Tell him why it's garbage. Maybe all of the atheists that have previously debated him missed something that you didn't.

Snap.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 8:57:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/27/2012 6:59:14 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Craig is just not a philosopher, he is repeating arguments that have long been refuted. Its as if he is not even aware of the history of philosophy. You have to remember theologins don't like real philosohpers, his doclarate of philosophy is from a theologin school. Which is an extreme and obvious conflict of interest. Secondly philosophers don't really go around actually calling themselves doctors.
For all PHD's stands for doctor of philosophy. The people who believe in him do just that only, believe in him. They are people who are already have a very low standard of knowledge. THere is nothing about what he tries to demonstrate which is even close to a Christian god. They don't even realize how far and unrelated to that notion of anything his argument attempt. They are not made to convince practiced non-theologin philosophers. I believe in god like entity and in Teleology. But not by deception and not by lowering my standards of knowledge so low, that there is no difference between simply expecting something.

I do not believe in you. Therefore you are not a real person. People who believe you are a real person do just that only, BELIEVE in you. They are people who already have a low standard of knowledge. There is nothing about what you try to do that demonstrates you are a real person.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 9:15:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 8:57:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 2/27/2012 6:59:14 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Craig is just not a philosopher, he is repeating arguments that have long been refuted. Its as if he is not even aware of the history of philosophy. You have to remember theologins don't like real philosohpers, his doclarate of philosophy is from a theologin school. Which is an extreme and obvious conflict of interest. Secondly philosophers don't really go around actually calling themselves doctors.
For all PHD's stands for doctor of philosophy. The people who believe in him do just that only, believe in him. They are people who are already have a very low standard of knowledge. THere is nothing about what he tries to demonstrate which is even close to a Christian god. They don't even realize how far and unrelated to that notion of anything his argument attempt. They are not made to convince practiced non-theologin philosophers. I believe in god like entity and in Teleology. But not by deception and not by lowering my standards of knowledge so low, that there is no difference between simply expecting something.

I do not believe in you. Therefore you are not a real person. People who believe you are a real person do just that only, BELIEVE in you. They are people who already have a low standard of knowledge. There is nothing about what you try to do that demonstrates you are a real person.

Believe is an expectation that something p is true. I exist and so do you, regardless of whether we or someone else believes it or not. Even when you doubt that, your doubt is the proof that you exist, you don't have a choose in the matter. That is such things as the fact that you have a believe("the subjective feeling on inclination towards something being true) or you have a thought or experience. Are always 100% true. To say that ideas are either are not true or false is a fail.. The are always true. So our existences our thoughts, or feeling are not up for a debate. They are self evident.(via modernized COGITO) You can never be wrong about those things.

The debate is whether or not what you expect to be true is actually true or not. And so faith alone is to say that expectation is a the same as the thing in which you expect to be true. ( let believe =b let the thing you believe in be=p) Not the same. Thus zero criteria of knowledge. Belief and knowledge would the very same.

Is it Socrates who put Forward knowledge as Justified True Belief. That is there are 3 conditions needed for it to be knowledge. True being the obvious, Belief being 1 factor, and Justification(evidence, or logical/mathatical) The more the standard that you give for evidence or not will affect the worth of you knowledge. If its too low then you will guillable, and your knowledge cheap, if its too high, than you will be closed minded and miss important information.

Now whether Socrates exist or not, is irrelavent. What matters is do the arguments work or not. That is a philospoher is to be judged by his arguments. not faith.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 9:19:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 8:57:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 2/27/2012 6:59:14 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Craig is just not a philosopher, he is repeating arguments that have long been refuted. Its as if he is not even aware of the history of philosophy. You have to remember theologins don't like real philosohpers, his doclarate of philosophy is from a theologin school. Which is an extreme and obvious conflict of interest. Secondly philosophers don't really go around actually calling themselves doctors.
For all PHD's stands for doctor of philosophy. The people who believe in him do just that only, believe in him. They are people who are already have a very low standard of knowledge. THere is nothing about what he tries to demonstrate which is even close to a Christian god. They don't even realize how far and unrelated to that notion of anything his argument attempt. They are not made to convince practiced non-theologin philosophers. I believe in god like entity and in Teleology. But not by deception and not by lowering my standards of knowledge so low, that there is no difference between simply expecting something.

I do not believe in you. Therefore you are not a real person. People who believe you are a real person do just that only, BELIEVE in you. They are people who already have a low standard of knowledge. There is nothing about what you try to do that demonstrates you are a real person.

omg...PhD used to mean Doctor of Philosophy, now it just means termanally degreed in one area of minutia. (See. Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 10:38:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 9:19:56 AM, logicrules wrote:

omg...PhD used to mean Doctor of Philosophy, now it just means termanally degreed in one area of minutia. (See. Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow)

First of all irrevant to the overall arguement, which of course indicates that that is best refutation you got on. You might as say I am wrong because I spelled a word wrong. Secondly, He is specifically, Claiming Doctor of philosohpy, So you are burnning youself. Thirdly, All Doctorlates themself say right not it Doctor of philosphy.
Moreover The Letter PH stand for philosohpy, and the letter D stand for doctor. More? all Doclarate certificite I have seen say write on it. Doctor of philosophy. Why? Most all Academics come from a philosophic reasoning, inlcuding science. It is philsophy, its false dichotomoty. You can form a theory or experiment or interpret result you are philosophizing. Its only when you make supernatural claims, or fundementalist claims of believe alone is when you are not philosophizing, It is really synonomous with reasoning.

oh yeah, who gives a sh!t what Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow says. Use your nugget. Stop just taking for world what somebody says. You reasoning is your freedom!!

Don't get caugt in the illusion of language, its our best tool, but also very harmfull when use incorrectly.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 10:57:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 10:38:40 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/2/2012 9:19:56 AM, logicrules wrote:

omg...PhD used to mean Doctor of Philosophy, now it just means termanally degreed in one area of minutia. (See. Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow)

First of all irrevant to the overall arguement, which of course indicates that that is best refutation you got on. You might as say I am wrong because I spelled a word wrong. Secondly, He is specifically, Claiming Doctor of philosohpy, So you are burnning youself. Thirdly, All Doctorlates themself say right not it Doctor of philosphy.
Moreover The Letter PH stand for philosohpy, and the letter D stand for doctor. More? all Doclarate certificite I have seen say write on it. Doctor of philosophy. Why? Most all Academics come from a philosophic reasoning, inlcuding science. It is philsophy, its false dichotomoty. You can form a theory or experiment or interpret result you are philosophizing. Its only when you make supernatural claims, or fundementalist claims of believe alone is when you are not philosophizing, It is really synonomous with reasoning.

oh yeah, who gives a sh!t what Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow says. Use your nugget. Stop just taking for world what somebody says. You reasoning is your freedom!!

Don't get caugt in the illusion of language, its our best tool, but also very harmfull when use incorrectly.

Wow, touch a nerve. Most accedemic areas of study have NOTHING to do with Philosophy. In fact ALL BS degrees are philosophically deficient. This conclusion is based upon the requirement for the granting of a Degree in the various disciplines.

No business degree requires philosophy at other than Private Universities. As to what you see on degrees....I got no idea, I prefer the AB myself.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 11:56:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 10:57:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/2/2012 10:38:40 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/2/2012 9:19:56 AM, logicrules wrote:

omg...PhD used to mean Doctor of Philosophy, now it just means termanally degreed in one area of minutia. (See. Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow)

First of all irrevant to the overall arguement, which of course indicates that that is best refutation you got on. You might as say I am wrong because I spelled a word wrong. Secondly, He is specifically, Claiming Doctor of philosohpy, So you are burnning youself. Thirdly, All Doctorlates themself say right not it Doctor of philosphy.
Moreover The Letter PH stand for philosohpy, and the letter D stand for doctor. More? all Doclarate certificite I have seen say write on it. Doctor of philosophy. Why? Most all Academics come from a philosophic reasoning, inlcuding science. It is philsophy, its false dichotomoty. You can form a theory or experiment or interpret result you are philosophizing. Its only when you make supernatural claims, or fundementalist claims of believe alone is when you are not philosophizing, It is really synonomous with reasoning.

oh yeah, who gives a sh!t what Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow says. Use your nugget. Stop just taking for world what somebody says. You reasoning is your freedom!!

Don't get caugt in the illusion of language, its our best tool, but also very harmfull when use incorrectly.


Wow, touch a nerve. Most accedemic areas of study have NOTHING to do with Philosophy. In fact ALL BS degrees are philosophically deficient. This conclusion is based upon the requirement for the granting of a Degree in the various disciplines.

No business degree requires philosophy at other than Private Universities. As to what you see on degrees....I got no idea, I prefer the AB myself.

The philosophy of a subject is usually involved in the course, e.g. the role of something. Furthermore, philosophy is simply "wisdom".
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 12:32:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 11:56:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/2/2012 10:57:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/2/2012 10:38:40 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/2/2012 9:19:56 AM, logicrules wrote:

omg...PhD used to mean Doctor of Philosophy, now it just means termanally degreed in one area of minutia. (See. Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow)

First of all irrevant to the overall arguement, which of course indicates that that is best refutation you got on. You might as say I am wrong because I spelled a word wrong. Secondly, He is specifically, Claiming Doctor of philosohpy, So you are burnning youself. Thirdly, All Doctorlates themself say right not it Doctor of philosphy.
Moreover The Letter PH stand for philosohpy, and the letter D stand for doctor. More? all Doclarate certificite I have seen say write on it. Doctor of philosophy. Why? Most all Academics come from a philosophic reasoning, inlcuding science. It is philsophy, its false dichotomoty. You can form a theory or experiment or interpret result you are philosophizing. Its only when you make supernatural claims, or fundementalist claims of believe alone is when you are not philosophizing, It is really synonomous with reasoning.

oh yeah, who gives a sh!t what Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow says. Use your nugget. Stop just taking for world what somebody says. You reasoning is your freedom!!

Don't get caugt in the illusion of language, its our best tool, but also very harmfull when use incorrectly.


Wow, touch a nerve. Most accedemic areas of study have NOTHING to do with Philosophy. In fact ALL BS degrees are philosophically deficient. This conclusion is based upon the requirement for the granting of a Degree in the various disciplines.

No business degree requires philosophy at other than Private Universities. As to what you see on degrees....I got no idea, I prefer the AB myself.

The philosophy of a subject is usually involved in the course, e.g. the role of something. Furthermore, philosophy is simply "wisdom".

BS...Philosophy is a discipline of study....if it were wisdom you would lack the requisite for comment.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 1:08:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 9:19:56 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/2/2012 10:57:25 AM, logicrules wrote:

Illogicalrules: omg...PhD used to mean Doctor of Philosophy, now it just means termanally degreed in one area of minutia. (See. Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow)

The Fool: First of all its irrelevant to the overall argument, which of course indicates that that is best refutation you got on. You might as well say I am wrong because I spelled a word wrong. Secondly, He is specifically, Claiming Doctor of philosophy, so you are burning yourself. Thirdly, All Doctorates themself say right not it Doctor of philosophy.

The Fool: Moreover The Letter PH stand for philosophy, and the letter D stand for doctor. More? all Doclarate certificate I have seen say right on it. Doctor of philosophy. Why? Most all Academics come from a philosophy, including science. Science is philosophy, its false dichotomy. It makes no sense form a theory or experiment or interpret result without philosophy. Its only when you make supernatural claims, or fundamentalist claims of believe alone is when you are not philosophizing. Philosohy is really synonomous with reasoning.

The Fool: oh yeah, who gives a sh!t what Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow says. Use your nugget. Stop just taking for word what somebody else says. Reasoning is your freedom!!

The Fool: Don't get caught in the illusion of language, it's our best tool, but also very harmful when use incorrectly.

Illogicalrules: Wow, touch a nerve.

The Fool: sure, but I am interested in your argument?

Illogicalrules: Most academic areas of study have NOTHING to do with Philosophy.
The Fool: sure, but I am interested in your argument?
Illogicalrules: In fact ALL BS degrees are philosophically deficient.
The Fool: We are talking about PhD's remember and this is related to Craig's PhD. Pls try and stay on topic. "Be care full eh, it's not so easy to argue for notness as many people things. You must show contradiction for notness. "

Illogicalrules: This conclusion is based upon the requirement for the granting of a Degree in the various disciplines.

The Fool: Firstly for I was talking about how they became to be in the first place academics all together. That is reasoning. In ancient Greek the philosopher was the school/university, as such sciences (the original term meaning body of knowledge) developed they get labeled as their own disciplines. But they all stem from philosophy at one point.

Secondly I was demonstrating about the difference between language symbols and the reality they symbolize.

That is the difference between the reality of philosophy and the word philosophy. Where the concept imbedded in the notion of philosophy is reasoning itself. Therefore anything that involves reason is doing philosophy, whether they believe it or not.

When we confuse the difference we start thinking that the symbols can create the reality which is false.

Let reality b= R and symbols be S so the formula is such S->R also R(s)
That is Symbols being in the set or real things but not the other realities.

If there is a symbol there must be reality (the physical things)

But reality exists regardless or symbols or not. To create reality with symbols (other than more symbols of course) is false. aka fallacy.

You can symbolize a symbol but they eventually must don't the trail symbolize a reality other than symbols to be valid.

And most people 95% Of all people have trouble distinguishing the difference, and so many are lost in illusion of language.

I am not basing this on something I read. Or something somebody else said, or someone else's study or of faith in somebody else, I know because it follows by necessity! by my own pure reason and nobody else's. That is if of language are physical symbols to use the communicate then that is what they are and nothing more.

"Immaturity is self-inflicted not from a lack of understanding, but from the lack of courage to use one's reason, intellect, and wisdom without the guidance of another." Emmanuel Kant.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 4:14:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 1:08:11 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/2/2012 9:19:56 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/2/2012 10:57:25 AM, logicrules wrote:

Illogicalrules: omg...PhD used to mean Doctor of Philosophy, now it just means termanally degreed in one area of minutia. (See. Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow)

The Fool: First of all its irrelevant to the overall argument, which of course indicates that that is best refutation you got on. You might as well say I am wrong because I spelled a word wrong. Secondly, He is specifically, Claiming Doctor of philosophy, so you are burning yourself. Thirdly, All Doctorates themself say right not it Doctor of philosophy.

The Fool: Moreover The Letter PH stand for philosophy, and the letter D stand for doctor. More? all Doclarate certificate I have seen say right on it. Doctor of philosophy. Why? Most all Academics come from a philosophy, including science. Science is philosophy, its false dichotomy. It makes no sense form a theory or experiment or interpret result without philosophy. Its only when you make supernatural claims, or fundamentalist claims of believe alone is when you are not philosophizing. Philosohy is really synonomous with reasoning.

The Fool: oh yeah, who gives a sh!t what Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow says. Use your nugget. Stop just taking for word what somebody else says. Reasoning is your freedom!!

The Fool: Don't get caught in the illusion of language, it's our best tool, but also very harmful when use incorrectly.

Illogicalrules: Wow, touch a nerve.

The Fool: sure, but I am interested in your argument?

Illogicalrules: Most academic areas of study have NOTHING to do with Philosophy.
The Fool: sure, but I am interested in your argument?
Illogicalrules: In fact ALL BS degrees are philosophically deficient.
The Fool: We are talking about PhD's remember and this is related to Craig's PhD. Pls try and stay on topic. "Be care full eh, it's not so easy to argue for notness as many people things. You must show contradiction for notness. "

Illogicalrules: This conclusion is based upon the requirement for the granting of a Degree in the various disciplines.

The Fool: Firstly for I was talking about how they became to be in the first place academics all together. That is reasoning. In ancient Greek the philosopher was the school/university, as such sciences (the original term meaning body of knowledge) developed they get labeled as their own disciplines. But they all stem from philosophy at one point.

Secondly I was demonstrating about the difference between language symbols and the reality they symbolize.

That is the difference between the reality of philosophy and the word philosophy. Where the concept imbedded in the notion of philosophy is reasoning itself. Therefore anything that involves reason is doing philosophy, whether they believe it or not.

When we confuse the difference we start thinking that the symbols can create the reality which is false.

Let reality b= R and symbols be S so the formula is such S->R also R(s)
That is Symbols being in the set or real things but not the other realities.

If there is a symbol there must be reality (the physical things)

But reality exists regardless or symbols or not. To create reality with symbols (other than more symbols of course) is false. aka fallacy.

You can symbolize a symbol but they eventually must don't the trail symbolize a reality other than symbols to be valid.

And most people 95% Of all people have trouble distinguishing the difference, and so many are lost in illusion of language.

I am not basing this on something I read. Or something somebody else said, or someone else's study or of faith in somebody else, I know because it follows by necessity! by my own pure reason and nobody else's. That is if of language are physical symbols to use the communicate then that is what they are and nothing more.

"Immaturity is self-inflicted not from a lack of understanding, but from the lack of courage to use one's reason, intellect, and wisdom without the guidance of another." Emmanuel Kant.

Kant...LOL cogito ....More bovine scatalogical nonsense. Begin with that which is fals and proceed, perhaps with great skill, to a falsehood. Hey, your methodology is not new, and there are many who are much better at its application.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 8:38:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 4:14:38 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/2/2012 1:08:11 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/2/2012 9:19:56 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/2/2012 10:57:25 AM, logicrules wrote:

Illogicalrules: omg...PhD used to mean Doctor of Philosophy, now it just means termanally degreed in one area of minutia. (See. Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow)

The Fool: First of all its irrelevant to the overall argument, which of course indicates that that is best refutation you got on. You might as well say I am wrong because I spelled a word wrong. Secondly, He is specifically, Claiming Doctor of philosophy, so you are burning yourself. Thirdly, All Doctorates themself say right not it Doctor of philosophy.

The Fool: Moreover The Letter PH stand for philosophy, and the letter D stand for doctor. More? all Doclarate certificate I have seen say right on it. Doctor of philosophy. Why? Most all Academics come from a philosophy, including science. Science is philosophy, its false dichotomy. It makes no sense form a theory or experiment or interpret result without philosophy. Its only when you make supernatural claims, or fundamentalist claims of believe alone is when you are not philosophizing. Philosohy is really synonomous with reasoning.

The Fool: oh yeah, who gives a sh!t what Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow says. Use your nugget. Stop just taking for word what somebody else says. Reasoning is your freedom!!

The Fool: Don't get caught in the illusion of language, it's our best tool, but also very harmful when use incorrectly.

Illogicalrules: Wow, touch a nerve.

The Fool: sure, but I am interested in your argument?

Illogicalrules: Most academic areas of study have NOTHING to do with Philosophy.
The Fool: sure, but I am interested in your argument?
Illogicalrules: In fact ALL BS degrees are philosophically deficient.
The Fool: We are talking about PhD's remember and this is related to Craig's PhD. Pls try and stay on topic. "Be care full eh, it's not so easy to argue for notness as many people things. You must show contradiction for notness. "

Illogicalrules: This conclusion is based upon the requirement for the granting of a Degree in the various disciplines.

The Fool: Firstly for I was talking about how they became to be in the first place academics all together. That is reasoning. In ancient Greek the philosopher was the school/university, as such sciences (the original term meaning body of knowledge) developed they get labeled as their own disciplines. But they all stem from philosophy at one point.

Secondly I was demonstrating about the difference between language symbols and the reality they symbolize.

That is the difference between the reality of philosophy and the word philosophy. Where the concept imbedded in the notion of philosophy is reasoning itself. Therefore anything that involves reason is doing philosophy, whether they believe it or not.

When we confuse the difference we start thinking that the symbols can create the reality which is false.

Let reality b= R and symbols be S so the formula is such S->R also R(s)
That is Symbols being in the set or real things but not the other realities.

If there is a symbol there must be reality (the physical things)

But reality exists regardless or symbols or not. To create reality with symbols (other than more symbols of course) is false. aka fallacy.

You can symbolize a symbol but they eventually must don't the trail symbolize a reality other than symbols to be valid.

And most people 95% Of all people have trouble distinguishing the difference, and so many are lost in illusion of language.

I am not basing this on something I read. Or something somebody else said, or someone else's study or of faith in somebody else, I know because it follows by necessity! by my own pure reason and nobody else's. That is if of language are physical symbols to use the communicate then that is what they are and nothing more.

"Immaturity is self-inflicted not from a lack of understanding, but from the lack of courage to use one's reason, intellect, and wisdom without the guidance of another." Emmanuel Kant.

Kant...LOL cogito ....More bovine scatalogical nonsense. Begin with that which is fals and proceed, perhaps with great skill, to a falsehood. Hey, your methodology is not new, and there are many who are much better at its application.

What is your refuting argument?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 8:45:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your claims are as good a your argument. So its fair to say you have said nothing significant at all. Fair?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 8:47:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 9:19:56 AM, logicrules wrote:

At 3/2/2012 10:57:25 AM, logicrules wrote:

Illogicalrules: omg...PhD used to mean Doctor of Philosophy, now it just means termanally degreed in one area of minutia. (See. Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow)

The Fool: First of all its irrelevant to the overall argument, which of course indicates that that is best refutation you got on. You might as well say I am wrong because I spelled a word wrong. Secondly, He is specifically, Claiming Doctor of philosophy, so you are burning yourself. Thirdly, All Doctorates themself say right not it Doctor of philosophy.

The Fool: Moreover The Letter PH stand for philosophy, and the letter D stand for doctor. More? all Doclarate certificate I have seen say right on it. Doctor of philosophy. Why? Most all Academics come from a philosophy, including science. Science is philosophy, its false dichotomy. It makes no sense form a theory or experiment or interpret result without philosophy. Its only when you make supernatural claims, or fundamentalist claims of believe alone is when you are not philosophizing. Philosohy is really synonomous with reasoning.

The Fool: oh yeah, who gives a sh!t what Dr. Laura or Rachel Maddow says. Use your nugget. Stop just taking for word what somebody else says. Reasoning is your freedom!!

The Fool: Don't get caught in the illusion of language, it's our best tool, but also very harmful when use incorrectly.

Illogicalrules: Wow, touch a nerve.

The Fool: sure, but I am interested in your argument?

Illogicalrules: Most academic areas of study have NOTHING to do with Philosophy.
The Fool: sure, but I am interested in your argument?
Illogicalrules: In fact ALL BS degrees are philosophically deficient.
The Fool: We are talking about PhD's remember and this is related to Craig's PhD. Pls try and stay on topic. "Be care full eh, it's not so easy to argue for notness as many people things. You must show contradiction for notness. "

Illogicalrules: This conclusion is based upon the requirement for the granting of a Degree in the various disciplines.

The Fool: Firstly for I was talking about how they became to be in the first place academics all together. That is reasoning. In ancient Greek the philosopher was the school/university, as such sciences (the original term meaning body of knowledge) developed they get labeled as their own disciplines. But they all stem from philosophy at one point.

Secondly I was demonstrating about the difference between language symbols and the reality they symbolize.

That is the difference between the reality of philosophy and the word philosophy. Where the concept imbedded in the notion of philosophy is reasoning itself. Therefore anything that involves reason is doing philosophy, whether they believe it or not.

When we confuse the difference we start thinking that the symbols can create the reality which is false.

Let reality b= R and symbols be S so the formula is such S->R also R(s)
That is Symbols being in the set or real things but not the other realities.

If there is a symbol there must be reality (the physical things)

But reality exists regardless or symbols or not. To create reality with symbols (other than more symbols of course) is false. aka fallacy.

You can symbolize a symbol but they eventually must don't the trail symbolize a reality other than symbols to be valid.

And most people 95% Of all people have trouble distinguishing the difference, and so many are lost in illusion of language.

I am not basing this on something I read. Or something somebody else said, or someone else's study or of faith in somebody else, I know because it follows by necessity! by my own pure reason and nobody else's. That is if of language are physical symbols to use the communicate then that is what they are and nothing more.

"Immaturity is self-inflicted not from a lack of understanding, but from the lack of courage to use one's reason, intellect, and wisdom without the guidance of another." Emmanuel Kant.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL