Philosophy Now Forum

We fear the unknown. You disagree with that? How does that contradict the universe being ephemeral? Watt's point is that we should not fear death because it is nothing.

Religion has used the threat of hell for thousands of years to control the population. You disagree with that????

raw_thought wrote:??? The universe is constantly changing and yes it will eventually experience heat death.
You dis not know that???

That's theory.

OK You can disagree with the entire scientific community.
So, Watt's is stupid because he mentions a theory? So to be smart one should not talk about Relativity, Quantum Mechanics,Evolution......

raw_thought wrote:OK You can disagree with the entire scientific community.
So, Watt's is stupid because he mentions a theory? So to be smart one should not talk about Relativity, Quantum Mechanics,Evolution......

That wasn't the only thing he mentioned.

Well, I refuted all your "examples" of Watt's being stupid. Any more examples?

raw_thought wrote:Well, I refuted all your "examples" of Watt's being stupid. Any more examples?

Very funny. Could you reason why you refute them?

Scroll back.
Each quote you gave as examples of Watt's saying stupid stuff, I showed how they were not stupid.
1. It is not stupid to say that religion has used hell to control people.
2. It is not a contradiction to say that the universe is ephemeral and that we should not fear nothing.
3. It is not stupid to use scientific theories to reinforce your position.
Scroll back. At least read my posts before responding to them.

HexHammer wrote:

raw_thought wrote:??? The universe is constantly changing and yes it will eventually experience heat death.
You dis not know that???

That's theory.

Since the point we are debating is " is what Watt's said stupid?" Then your "point" is that it was stupid to claim that the universe is ephemeral because it is based on a scientific theory. Now that really is stupid!

I think you are confused as to what "theory" means. It has two definitions.
1. A speculation, a guess.
2. facts organized into a logical explanation. For example one speaks of the "Copernican theory". That does not mean that scientists are merely quessing. There is plenty of facts that back up the idea that the earth goes around the sun.

raw_thought wrote:I think you are confused as to what "theory" means. It has two definitions.
1. A speculation, a guess.
2. facts organized into a logical explanation. For example one speaks of the "Copernican theory". That does not mean that scientists are merely quessing. There is plenty of facts that back up the idea that the earth goes around the sun.

Yes? ..do u even know what you are saying you self?

To me it seems it's the former that both author these cozy chatters are relying on, not the latter, so if you actually knew what you was talking about you would elevate on the latter in relation to the author, but you didn't because he's just speaking straight out of his ass, you are just trying to make the shit look good, but you fail ...utterly!

Once again you offer no facts or even an argument. Only insults.*
It is a fact that you implied that Watt's is stupid because he said that religion controls people with the myth of hell. For Watt's the afterlife is nothing.
It is a fact that you quite ridiculously said that claiming that the universe is ephemeral is stupid because it is based on science. (Science is based on theories and facts). Similarly, a syllogism is based on facts and logical form.
It is a fact that you made the ridiculous claim that there is a contradiction in saying that one should not fear death because one should not fear nothing.
*It is obvious that you are a troll. Trolls only iuse ad hominums and ad hominums are classified as fallacies.
I on the other hand find such a debate technique childish, boring and a waste of time.

When I diasagee with someone, I use facts and logical form. I dont call them stupid poopy heads.

raw_thought wrote:When I diasagee with someone, I use facts and logical form. I dont call them stupid poopy heads.

But these alleged "facts" and "logical form" are just sole statements not really relating to the topic at hand, why you fall short of any intellectual value, but tragically falls in the category of "idiots".

The reason why I call the others for "retards" is that they don't comprehend very basic reasoning, that even kids understands, ergo they are retards by definition. Don't blame me!

raw_thought wrote:Once again you offer no facts or even an argument. Only insults.*
It is a fact that you implied that Watt's is stupid because he said that religion controls people with the myth of hell. For Watt's the afterlife is nothing.
It is a fact that you quite ridiculously said that claiming that the universe is ephemeral is stupid because it is based on science. (Science is based on theories and facts). Similarly, a syllogism is based on facts and logical form.
It is a fact that you made the ridiculous claim that there is a contradiction in saying that one should not fear death because one should not fear nothing.
*It is obvious that you are a troll. Trolls only iuse ad hominums and ad hominums are classified as fallacies.
I on the other hand find such a debate technique childish, boring and a waste of time.

The topic (at least the trolish topic you chose) is that Alan Watts was saying stupid things. I asked for examples. All your examples of Alan saying something stupid were proven to not be stupid.
For example, it is not stupid to base your beliefs on science.