@Setanta,
Quote:That was no projection. I responded to the quoted material and you came along to accuse me of willfully misrepresenting the meaning of what was written. In my book, that makes you a snotty son of a bitch.
You did however misrepresent the context... Like I said, you should try watching the video before commenting on excerpts from it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out he's inferring to what religious nutters fear, and what they are appalled by.
Quote:
Now you're calling me "dumb"
At this point I surely am.
Quote: I don't have to watch your idiot video to comment of the idiocy of the quoted material.
Someone has anger management problems and needs to learn what is intellectual integrity, and learn some comprehension skills. You can't make a coherent comment on that excerpt taken from a wider body of context. Yes, you're an idiot.
Quote:is very nearly incoherent--something of which you accused me when i had in fact clearly stated my case--you snotty sone of a bitch.
Sone? What is as snotty sone? Furthermore, "I" should be capitalized. Careful with the hypocrisy.
Quote:I pointed out the ludicrous use of language in the quoted passage.
There was no such "ludicrous" usage. However, we seem to have a ludicrous internet troll committing hypocrisy like a complete and utter idiot. You thought yourself clever, and yet you have failed in epic fashion.
Quote:Gravity cannot have the quality of hopelessness
Sure it can..., he's inferring to gravity so strong there is no hope of escaping it's pull. The video of a black hole wasn't presented during his statement about hopeless gravity for no reason. You are clearly not a genius, and nor a scholar.
Quote:Whether or not the author experiences fear and despair at the contemplation of energy and distance is a matter relevant only to the author's personal feelings--it tells us nothing about the cosmos.
It's not about the Author experiencing fear and despair, and the video does tells us something about the Cosmos. For **** sake, and you wonder why you're being inferred to as an idiot?
Quote:i'm slamming you left and right for your ineptitude in English and your misrepresentations of what i have written. I don't play with idiots or self-deluded fanatics.
We call this Irony, and you might want to learn how to capitalize a pronoun before you go around telling people about their supposed "English ineptitude".
Quote:I fully understand that we are a part of the cosmos--i made that point in my own post. The claim that we are the cosmos, or that the cosmos is us is nothing but gobbledygook, it is babble-speak, and it is to that which i objected.
You sure do love refuting yourself. We are the Cosmos simply because we are literally a part of it.. There is no statement saying we are the entirety of the Cosmos. Furthermore, the Cosmos is entirely us because we are from it, a part of it, and because we are literally made of it. But hey, if you want to object to what you agreed with, then have at it. O.o
Quote:
i was not impressed either by the literary effort or the false spiritual conclusion.
There is that "I" problem again. Also, the author made no spiritual claim or conclusion. Like I said, the closest you could even come to such, should you imply such, would at best be naturalism. As in that we are one with nature because we are literally a product and part of it. There is no gobbly goop there, that's just stating a cold hard fact. And to point, the author stated the following:
Quote:That night under the Milky Way, I who experienced it cannot call the experience a religious experience, for I know it was not religious in any way. I was thinking about facts and physics, trying to visualize what is, not what I would like there to be. There’s no word for such experiences that come through scientific and not mystical revelation. The reason for that is that every time someone has such a “mindgasm”, religion steals it simply by saying, “Ahh, you had a religious experience.” And spiritualists will pull the same ****. And both camps get angry when an atheist like me tells you that I only ever had these experiences after rejecting everything supernatural.
Again this is why I, without a doubt, consider you a complete idiot. You keep making a straw-man argument about the author as if he's trying to profess some spiritual epiphany when he's doing no such thing.
Quote: You have no idea what i think he is arguing, because i didn't address any argument, i addressed his hilariously lame use of the language.
"I"rony ? Oh one's lame use of "the language". It is clear however that you have no idea what it is he is arguing. I dare say, the author is far more educated than you are.
Quote: You're even worse than he is. As for Alan Watts, i have no respect for him, he was a snake-oil salesman peddling the navel-gazing, self-congratulatory and essentially selfish "philosophy" of the East--as though there had ever been any single philosophy of the East.
You don't need to respect him to address a point being made. Ad hominems have no intellectual value, and the more you use them to try and give yourself credulity you don't have, the less credulity will be attributed to you by the common rational observer. We are not addressing Alan Watt's himeself, we are addressing something he said in a lecture. All you have managed to accomplish here is to make yourself look like a classical internet troll, and nothing more. You speak to the point of ad nausea, and you bring forth no meaningful discourse. You speak of ineptitude whilst you display it at every level, almost worthy of an Olympic gold medal in both irony and hypocrisy.
Quote:Your English sucks, and so does your comprehension of the English language. I did not watch your lame video and i only commented on the quoted text. Get over yourself.
I do sincerely wonder if you can me tell why it is that I am laughing at your rant here. O.o
