Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:39 am
Note my point re this analogy, i.e. Zombie Parasites & Theism;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25418
These Brain Worms Turn Ants Into Death-Seeking Zombies
Look inside the head of a doomed ant overtaken by a mind-controlling parasite.

Inside the ant, the worms turn deadly. Ants usually get multiple worms at once, and most stay inside the ant’s abdomen.
One worm, however, will takeover an ant’s brain, commanding it to essential seek death. At dusk, ants usually return to their nests.
But the infected zombie ants climb blades of grass and other vegetation, holding on to a plant by its jaws until it gets eaten.
Once it gets eaten, the parasite can then lay eggs in its new mammal host, and begin its dark cycle anew.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... g-zombies/
Watch this Video:

Parasitic Mind Control - National Geographic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGSUU3E9ZoM

What is unfortunate for this missionary is once he is killed [if eaten] he cannot lay eggs to implant the natives with his ideology.

The above case is an example of where the zombie parasites of the theist [that missionary] are very active, aggressive and malignant.
The other example of such extreme are the suicide bombers of Islam where SOME Muslims' have been infected with very aggressive zombie parasite that compelled them [subliminally] to sacrifice their lives as suicide bombers.

The above is evidence to support my hypothesis;
Theists are infected with a range of zombie parasites that compelled them [subliminally] to commit a range of irrational acts to the extreme of sacrificing their lives for God [illusory] sake and which is a serious threat to humanity.
Your thesis huh? Didn't, you know, borrow it from somewhere?

You are clearly paraphrasing Dan Dennett's very well known Ted talk, so just do the proper attribution.
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_o ... en#t-46030
Saves people the effort of wading through your half-arsed version of the thing.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4192
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Nov 24, 2018 3:52 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:39 am
Note my point re this analogy, i.e. Zombie Parasites & Theism;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25418
These Brain Worms Turn Ants Into Death-Seeking Zombies
Look inside the head of a doomed ant overtaken by a mind-controlling parasite.

Inside the ant, the worms turn deadly. Ants usually get multiple worms at once, and most stay inside the ant’s abdomen.
One worm, however, will takeover an ant’s brain, commanding it to essential seek death. At dusk, ants usually return to their nests.
But the infected zombie ants climb blades of grass and other vegetation, holding on to a plant by its jaws until it gets eaten.
Once it gets eaten, the parasite can then lay eggs in its new mammal host, and begin its dark cycle anew.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... g-zombies/
Watch this Video:

Parasitic Mind Control - National Geographic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGSUU3E9ZoM

What is unfortunate for this missionary is once he is killed [if eaten] he cannot lay eggs to implant the natives with his ideology.

The above case is an example of where the zombie parasites of the theist [that missionary] are very active, aggressive and malignant.
The other example of such extreme are the suicide bombers of Islam where SOME Muslims' have been infected with very aggressive zombie parasite that compelled them [subliminally] to sacrifice their lives as suicide bombers.

The above is evidence to support my hypothesis;
Theists are infected with a range of zombie parasites that compelled them [subliminally] to commit a range of irrational acts to the extreme of sacrificing their lives for God [illusory] sake and which is a serious threat to humanity.
Your thesis huh? Didn't, you know, borrow it from somewhere?

You are clearly paraphrasing Dan Dennett's very well known Ted talk, so just do the proper attribution.
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_o ... en#t-46030
Saves people the effort of wading through your half-arsed version of the thing.
Thanks for the link to that interesting talk.
The novel point I get there is the concept of "immunity" and ignorance of the new hosts.

I did not get my point from Dan Dennett's Ted talk.
I got it from the full NGEO documentary and I linked the short video above. This fact of zombie ants are also reported in certain scientific papers.

Note my original thread re Zombie Parasites;
posting.php?mode=reply&f=11&t=25418
which I concluded with the following;
Thus when theists understand there are 'zombie parasites' that compel theists to conjure the idea of God to soothe an existential crisis, theists will disinfect and get rid of these parasites to promote a greater sense of well-being.
Note, Buddhism [& others] is doing just that.
[btw, I am not a Buddhist per se].
The above is merely a tip of a larger iceberg.

Dennett's point is about memes, memetic, selfish genes [Dawkins] which I am very familiar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Dennett was merely scratching the surface in that Talk. I am going much deeper into a different depth if you have read my other related posts.

What is interesting in that video is the concept of "immunity" and ignorance of the new hosts.

Look at what is happening [terrible evils] in Europe hosting and placating/coddling the 'memes' of Islam [with its hidden viruses] when they do not have the immunity to deal with the problem when the viruses get malignant. It is the same with the left in the US who are very ignorant of the trojan horse meme-virus of Islam while they are fiddling with it.

When I am trying to get the facts [as Dennett insisted] underlying the above, I as with others are branded as bigots, racists, islamophobes, right-wingers and the likes so that I can be shut up.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:27 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 3:52 am
Dennett was merely scratching the surface in that Talk. I am going much deeper into a different depth if you have read my other related posts.
There's more difference between you and Dennett than you seem to understand. He is a serious and talented philosopher who has a side act in being obnoxiously atheistic. That talk isn't presenting a serious philosophical argument, nor the beginnings of one. It is just an amusement put on for the TED crowd of mini intellectuals who like their thinking meats in bite sized portions.

Dennet knows perfectly well that the whole thing is just an interesting, but glib, argument from analogy, and in a philosophical context it wouldn't withstand actual scrutiny. Your argument is structurally the same and has the same inherent structural weakness.

Your brain has been taken over by a parasitic nationalism, you sooth your existential crisis with absurd paranoia about jews or muslims or something. And your brain has also been taken over by other parasites that cause you to bullshit about reading Kant for 5,000 hours to you sooth your inferiority complex. Your brains has been infected by parasites that make you believe you can make up a stat about 20% of people being genetically susceptible to evil as if evil were a scintifically quantifiable object. This shit is easy because it is empty calories for fuckwits.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4192
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:50 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:27 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 3:52 am
Dennett was merely scratching the surface in that Talk. I am going much deeper into a different depth if you have read my other related posts.
There's more difference between you and Dennett than you seem to understand. He is a serious and talented philosopher who has a side act in being obnoxiously atheistic. That talk isn't presenting a serious philosophical argument, nor the beginnings of one. It is just an amusement put on for the TED crowd of mini intellectuals who like their thinking meats in bite sized portions.

Dennet knows perfectly well that the whole thing is just an interesting, but glib, argument from analogy, and in a philosophical context it wouldn't withstand actual scrutiny. Your argument is structurally the same and has the same inherent structural weakness.

Your brain has been taken over by a parasitic nationalism, you sooth your existential crisis with absurd paranoia about jews or muslims or something. And your brain has also been taken over by other parasites that cause you to bullshit about reading Kant for 5,000 hours to you sooth your inferiority complex. Your brains has been infected by parasites that make you believe you can make up a stat about 20% of people being genetically susceptible to evil as if evil were a scintifically quantifiable object. This shit is easy because it is empty calories for fuckwits.
You are blabbering, complaining and condemning from ignorance.
What sound arguments have you provided? none!
Dennet knows perfectly well that the whole thing is just an interesting, but glib, argument from analogy, and in a philosophical context it wouldn't withstand actual scrutiny. Your argument is structurally the same and has the same inherent structural weakness.
I believe his analogy of zombie ants [..I agree with] is seemingly the furthest he could dig into on this topic re religion. He did not introduce any concept of an existential crisis which Heidegger and others had dug into. Dennett did not rationalize like Kant did.
For me the zombied-ant analogy is merely the tip of an iceberg with much depth - deeper than Heidegger, Kant and others - to explore.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:55 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:50 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:27 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 3:52 am
Dennett was merely scratching the surface in that Talk. I am going much deeper into a different depth if you have read my other related posts.
There's more difference between you and Dennett than you seem to understand. He is a serious and talented philosopher who has a side act in being obnoxiously atheistic. That talk isn't presenting a serious philosophical argument, nor the beginnings of one. It is just an amusement put on for the TED crowd of mini intellectuals who like their thinking meats in bite sized portions.

Dennet knows perfectly well that the whole thing is just an interesting, but glib, argument from analogy, and in a philosophical context it wouldn't withstand actual scrutiny. Your argument is structurally the same and has the same inherent structural weakness.

Your brain has been taken over by a parasitic nationalism, you sooth your existential crisis with absurd paranoia about jews or muslims or something. And your brain has also been taken over by other parasites that cause you to bullshit about reading Kant for 5,000 hours to you sooth your inferiority complex. Your brains has been infected by parasites that make you believe you can make up a stat about 20% of people being genetically susceptible to evil as if evil were a scintifically quantifiable object. This shit is easy because it is empty calories for fuckwits.
You are blabbering, complaining and condemning from ignorance.
What sound arguments have you provided? none!
Dennet knows perfectly well that the whole thing is just an interesting, but glib, argument from analogy, and in a philosophical context it wouldn't withstand actual scrutiny. Your argument is structurally the same and has the same inherent structural weakness.
I believe his analogy of zombie ants [..I agree with] is seemingly the furthest he could dig into on this topic re religion. He did not introduce any concept of an existential crisis which Heidegger and others had dug into. Dennett did not rationalize like Kant did.
For me the zombied-ant analogy is merely the tip of an iceberg with much depth - deeper than Heidegger, Kant and others - to explore.
This is another stupid waste of my time, you're transparently bullshitting me again and I don't intend to pay much further attention, so let's make this quick. If you want to elicit serious sound arguments you must present something plausible for them to be directed against.

The central core of your argument is entirely the same as Dennett's and you are making a fool of yourself to no benefit lying about that.

The concept of existential crisis is peripheral to your own argument, and it's quite hollow anyway. It can be replaced without loss of meaning by any source of anxiety whatsoever. Namechecking random philosophers in the hope it elevates you to their status makes no difference.

Arguments from analogy are inherently weak. Talented philosophers find ways not to rely on them. They are easy to break by either substituting other analogies, or by demonstrating that the analogy doesn't apply as well as the author claims it does.

If you have something deeper than an analogy about parasites, something to justify a statement as preposterous as "deeper than Heidegger, Kant and others" then stop trying to flog the shallow analogous argument about parasites.

Dennett is not incapable of pushing the analogy further, he is simply too smart to base a serious argument on an analogy at all. You are not.

User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by Kayla » Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:51 pm

if you start with the assumption that anyone who does not accespt jesus christ as their personal lord and savior will be tortured forever in hell, all sorts of things become justified in an attempt to save people from that fate. so given that assumption, the guy was acting logically.

but the assumption itself is wacked - and contrary to the bible. 1 Timothy 2:4 - "God wants everyone to be saved and to fully understand the truth". It is absurd to suppose that there is somethign that an omnipotent God wants that he cannot get.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by Greta » Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:08 pm

As noted earlier, he'll be a nominee for the next Darwin Awards.

A good article about it and the destructiveness of missionary work today: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... eir-souls/

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9095
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:17 pm

Kayla wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:51 pm
if you start with the assumption that anyone who does not accespt jesus christ as their personal lord and savior will be tortured forever in hell, all sorts of things become justified in an attempt to save people from that fate. so given that assumption, the guy was acting logically.

but the assumption itself is wacked - and contrary to the bible. 1 Timothy 2:4 - "God wants everyone to be saved and to fully understand the truth". It is absurd to suppose that there is somethign that an omnipotent God wants that he cannot get.
He wasn't doing it for them. He was gathering brownie points for himself. Shame they didn't eat him--alive, except that they aren't cannibals.

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by Walker » Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:57 pm

So, those restless natives respect the death of a human being.

Looks like the real savages do not.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9095
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:15 am

Walker wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:57 pm
So, those restless natives respect the death of a human being.

Looks like the real savages do not.
Good point.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4192
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:26 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:55 pm
This is another stupid waste of my time, you're transparently bullshitting me again and I don't intend to pay much further attention, so let's make this quick. If you want to elicit serious sound arguments you must present something plausible for them to be directed against.

The central core of your argument is entirely the same as Dennett's and you are making a fool of yourself to no benefit lying about that.

The concept of existential crisis is peripheral to your own argument, and it's quite hollow anyway. It can be replaced without loss of meaning by any source of anxiety whatsoever. Namechecking random philosophers in the hope it elevates you to their status makes no difference.

Arguments from analogy are inherently weak. Talented philosophers find ways not to rely on them. They are easy to break by either substituting other analogies, or by demonstrating that the analogy doesn't apply as well as the author claims it does.

If you have something deeper than an analogy about parasites, something to justify a statement as preposterous as "deeper than Heidegger, Kant and others" then stop trying to flog the shallow analogous argument about parasites.

Dennett is not incapable of pushing the analogy further, he is simply too smart to base a serious argument on an analogy at all. You are not.
You are merely whining and not doing philosophy as expected in such a forum.

Note Russell's;
Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; ...
What have I done is to raise questions for further discussions.
There is no limit to the way of questioning and discussion in philosophy where whatever is useful is utilized [noting limitations] including analogy where necessary.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:26 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:55 pm
This is another stupid waste of my time, you're transparently bullshitting me again and I don't intend to pay much further attention, so let's make this quick. If you want to elicit serious sound arguments you must present something plausible for them to be directed against.

The central core of your argument is entirely the same as Dennett's and you are making a fool of yourself to no benefit lying about that.

The concept of existential crisis is peripheral to your own argument, and it's quite hollow anyway. It can be replaced without loss of meaning by any source of anxiety whatsoever. Namechecking random philosophers in the hope it elevates you to their status makes no difference.

Arguments from analogy are inherently weak. Talented philosophers find ways not to rely on them. They are easy to break by either substituting other analogies, or by demonstrating that the analogy doesn't apply as well as the author claims it does.

If you have something deeper than an analogy about parasites, something to justify a statement as preposterous as "deeper than Heidegger, Kant and others" then stop trying to flog the shallow analogous argument about parasites.

Dennett is not incapable of pushing the analogy further, he is simply too smart to base a serious argument on an analogy at all. You are not.
You are merely whining and not doing philosophy as expected in such a forum.

Note Russell's;
Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; ...
What have I done is to raise questions for further discussions.
There is no limit to the way of questioning and discussion in philosophy where whatever is useful is utilized [noting limitations] including analogy where necessary.
What I wrote about your argument remains entirely true. It is a weak argument from a tenuous analogy between a lifeform that has two species as part of its lifecycle and requires the murder of one host to breed, with a belief system that does not share those among many other properties. It is therefore garbage.

I'm sorry for you if you think that the purpose of philosophy is for other people to accept garbage arguments from you and just agree with them. Arguments from analogy can be perfectly useful. Yours cannot because it is a badly overworked analogy. You plagiarised Dan Dennett's party trick and passed it off both as your own product and as serious argument. It is neither.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4192
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:40 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:16 am
What I wrote about your argument remains entirely true. It is a weak argument from a tenuous analogy between a lifeform that has two species as part of its lifecycle and requires the murder of one host to breed, with a belief system that does not share those among many other properties. It is therefore garbage.

I'm sorry for you if you think that the purpose of philosophy is for other people to accept garbage arguments from you and just agree with them. Arguments from analogy can be perfectly useful. Yours cannot because it is a badly overworked analogy. You plagiarised Dan Dennett's party trick and passed it off both as your own product and as serious argument. It is neither.
Philosophically at least I have done my part, i.e. stirred you to ask more questions.
But unfortunately your views above are merely a straw man and unsubstantiated accusations.

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by Walker » Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:10 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:15 am
Walker wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:57 pm
So, those restless natives respect the death of a human being.

Looks like the real savages do not.
Good point.
Not an isolated incident.

No respect for death, no respect for life.

The shameful concept of the Human Safari:-
https://www.thebetterindia.com/136278/j ... n-safaris/

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Missionary Killed on Remote Island: Discuss?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:50 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:40 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:16 am
What I wrote about your argument remains entirely true. It is a weak argument from a tenuous analogy between a lifeform that has two species as part of its lifecycle and requires the murder of one host to breed, with a belief system that does not share those among many other properties. It is therefore garbage.

I'm sorry for you if you think that the purpose of philosophy is for other people to accept garbage arguments from you and just agree with them. Arguments from analogy can be perfectly useful. Yours cannot because it is a badly overworked analogy. You plagiarised Dan Dennett's party trick and passed it off both as your own product and as serious argument. It is neither.
Philosophically at least I have done my part, i.e. stirred you to ask more questions.
But unfortunately your views above are merely a straw man and unsubstantiated accusations.
How can it be a straw man? Your argument is from analogy, exactly as I described. It is, also as fairly described, a tenuous analogy that compares a biological lifeform which follows one precise set of behaviours to a wide and diverse range of human beliefs and behaviours, which guarantees that it is weak even for that form of argument. These are simple enough facts, you should be able to get them. Matters of self evident observation cannot be unsubstantiated accusation. Philosophically you have done nothing here but present an argument with faulty structure and insist it is good because you prefer to think of it that way. You didn't even learn anything from your mistakes which effectively guarantees a repeat performance.

This has been a bit of a waste of my time, but that's my fault as I was well aware of your capabilities before joining in. The next time you want to know why I can't be arsed to discuss you our obsession with islam, the additional effort that would require, and the obvious lack of payoff for it is the reason.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests