Renaming the "Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions" subforum

[Laird]

I think it has a lot to do with "nots". Or should that be "knots"? As in, tying oneself up in...

Antidisnonimmaterialistarianism.

[Laird]

Antidisnonimmaterialistarianism.

Yeah, OK, but anyway, it's not about opposition.

Laird,

I have not adopted any ideological position, that is why my response appeared "terse". There isn't anything more than that to tell you about my "beliefs". I don't have any beliefs one way or the other on these issues.

I don't believe that it is all matter and energy.
I don't believe that it is not all matter and energy.
I don't believe that consciousness is not fundamental.
I don't believe that consciousness is fundamental.
I don't believe that some things are not immaterial.
I don't believe that some things are immaterial.
I don't believe that consciousness is not fundamental.
I don't believe that consciousness is fundamental.

Linda

[Laird]

I have not adopted any ideological position

No doubt it's ideologically advantageous to maintain as much. In the meantime, you've never met a "skeptical" position you didn't like.

No doubt it's ideologically advantageous to maintain as much. In the meantime, you've never met a "skeptical" position you didn't like.

OK. My twentieth suggestion is to put both "Sceptic" and "Proponent" inside double quotation marks, just to indicate that the interpretation of those terms is problematic.

Otherwise my favourite suggestion so far is Sciborg's "Does this Stuff even Exist?"

(Closely followed by the Jack Nicholson quotation.)

Laird,

I have not adopted any ideological position, that is why my response appeared "terse". There isn't anything more than that to tell you about my "beliefs". I don't have any beliefs one way or the other on these issues.

I don't believe that it is all matter and energy.
I don't believe that it is not all matter and energy.
I don't believe that consciousness is not fundamental.
I don't believe that consciousness is fundamental.
I don't believe that some things are not immaterial.
I don't believe that some things are immaterial.
I don't believe that consciousness is not fundamental.
I don't believe that consciousness is fundamental.

Linda

I'd never seen the rules of Linda's 'game' before. The first two lines are quite enough.

I don't believe that it is all matter and energy (so logically she (should) believe(s) there is something else non material)

I don't believe that it is not all matter and energy (leave out don't temporarily = I believe that it is not all matter and energy=same as the first line.

Put don't back in=she does believe it is all matter and energy

So there you have it from the horse's mouth. A game with at least two directly opposing rules. How can that be an honest position to adopt to arrive at a decision or a winning argument about anything? It's complete nonsense ! It's "Alice in Wonderland" territory.

Lest anyone think I'm "bullying" her, Linda's had me on ignore for years but I would urge anyone who thinks it is worth debating her about anything, to make a copy of her rule book and consult it before you do.

Obviously "I don't believe A" is not the same as "I believe 'Not A'".

Absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence.

[Ninshub]

My take on where the issue of this thread is now at:

Well, it's still got legs ... and I think I saw it kicking. Maybe it is recovering from an NDE.