Prince's Evangelical Obsession

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Many of us have probably noticed that after years of primarily sitting on the sidelines and slinging one-liner insults, prince has not only come out as a Christian (which may explain all the insults), but a highly evangelical one. The timing must have something to do with the fact that Quinn and Solway seem to have totally abandoned this site, and Rowden only makes the rare appearance and cleans off the spambot posts.

I am not seeing any reason being applied by prince on his evangelical statements. Is there any reason to consider prince's contributions of late to be anything other than Christian spam?

[Carl G]

Spam? Are you kidding? If that's the case then most of the members here are posting spam.

You wonder about his reasoning? Ask him then, don't ask us.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

He appears to be under the influence of "connecting the dots", relying overly on intuition to approach it. Since the experience can be quite overwhelming, it's not difficult to understand him. One can hope he'll join some 12 step problem at the AA=AA club but in the mean time I'd agree with Carl and even add that Prince is way above the average poster even with his little rants.

Actually I'd value the least of his posts above any other post analyzing or debating other posters in gossipy style....

[yeah, including this one]

[Ryan Rudolph]

prince keeps a distant from actual debate, and only attacks others when there is an overly easy target, and he knows he has support from enough other posters not to feel the burn of an incorrect position.

Some of his opinions have become known as of late, which I do not agree with. Especially his views on evolution and god.

Prince doesn't like to take big risks because he doesn't want to have his ego hurt. I think he needs a bit more courage.

"Sometimes its not about having a correct position, but exposing ones incorrect positions, but of course the ego tries to avoid pain, avoid ego-destruction, and ultimately avoid the possibility that it could in fact be incorrect about something"

[Carmel]

Ryan Rudolph:
and he knows he has support from enough other posters not to feel the burn of an incorrect position.

Carmel:
Have you ever stopped and considered why prince has so many supporters? (I'm in that camp too, btw.)

Ryan Rudolph:
Some of his opinions have become known as of late, which I do not agree with. Especially his views on evolution and god.

Carmel:
So what if you don't agree with him? Either address the issues of God and evolution...or don't.

Ryan Rudolph:
Prince doesn't like to take big risks because he doesn't want to have his ego hurt.

Carmel:
By assigning motive to prince's posting, you are demonstrating poor quality reasoning skills. Your judgements have no basis in logic and are completely arbitrary.

Ryan Rudolph:
I think he needs a bit more courage.

Carmel:
I think you and Elizabeth need more courage, that you should address prince directly instead of engaging in what amounts to nothing more than gossip.

edit: typo

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carmel:

Have you ever stopped and considered why prince has so many supporters? (I'm in that camp too, btw.)

Because most of his posts are shallow, and shallow thinking posters are attracted to shallow posts. Prince never goes into much detail, he is the king of quick one-liners that lack deep thought. He stings like a musquito and leaves. I prefer to attack the heart of my opponent, not the shallow surface skin cells. I have rarely witnessed Prince stay with someone through an entire argument which isn't the mark of a decent philosopher. It is the mark of someone who doesn't care about the minds of others, and only attacks others to feel the egotistical reward of winning.

So what if you don't agree with him? Either address the issues of God and evolution...or don't.

Because his alternative of evolution is creationism, which has absolutely no scientific merit. Any intellectual laughs at the idea. it is one of the most illogical ideas in existence, and the ego loves it, can't get enough.

A belief in god indicates an ego that needs the comfort of an afterlife, and the comfort in creating an artificial hierarchy to constantly prop itself up in comparison to others. The whole notion is evil through and through. The whole notion of God is the biggest devil in minds mind. A demon that needs to be exorsised through logic.

I think you and Elizabeth need more courage, that you should address prince directly instead engage in what amounts to nothing more than gossip

I've been on this forum for years, and it is impossible to have a discussion with prince because his posts are usually one line, and it is usually nothing that you can respond to. His posts are always close ended, which illustrates a lack of courage, it exposes his fear of being an error.

By assigning motive to prince's posting, you are demonstrating poor quality reasoning skills. Your judgements have no basis in logic and are completely arbitrary.

Assigning motive in posting is what a enlighened philosopher is able to do, given enough experience. And on the contrary, such thinking, is the the pinnacle of sound reasoning skills.

[Carl G]

Ryan, you yourself seem impervious to argument. I, for one, have repeatedly pointed out your faulty thinking and rampant generalizations. You always respond with more platitudes and faulty thinking and never seem to engage yourself in any real self-examination. You speak of enlightenment and wisdom but often come across as a wet-behind-the-ears newbie.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

You usually criticize my use of words and poor grammar. Semantics and grammar is how you usually pick apart my posts. As far as attacking my actual arguments, sometimes, but rarely.

I share all of the views with the admins, and the general objectives of this forum, but I don't spend as much time editing as some others do.

Carl, you tend to be such a perfectionist of things that do not matter very much. As long as the meaning is there in the posts, the presentation is secondary. You place more value on presentation and less value on content.

And as far as picking apart my generalizations, I am aware that a generalization does not apply to all cases, but you often feel the need to point this out to me time and time again.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I think you and Elizabeth need more courage, that you should address prince directly instead of engaging in what amounts to nothing more than gossip.

I've tried to, but I can't pin the guy down. He'll make a snappy comeback, and then just pop up in another thread with his evangelism. That's actually the reason for this thread, to try to corral the guy. I doubted that he'd go for a direct debate because he has shown himself to be more of a sidelines-type, and I wanted to bring more people into the discussion.

Carmel and Diebert, you both need to have a look at the definition of gossip. What I am doing is discussing the elephant in the living room.

Assigning motive in posting is what a enlightened philosopher is able to do, given enough experience. And on the contrary, such thinking, is the the pinnacle of sound reasoning skills.

Agreed, and hopefully this thread will be a good exercise in showing how that can be done. David isn't here anymore Ryan, so it's up to us to pick up the torch.

Spam? Are you kidding? If that's the case then most of the members here are posting spam.

I don't see any other posters flitting from thread to thread repeating the same tired tripe and not backing it up with anything heavier than fallacies.

[Carmel]

Ryan Rudolph:

Because most of his posts are shallow, and shallow thinking posters are attracted to shallow posts.

Carmel:
More specifically, Diebert stated his posts are better than average. Are you calling Diebert a shallow poster? Both Diebert and prince can think more deeply than you do.

Then you follow that statement with yet more gossip which is not worth addressing.

Ryan Rudolph:
Because his alternative of evolution is creationism, which has absolutely no scientific merit. Any intellectual laughs at the idea. it is one of the most illogical ideas in existence, and the ego loves it, can't get enough.

Carmel:
Though I also believe in evolution, I don't presume prince's beliefs are based on ego, but if I wanted to know, I would ask him, rather than engage in unfounded speculation and gossip.

Carmel:
I think you and Elizabeth need more courage, that you should address prince directly instead engage in what amounts to nothing more than gossip

Ryan Rudolph:
I've been on this forum for years, and it is impossible to have a discussion with prince because his posts are usually one line, and it is usually nothing that you can respond to. His posts are always close ended, which illustrates a lack of courage, it exposes his fear of being an error.

Carmel:
Naw, that's not why he doesn't engage in discussions. Anyway, you're still just speculating. Your theory is useless.

Carmel:
By assigning motive to prince's posting, you are demonstrating poor quality reasoning skills. Your judgements have no basis in logic and are completely arbitrary.

Ryn Rudolph:
Assigning motive in posting is what a enlighened philosopher is able to do, given enough experience. And on the contrary, such thinking, is the the pinnacle of sound reasoning skills.

Carmel:
Rubbish. Your making excuses for your gossipy behaviour.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Carmel:
Though I also believe in evolution, I don't presume prince's beliefs are based on ego, but if I wanted to know, I would ask him, rather than engage in unfounded speculation and gossip.

That's the tricky part about ego. People who act out of ego rarely realize that they are doing so unless it is pointed out to them - and even then the ego will try to self-protect, and leave the person in denial.

Are you calling Diebert a shallow poster?

Sometimes, but not always.

Both Diebert and prince can think more deeply than you do.

Here is the biggest danger of prince behaving as he does on the board. The newbies mistake his fallacies for reasoned debate, and emulate him. This one, Carmel, is an ad hominem fallacy.

Then you follow that statement with yet more gossip which is not worth addressing.

Dismissive appeal to emotion fallacy

Any intellectual laughs at the idea.

Sorry Ryan - this one dips into the dismissive appeal to emotion fallacy, too.

Naw, that's not why he doesn't engage in discussions. Anyway, you're still just speculating. Your theory is useless.

How do you know this - or are you just speculating?

Rubbish. Your making excuses for your gossipy behaviour.

...more appeal to emotion and another ad hominem.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carmel,

More specifically, Diebert stated his posts are better than average. Are you calling Diebert a shallow poster? Both Diebert and prince can think more deeply than you do.

Yes, I disagree with Diebert on this one, and agree with Elizabeth. Just today, Prince called me a twit for criticizing his beloved idea of creationism, and informed me that god had no time for me. This is the mark of an immature illogical thinker. Not to mention, he always avoids a well-drawn out argument that exposes too much of what he actually believes.

If this forum was a medevil battlefield, Prince would be the archer who sneaks up behind a tree, shoots an arrow into your ass and then runs away...

To be a true philosopher, you need to be the warrior who stands directly in the line of damage, cutting and slashing others arguments with an oversized axe.

Though I also believe in evolution, I don't presume prince's beliefs are based on ego, but if I wanted to know, I would ask him, rather than engage in unfounded speculation and gossip.

I'm not speculating, I've read this guys posts for years. And as Elizabeth has said, he is difficult to corner on this forum.

Rubbish. Your making excuses for your gossipy behaviour.

Gossip is taking about superficial things such as. “oh did you see what Prince is wearing today” that is gossip. I am criticizing the quality of prince's ideas, the quality of his character, which is a deeper philosophical thing.

You need to pick up a dictionary.

[Carmel]

Elizabeth:
I've tried to, but I can't pin the guy down. He'll make a snappy comeback, and then just pop up in another thread with his evangelism. That's actually the reason for this thread, to try to corral the guy.

Carmel:
Why do you feel the need to pin someone down? ...lol@ "corral the guy". It'll never happen. Maybe you could consider it a lesson in detachment? (and I mean
seriously, not facetiously.)

Elizabeth:
What I am doing is discussing the elephant in the living room.

Carmel:
There are other bigger elephants in the room. I don't know why you chose this one.
I could speculate, but that would be a bit hypocritical on my part, wouldn't it?

Elizabeth:
Agreed, and hopefully this thread will be a good exercise in showing how that can be done. David isn't here anymore Ryan, so it's up to us to pick up the torch.

Carmel:
What's with all the self aggrandizing statements here lately?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Why do you feel the need to pin someone down?

Okay, so this place has been let go since a bit before you arrived, so it isn't so obvious anymore what this place is for. My intent is to help restore it to the breeding grounds for wisdom that it once was. How that is done here is by challenging each other on how good our thinking skills are. You may have skipped the Introduction and Explanation. Now might be a good time for you to read that.

It'll never happen.

Maybe not - but if his pablum goes too far, I may petition the absent administrators, requesting his dismissal. He has been here for a very long time, so I believe that he is entitled to a period of time to bring himself up to speed.

When David was here, I had concerns that he was banning too many people. A board does need members to function. On the other hand, he was effective at clearing off the rabble that had zero chance of reaching enlightenment and provided enough nonsense to be a disservice to the board. Without David's weeding, the garden is getting chocked out.

Prince certainly isn't the only weed around here, but he is a senior weed, and a currently prolific one.

Maybe you could consider it a lesson in detachment? (and I mean seriously, not facetiously.)

This is not an emotional attack, but a purposeful, directed challenge for the intellectually acknowledgable worthwhile goal of creating and protecting a space where real philosophical work can be done. Perhaps it would be worth your while to create another thread on the meaning of detachment.

There are other bigger elephants in the room.

Feel free to start another thread on a bigger elephant. I will not ask you what you mean by that here because I find it easier to access topics later if threads are not derailed.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth,

Sorry Ryan - this one dips into the dismissive appeal to emotion fallacy, too.

I should have went into more detail, but what I should have said, is that any intellectual who has spent a great deal of time thinking about the whole notion of "creationism" would have dismissed it long ago.

If one considers the idea that all things must naturally arise out of other things, and a thing is born and defined through its relationship to other things, then it must follow that human beings arose naturally through a gradual process in time, and not through some miraculous spectacular event of supernatural intervention that defies all the laws of causality. The ego loves to believe in garbage that is just not plausible.

What Prince's latest posts tell me is that Prince has gained very little wisdom in all the years he has listened to our arguments. He has remained on the side lines, afraid to participate unless it was a opportunity when a thinker was already on his knees with battle scars, and then Prince might swoop in long enough to call the guy a dickweed, and then he would disappear.

This place is supposed to be designed as a battleground for thinkers to perfect their thinking through logical debate, debate that is respectful, yet shows no mercy to the ego, as one must attack hard into the heart of ones opponent. And if you don't have the balls, interest, or stomach for any of that then you shouldn't be here, period. That is why the admins used to ban a lot of people because the spam of illogical people brings down the quality of the posts here.

Carmel,

Why do you feel the need to pin someone down? ...lol@ "corral the guy". It'll never happen. Maybe you could consider it a lesson in detachment? (and I mean
seriously, not facetiously.)

This place is all about attacking another person's ideas, and their quality of character to help them grow. A person can only change if they become aware that they are irrational and illogical. That is the entire purpose of this forum, and if this doesn't interest you then you should move on to a different forum, and stop wasting people's time here.

[Kunga]

Classical Logic , Western Logic ,Indian Logic or Buddhist Logic ?
Or Christian Logic ?

[Ryan Rudolph]

just logic, there is only one correct logic, and it is not associated with any type of organized religion.

As organized religion and religious texts are filled with half-truths, illogical conclusions, and wild ideas with no logical basis.

[Kunga]

would your logic change if you met with beings that were 5 million years more evolved than you ?

[Ryan Rudolph]

no, we share the same logic.

despite the ongoing evolution of consciousness, the universality of logic never changes.

[Kunga]

What if you had a near death experience...and met God...and he spoke to you...and you knew it was God....would you still obey the rules of logic ?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

This place is supposed to be designed as a battleground for thinkers to perfect their thinking through logical debate, debate that is respectful, yet shows no mercy to the ego, as one must attack hard into the heart of ones opponent. And if you don't have the balls, interest, or stomach for any of that then you shouldn't be here, period.

That's a good description, and concise, too.

What if you had a near death experience...and met God...and he spoke to you...and you knew it was God....would you still obey the rules of logic ?

That's what is known as the straw man fallacy.

[Kunga]

Straw Man = "What If's " ?

Ok...so there is no room for creative thinking & hypothetical situations ?

But logical reasoning is limited to our conditioned thinking norms.
And being conditioned is the problem of both God belivers and no-God belivers.

What we really need to do is think from an unconditioned state of mind.
We are like parrots...or the herd mentality.

Who can think for themselves without following a set pattern of thinking ?
Maybe i am saying that being intuitive is more advanced than conditioned thinking.?

[Carmel]

Elizabeth,

I have read the forum guidelines, most of Quinn's and Solway's works and parts of the archive. Please try to understand that I don't take these discussions quite as seriously as you do.

Most of the topics presented here exist outside of this forum, there's really not much new here in that regard, but many of the posters and administrators here present them in a way that I stimulating, enlightening or amusing. That's why I'm here. If that's not good enough a reason, then feel free to add me to your list of "weeds" that you want to send to the admins. It wouldn't bother me in the least.

[Kunga]

Scientists are constantly being baffeled by what they thought they understood.
Logic seems to be in need of updating criteria.

[Carmel]

dejavu:
The poor bugger probably went to a party when I was messing with time on mushrooms and thought he saw god.

Carmel:
lol! Finally, something I can use... Absurdity is my philosophy.