Sometimes I think my beliefs have changed a lot. But when I read this thread it actually strikes me how little my views have changed in the last decade. I wouldn't use the words "apostate narrative" now, but I wouldn't completely disavow the idea either. The rest I pretty much agree with. Didier's OP here is my favourite on this site ever. Maybe newer forum members would like to have a look at it.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
99
The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism
by cofty insbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.
charlatanism of the highest order.
.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.
-
-
-
52
Is shunning unscriptual?
by MrTheocratic ininternational version 1 cor 5:11. but now i am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.
do not even eat with such people.. if shunning is wrong.
.how does one explain this scripture?.
-
-
slimboyfat
Some say the Bible is a fiddle on which any old tune can be played. Whether the Bible endorses shunning may be largely in the eye of the beholder.
So in a sense it's hard to find the question "does the Bible teach shunning" very interesting or relevant.
You can find Watchtower texts that condemn shunning in clear terms. Doesn't stop them doing it. So much for texts.
-
99
The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism
by cofty insbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.
charlatanism of the highest order.
.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.
-
-
slimboyfat
What Shall I call myself? The question of the earth being flat is a diversion Cofty uses whenever he doesn't want to discuss other important stuff. It's a shame to let him get away with it. Of course the earth is not flat. But then no view of world should be regarded as final. There are things we think about the world now which will be discarded in future. We don't know which ones. Perhaps we will discover that assigning a shape to the planet is ill conceived in some way. Don't ask me how, that's the point. We don't know what it is about our current view of the world that will be revised or why. Plus there are meaningful senses in which the world is flat. The worm eye view. Why is the worm's view worth less than human? I've not had an answer except being told it's a stupid question. Christianity was based on the view that God's view is paramount. The enlightenment was based on the view that man's view is paramount. Postmodernism suggests that no single view provides privileged access to the truth.
-
99
The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism
by cofty insbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.
charlatanism of the highest order.
.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.
-
-
slimboyfat
The quotes given are devoid of context.
I find it curious that you lambast creationists for not reading any books about evolution before denying it. Frankly you are worse. Not only won't you read anything by Foucault or Derrida themselves, you've apparently not even read the critiques of them that you rely upon. At least creationists tend read the anti-evolution texts they advocate.
Ignorance isn't a virtue on any side.
Good for you you've found out about the Sokal's hoax. Maybe you could explain to me now what it has got to do with Foucault and Derrida? They were not writers targetted by Sokal. He criticised Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard and others.
-
99
The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism
by cofty insbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.
charlatanism of the highest order.
.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.
-
-
slimboyfat
Annoyed you so much that is deserve what? Presenting me a YouTube video referencing a book you've apparently not read. Nor the creator of the video it would seem. From what I remember of Sokal's book he doesn't actually object to Derrida and Foucault, but writers such as Lacan, Kristeva and Spivak.
"Husserl - some author that I don't know who that is"? Impressive analysis right there.
Let me know when you've actually read a book on the subject.
To quote you:
Creationists proudly display their ignorance because they think it is a virtue.
-
147
Challenge to Creationists
by cofty inin response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
-
-
slimboyfat
People who don't read Derrida and Foucault are also wilfully ignorant, and that deserves criticism. ;-)
-
147
Challenge to Creationists
by cofty inin response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
-
-
slimboyfat
Are you talking about me talking to JWs at literature carts? If a cut recruiter goes into the public square to find new victims by spreading lies they are fair game. No apologies from me for that.
I agree that's one way of looking at it, and I have some sympathy for sure. Nevertheless the picture you paint of a JW shaking hands and calling an end to a conversation and you carrying on anyway is, first of all hilarious, and secondly not terribly different from how you act on the forum either.
I don't criticise your threads on evolution. I'm not aware that I've ever done so. It's more the threads where you call believers ignorant or imply intellectual cowardice if they don't engage you in debate I've got in mind.
I already underlined the irony of a relativist pushing their views above. At least I intended to I'm not sure if it was understated.
-
70
Witness Carts - A Vehicle for Significant Decline
by slimboyfat ini was stalking to a jw today about her recent experience on the carts and with being a jw generally.
until this conversation i considered the carts as just an ineffective preaching method and a harmless waste of time.
but now i wonder if the effect of the carts might be to produce noticeable decline in jw numbers.
-
-
slimboyfat
Steve is that you stalking me now, with sporadic snot? ;-)
-
147
Challenge to Creationists
by cofty inin response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
-
-
slimboyfat
I think there's a difference between making information available to people who are looking for it and pursuing people telling them things they don't want to hear. In the case of JWs looking for information about evolution tailored to their background, I still think this is an excellent idea, and well suited to a blog on the topic. Running around the forum, or the streets for that matter, telling people your views on evolution and God whether they are interested or not seems somewhat less productive.
Evolution may be a fact. At the same time no fact is immune to revision in light of further evidence, as you apparently conceded elsewhere. So we agree on this.
It may be very unlikely that evolutionary theory will be overturned in any meaningful sense. But can we rule it out? Human history is littered with ideas that were taken for granted at the time but are now discarded. There are undoubtedly things about the world which we now take for granted, and think it would be wrong to question, but people in hundreds of years will think how could we have been so stupid. The trouble is we never know what those things are. So alongside a commitment to reason and evidence we should also have some humility and resist dogmatism.
-
147
Challenge to Creationists
by cofty inin response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
-
-
slimboyfat
Progress? I was 99% sure (give or take a couple of percent) of evolution already in 2000 when you were still a Bible thumping literalist. ;-)
And deconstruction is not BS, it is the earthquake of the age, the Derridean epoch we inhabit, and the Foucauldian sea in which we swim.