[Glice]

It's not that the strong anthropic principle isn't cogent, it just that it posits some new qualia within pre-existing metaphysical issues. If you'd said "hey guys, what about the weak and strong anthropic principles?" that's entirely different to a negatively charged statement decrying other people's orienting metaphysics as if it somehow escapes the sort of thing that people have been on about since anno mundi (wherever we posit that). You might do away with theocentrism - that's one argument, and one I don't have a problem with - but I don't see it as an escape from logocentrism, the noumenal or the issues surrounding the nature of empirical truth. It'd gall regardless of who was saying it, but it's rendered more obnoxious by the fact that it's put forward by someone who's clearly not a complete fucktard. It's much similar to my criticism of Dawkins - you don't do away with the concept of God by just shouting "look at my proofs from a completely distinct epistemology that I'm applying erroneously to an unrelated subject, unsympathetically to the subtleties of the counter-arguments". Boorish and juvenile, is what I'm saying.

[Glice]

It's not that the strong anthropic principle isn't cogent, it just that it posits some new qualia within pre-existing metaphysical issues. If you'd said "hey guys, what about the weak and strong anthropic principles?" that's entirely different to a negatively charged statement decrying other people's orienting metaphysics as if it somehow escapes the sort of thing that people have been on about since anno mundi (wherever we posit that). You might do away with theocentrism - that's one argument, and one I don't have a problem with - but I don't see it as an escape from logocentrism, the noumenal or the issues surrounding the nature of empirical truth. It'd gall regardless of who was saying it, but it's rendered more obnoxious by the fact that it's put forward by someone who's clearly not a complete fucktard. It's much similar to my criticism of Dawkins - you don't do away with the concept of God by just shouting "look at my proofs from a completely distinct epistemology that I'm applying erroneously to an unrelated subject, unsympathetically to the subtleties of the counter-arguments". Boorish and juvenile, is what I'm saying.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

It's not that the strong anthropic principle isn't cogent, it just that it posits some new qualia within pre-existing metaphysical issues. If you'd said "hey guys, what about the weak and strong anthropic principles?" that's entirely different to a negatively charged statement decrying other people's orienting metaphysics as if it somehow escapes the sort of thing that people have been on about since anno mundi (wherever we posit that). You might do away with theocentrism - that's one argument, and one I don't have a problem with - but I don't see it as an escape from logocentrism, the noumenal or the issues surrounding the nature of empirical truth. It'd gall regardless of who was saying it, but it's rendered more obnoxious by the fact that it's put forward by someone who's clearly not a complete fucktard. It's much similar to my criticism of Dawkins - you don't do away with the concept of God by just shouting "look at my proofs from a completely distinct epistemology that I'm applying erroneously to an unrelated subject, unsympathetically to the subtleties of the counter-arguments". Boorish and juvenile, is what I'm saying.

ok, it's friday, so i got another hour of work and i'm out of here. so you're saying basically that i'm like dawkins and that we're both boorish and juvenile? if so, thank you-- i like the fucker. christopher hitchens too. and yes, he's militant, but he's militant for a reason, not sure if the same as mine-- mine is that i wasted my childhood trying to follow the dictum of some bullshit phantom in the sky full of contradictory advice (i attended catholic schools) and then wasted some more time trying to extricate myself from the fucking mess created by such beliefs. i have no love for metaphysics and yes, i'll spit on it and call it names rather than argue with it in its own terms. religion is harmful to the mind and should not be coddled when it infects otherwise intelligent people.

sorry if that galls you, and like i said, i wasn't personally directed at you, though i realize i have insulted your beliefs and endeavors-- for that i'm sorry, but it can't be helped-- it's my little war against "god" and i'll keep calling metaphysics a load of shit, except when it deals with things like the limits of science, such as certain kinds of cosmology, and always with a grain of salt (that we don't know what the fuck we're talking about and we should remain silent).

if i'm correct though, it was the godly party that first called the weak anthropic principle "a load of wank". i think you and pookie confused both weak and strong versions by the way-- they are very different beasts, have little to do with each other except to the extent that they explain the fundamental concordance of our minds with the world around it-- so my turdish missiles were strict retaliation to that same behavior you're complaining about. i know "you started it" is a lame excuse but yeah you did.

anyway, cockswains are the people who steer boats and yell shit at the crew. i used to row in an 8 and those tiny dudes were awesome.

but anyway, it's friday, have a drink, enjoy yourself, and see you some other day.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i think you and pookie confused both weak and strong versions by the way

Not me. I was just being a twat. It's the way I rolls.

(I agree with everything you've said more than most things I've ever agreed with on here - even more than the Jim Morrison's poetry is pants thread).