Monday, June 27, 2016

Naturalism is not an argument against God


Photobucket







Jeff Lowder of the secular outpost writes against a highly conservative Christian apologist named Anna Marie Perez.[1] He is especially incensed by her comment:

Atheism is a religion. Atheists act like Dracula confronting a cross when faced with the fact that their beliefs rely solely on faith. They hate the word faith, even though it’s all they’ve got. They try to make the claim that their religion is based on science, although actual science doesn’t support their claims any more than science can prove the existence of God. When they are called out for having faith, they’ll say something like, “An absence of belief isn’t faith,” yet their claim of an absence of a belief is a lie.
Lowder quips, "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that baldness is a hair color." Very droll.  Of course he doesn't believe atheist is a religion. I find this a lot, the answer is logical and simple. it's not a religion it's a religion substitute. What are they doming with it? They are replacing God in their lives with a concept called "atheism" that concept sways that here is no God and other concepts that help make that one work for them. Therefore it's a religion substitute. In some way it can resemble religion but it's not one.

Then he turns to her use of the term "faith."


 If she’s defining the word “faith” the same way as the Biblical book of Hebrews does (“confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see”), then she’s wrong to assume that “atheists,” without qualification, hope that no God or gods exist and that there is no afterlife. Yes, there are some atheists who hope for those things, but there are other atheists who hope for the opposite, and many more atheists who are indifferent. But if she’s defining the word “faith” to mean “belief without evidence” or even “belief against the (weight of the total) evidence,” then she’s mistaken.
I would like to deal with that issue at greater length but I don;t have time,I will point out however that faith does not mean accepting things without evidence, Faith is a complex concept it can't defined by one verse from the Bible. Look it up in Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology.[2] Nor will it do to use an ordinary dictionary, There is really no excuse for not using the Westminster (as often a these people argue with Christians). That would be like teaching a philosophy class and never using Flew's Philosophical Dictionary.[3]

"Let’s start with some definitions:


naturalism (N) =df. The physical exists and, if the mental exists, the physical explains why the mental exists.
supernaturalism (S) =df. The mental exists and, if the physical exists, the mental explains why the physical exists.
Actually I think his definition of SNism is really Idealism. SNism would say something like "there is a higher level consciousnesses of God to which God will raise the individual by the power of his Holiness.


Naturalism (N) and supernaturalism (S) are mutually exclusive: they cannot both be true. But they are not jointly exhaustive: they can both be false. To account for the possibility that both N and S are false, we can introduce a third, ‘catch-all’ option:
otherism (O) =df. Both N and S are false.
That is not necessarily true  if one does not define SN in the way he talks about. The basic problem from my perspective of belief is that God is not a being it's not like there;s a stable of SN beginnings running about and god is one of them. God is the basis of reality, being  itself, the  ground of being. Thus one might understand physical reality as the result of natural processes started in motion by the ground of being. Of course it's probably true that people use the tern naturalism to specifically exclude religious answers and thus they would apply it to gainsay any belief in God. Ideas like those of Tillich or process theology of Hartshonre of Whithead may be compatible with naturalism at least technically[4]


If N is true, then atheism is true by definition because N denies the existence of all supernatural beings, including God. So one way to defend atheism is to defend N. And one way to defend N is to present evidence which is more probable on the assumption that N is true than on the assumption that theism (T) is true. 

I'm having trouble seeing exactly what that proves. Its not demonstrating the truth of naturism, it's only showing the propositioning are more probable if we assume  naturalism. is more probable if we assume naturalism s true, it's not like these are true because naturalism is more probable. Why should we assume naturalism? Surely not because the propositions are probable since we have to assume naturalism to make them seem more so, why should we do it?


If we assumes these propagandists are more probable if naturalism is true, therefore. if they are probable naturalism is true. Is that not affirming the consequent or something? If it rains the streets are wet, the streets are wet therefore it rains. But we used to have street washers so there could be counter causes. Still I don't think Dr. Lowder would make such a mistake so I must not understand it. Still I'm going to argue with certain ones of them. I can't do all of them.

I am going to use SN operationally the way Jeff does so as to not harp on the same soap box again. I just ask that the reader be aware there is another view point. He presents the proportions to show their probable nature. I will not be able to deal with them all. I will group  all those that I think can be answered with one liner. I'll present that list in the comment section


Here is his first one:

1. The Existence of the Universe


The universe–which may be defined as the sum total of all matter, energy, space, and time–exists. This fact is entailed by N: if N is true, then by definition the physical universe exists. But, although logically consistent with T, this fact is not entailed by T. If T is true, God could create the universe, but God could also choose not to create the universe. Thus, contrary to the claims of both the Leibnizian and kalam versions of the cosmological argument, the existence of the physical universe is more probable on N than on T.[1]In formal terms, the argument may be formulated as follows. If we let B be our background information; E be the existence of the universe; then the explanatory argument is as follows:(1) E is known to be true, i.e., Pr(E) is close to 1.(2) T is not intrinsically much more probable than N, i.e., Pr(|T|) is not much more probable than Pr(|N|).(3) Pr(E | N & B) =1 > Pr(E | T & B).(4) Other evidence held equal, T is probably false, i.e., Pr(T | B & E) < 1/2.

There are a couple of problems  I see here. Mind you I may not understand it.I'm just doing my best in my little mine sweeper against his battle ship. First, "God could create the universe, but God could also choose not to create the universe. Thus, contrary to the claims of both the Leibnizian and kalam versions of the cosmological argument, the existence of the physical universe is more probable on N than on T." I think that would only be true if the universe is deterministic and had to be. We don't know that ,Moreover, we don't know why there is a universe. No reason to think the universe had to be. Davies says it didn't. [5] Cosmological arguments are optional. They are not mandatory so if it's a choice between God or the cosmological argument we can throw the argument away. But that's not necessary because the universe is not necessary.


2. The “Anti-Creation Ex Nihilo Argument”


This argument may be summarized as follows:

(1) Everything that had a beginning comes from pre-existing material.
(2) The universe had a beginning.(3) Therefore, the universe came from pre-existing material.Now I think it is far from certain that (2) is true. Let’s make a distinction between:(2a) The expansion/inflation of the universe had a beginning.and:
(2b) The universe itself had a beginning, viz., the universe began to exist.It appears that (2a) is accepted by the vast majority of cosmologists. So let’s assume not only that (2a) is true, but that we know (2a) is true with certainty. It doesn’t follow that (2b) is true. In fact, as far as I can tell, (2b) does not enjoy the same widespread consensus among cosmologists as (2a) does. So there is reasonable doubt about (2b). But (2), like its theistic counterpart in the kalam cosmological argument, requires that (2b) is true. Because there is reasonable doubt about (2b), there is also reasonable doubt about (2).
But what if both (1) and (2b) are true? In that case, it would follow that (3) is true. But (3) entails the universe was not created ex nihilo, viz., created from (absolute) nothing. The falsity of creation ex nihilo is entailed by N (and physical reality’s existence is factually necessary and uncreated), but extremely unlikely (if not impossible) on T (and physical reality was either created ex nihilo or created ex deo [out of the being of God]).

(1) if by "Material" we mean matter, p1 is fallacious. We don't know the cause of the universe. 
(2) fallacy of composition; just because all the individual bits are produced by matter that doesn't mean the whole is. 

We could also think about this argument in non  Christian ways, I'ts Christian doctrine that says creation is ex nihilo that does not mean that doctrine is necessary for all belief in God. Then it's just as matter of what we mean by natter, Is energy natter? We don't really know what matter is made of.[6] we don't know what the singularity was made of it may be that a naturalistic origination yield naturalism.

Don't forget to check out the comments where I answer a bunch of hsi 25 I'll do more next time.




Sources


[1]Jeff Lowder, "25 Lines of evidence Against st theism," Secular Outpost, (June 26,2016) online blog URL - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/06/26/pererz1-25-evidences-against-theism/#sthash.PsSPRwSt.dpuf


[2] "Faith" The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology,Philadelphia: Westkmnster [ress Alan Richardson and John Bowden ed. 1983


[3 ] Anthony Flew, A Dictionary of Philosophy,St. Martin's Griffin; Revised edition, 1984

[4], "Process, Theology,"  The Westminster Dictionary of Christian... op cit 467-468God is diboplar. What is real of God and not merely potential is in process.God is changing alomng with creation, That put's gpd cpomsequnt pol owthin the naturalistic peocess.
[5]First Things: Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address (1999)

[6] Joseph Hinman, "Can Science Really Prove The Basis of Modern Physics." Metacrock's Blog

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 01, 2016  http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html access 6/27/16











10 comments:

Joe Hinman said...

Lowder argument that only need one liner refutation

3. The Continuing Existence of Physical Reality
answer:(1) that is beyond our scope of knowledge (3) not a contradiction im term because the reason it is eternal is because God is eternal and God provides teh grounding. that goes hack to understanding ground of being it like the wave and enerby that snakes it a wave.

4. The Scale of the Universe
answer:he can't understand why big universe little earth so therefore thereis no reason and thus Dod is not real. I think that we all see the problem there.

5. Evidence from the Hostility of the Universe to Life
answer:atheists do not know what God would do. they always like to pretend they do but they don't(that goes om all of these)_

6. The Unimpressiveness of Human Beings Compared to the Abilities of God

answer:we are the creature and not the creator Seriously if God allowed evolution to happen that would be expected.


7. Complex Life Evolved from Simple Life
answer:piss poor, Lowder He's basically just saying god could have done it lots way therefore it's less likely there's a god. That assumes that life evolving ground up is somehow innately less desirable or less valid than those other wasy..


8. The Biological Role (and Moral Randomness) of Pain and Pleasure
answer:explained pretty handily by my soteriological drama argument: God wamts the world to look nutral so we have to search for truth. the search itself is vauable.l


9. Intelligibility of the Universe without the Supernatural
If there is a single theme unifying the history of science, it is that naturalistic (i.e., non-supernatural) explanations work.
thetgeh SN



11. Neurological Basis for Moral Handicaps
In many cases, our ability to choose do morally good actions depends upon our having properly functional emotional capacities, especially empathy, i.e., our ability to identify what someone else is thinking or feeling and to respond to their thoughts and feelings with an appropriate emotion.[
answer:

answer:We are only held accountable for that which is in oir grasp. Many thinks are in our grasp. that is all we for which are held accountable.


12. Flourishing and Languishing of Sentient Beings
Only a fraction of living things, including the majority of sentient beings, thrive. In other words, very few living things have an adequate supply of food and water, are able to reproduce, avoid predators,
answer:answered by my soterioloigcal drama which is my theodicy


13. Self-Centeredness and Limited Altruism of Human Beings
Humans are effectively self-centered; our tendency to behave in self-centered ways is usually much stronger than any tendency to behave in selfless ways. These selfless or altruistic behaviors can be divided into two types: kin altruism and
answer: answered by soteriologiocal drama


14. Triumph and Tragedy
There are three additional facts about good and evil which favor N over T.
First, to paraphrase Paul Draper, ou
answer:Really just a subset of the previous ome.



Soteriologoical Drama

page 2 pain and short lives

page 3 12 angry steriotypes

Ryan M said...

Joe there are huge issues with your response. In every response you seem to not understand what Jeff is saying. The most important failing here is your apparently failure to understand the qualitative difference between deductive and inductive arguments, and the various types of inductive arguments. For an example of you failing to understand the difference between deduction/induction, consider your response to Jeff's 4th line of evidence.

Lowder's 4th line of evidence states that the scale of the universe is more probable given N than T, and consequently is evidence for N over T. Your interpretation is that Jeff is saying "Since I see no reason for the data given T, therefore ~T". You misinterpreted his argument as a deductive one which it is not, and you oddly attributed a strawman view to Lowder which he did not advocate "That the scale of the universe is impossible given theism".

In line 7, you claim Lowder's response is "Piss poor". Far from it, you do not even understand his 7th line of evidence. You falsely believe Lowder is saying that "Since evolution is more probable given N than T, T is probably false". That is not the inductive argument that Jeff is making. Rather, Jeff is saying evolution is more likely to occur given N than T so evolution is evidence against T. Lowder cites the fact that the set of ways life could arise given naturalism is a proper subset of the set of ways life could arise given theism, and a very small one at that. Before ever responding to inductive arguments, read this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/03/21/f-inductive-arguments-a-new-type-of-inductive-argument/

Your response to line 8 makes similar mistakes to your other one. You fail to understand that Jeff is laying out evidence for naturalism by responding that a natural looking universe is possible given theism. The fact that some D is logically possible given T does not imply that Pr(D|T) = Pr(D|N). God could create many different ways for life to continue without pain/pleasure, but on naturalism that is not the case, so our roles of pain/pleasure are more probable given N than T. This actually applies to your response to 12. A theodicy attempts to make some D possible given theism, and not too improbable given theism. But that doesn't help in this situation. A theodicy can only help if it establishes that D will certainly occur given theism and some other data. In this case, we have two pieces of data, D1 and D2.

D1 = life exists.
D2 = life contingently struggles to flourish.

Since (N & D1) implies D2, the Pr(D2|N & D1) = 1. Your theodicy is of little help unless it establishes that (T & D1) implies D2. Surely it does not, so it does not show that D2 is not evidence for N over T.

Overall, you definitely need to brush up on how deductive arguments function, and how various types of inductive arguments function. You also need to focus more on reading carefully because you continuously fail to understand even basic points your opponents are making. For example, Lowder never said the universe is eternal in his 3rd line of evidence, but you interpreted him as arguing such. Rather, his point was actually this:

C = physical reality has continued existence.

Pr(C|N) > Pr(C|T), so C is evidence for N over T. Pr(C|N) > Pr(C|T) since ~C is possible given T but impossible given N. i.e. {~C, T) is a consistent set whereas {~C, N} is an inconsistent set.

Read a book on basic deductive logic and read a book on inductive logic.


Joe Hinman said...

Joe there are huge issues with your response. In every response you seem to not understand what Jeff is saying.

I admit openly it is entirely possible that I don't understand some things. It;s also possible that not much you can say in one liners. I have 25 to answer and they should all be given several pages. No way I can communicate what I really get . Also it's entirely possible that you don't explore the possibility of my answers because are commenced it has to work one way, the way where the atheist side is right.

The most important failing here is your apparently failure to understand the qualitative difference between deductive and inductive arguments, and the various types of inductive arguments. For an example of you failing to understand the difference between deduction/induction, consider your response to Jeff's 4th line of evidence.


lay it on me.


Lowder's 4th line of evidence states that the scale of the universe is more probable given N than T, and consequently is evidence for N over T. Your interpretation is that Jeff is saying "Since I see no reason for the data given T, therefore ~T". You misinterpreted his argument as a deductive one which it is not, and you oddly attributed a strawman view to Lowder which he did not advocate "That the scale of the universe is impossible given theism".

no, you misunderstood my answer. He does not see the scale is more probable with naturalistic, He only sees one reason for it because he can;t why God would do it that way he assume God would not have a reason to. Doesn't matter if it is deductive or inductive either way he has to assume what God would or would not do. If God has a reason for making the scale as it is he does not havea an argument, He can't know the reason.




Joe Hinman said...

In line 7, you claim Lowder's response is "Piss poor". Far from it, you do not even understand his 7th line of evidence. You falsely believe Lowder is saying that "Since evolution is more probable given N than T, T is probably false". That is not the inductive argument that Jeff is making. Rather, Jeff is saying evolution is more likely to occur given N than T so evolution is evidence against T. Lowder cites the fact that the set of ways life could arise given naturalism is a proper subset of the set of ways life could arise given theism, and a very small one at that. Before ever responding to inductive arguments, read this:

If you would stop assuming that I don't understand deductive from inductive then you would see my answers make sense, In debate we never did deductive arguments, It';s public policy it's all inductive and probabilistic. that's an assumption about the nature of God, that is one of then major problems with this and many atheist arguments. They assume they know what God would do. It also assumes heavily that God is a magnified man, rather than a principle or a force or universal mind. All of those things night be just as "inclined" to do evolution as is random chance (with naturalism there is no agency of inclination other than physical law itself-whatever that is--inclination but not intent).BTW I see God in all of those ways just mentioned.

there is no reason to assume God should be less inclined to use evolution.




http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/03/21/f-inductive-arguments-a-new-type-of-inductive-argument/

Your response to line 8 makes similar mistakes to your other one. You fail to understand that Jeff is laying out evidence for naturalism by responding that a natural looking universe is possible given theism. The fact that some D is logically possible given T does not imply that Pr(D|T) = Pr(D|N). God could create many different ways for life to continue without pain/pleasure, but on naturalism that is not the case, so our roles of pain/pleasure are more probable given N than T. This actually applies to your response to 12. A theodicy attempts to make some D possible given theism, and not too improbable given theism. But that doesn't help in this situation. A theodicy can only help if it establishes that D will certainly occur given theism and some other data. In this case, we have two pieces of data, D1 and D2.

D1 = life exists.
D2 = life contingently struggles to flourish.

Since (N & D1) implies D2, the Pr(D2|N & D1) = 1. Your theodicy is of little help unless it establishes that (T & D1) implies D2. Surely it does not, so it does not show that D2 is not evidence for N over T.


looks like you didn't read my links, if you did you would understand why it's an answer, you guys always sell my arguments short. I understand how the lack of intent works for naturalism in terms of things like life struggles why would god make a world of life struggles? my soteriological drama answers that, With a good reason it's an equal playing field the advantage of naturalism goes away,


Joe Hinman said...

Overall, you definitely need to brush up on how deductive arguments function, and how various types of inductive arguments function. You also need to focus more on reading carefully because you continuously fail to understand even basic points your opponents are making. For example, Lowder never said the universe is eternal in his 3rd line of evidence, but you interpreted him as arguing such. Rather, his point was actually this:

C = physical reality has continued existence.

Pr(C|N) > Pr(C|T), so C is evidence for N over T. Pr(C|N) > Pr(C|T) since ~C is possible given T but impossible given N. i.e. {~C, T) is a consistent set whereas {~C, N} is an inconsistent set.

Read a book on basic deductive logic and read a book on inductive logic.


No I beat the hell out of his arguments. they are piss poor. go back read them again but this time I assume i understood better than you do. I don't time to elaborate but stop assuming it hias to work in your favcor.;this time read by links.

Ryan M said...

Joe you miss a lot of obvious problems with your responses. For example, you like to say something to the effect that "Lowder needs to show God would not be likely to use evolution rather than some other means to create a variety of life". But he doesn't. The naturalistic means of creating variety among life is a proper subset of the theistic means, and since evolution is in that intersection it must be the case that evolution is more probable given naturalism than theism.

But even if we wanted to go your route, we could easily see reason to dislike evolution on theism. Evolution is an inefficient means of creating variety, it causes pain, creates untimely deaths, and overall seems prima facie immoral for any being to use as a method of creating variety when alternatives exist.

I know you claim to be well versed in inductive/probabilistic arguments, but you make so many mistakes that that seems near impossible. Considering your frequent interpretation of non deductive arguments as being deductive, I have a hard time believing you actually understand what a non deductive argument is.

I've read a bit of your soteriological argument, and it definitely is not new. It is essentially a free will defense with the addition of providing an explanation for why God would not make its existence obvious. Nothing new there. I don't see how any of it helps though. Your intention is to make a universe like ours probable given theism, but nothing in your argument seems to achieve that. You seem to want to provide an explanation for why God would not heal amputees, but that doesn't explain why God would allow amputees at all. The set of possible worlds God could create that would satisfy your assertions on free choice is infinite. God could create a world where our lives are finite (Because we can die), we can learn moral lessons, we need to work hard to survive, and we can perform charity to others all while incurable diseases do not exist, chronic pain leading to suicide/euthanasia does not exist, and so on. A successful argument showing our world is probable given theism would need to show that among the worlds God would create, a world where babies can be born with their brains outside their skull, and a world where children can constantly have their skin fall off is a world God would probably create. As it stands, things such as epidermolysis bullosa make more sense given naturalism than theism. It seems to me that the best a theist can do is say a world like ours is logically compatible with theism. I think your theodicy, like others from Christians, fails to actually understand how brutal this world is.

Ryan M said...

I know you want others to read your arguments, but your claim that Lowder's arguments are "Piss poor" doesn't give us very good reason to take you seriously. Rudeness aside, calling someone's arguments "Piss poor", especially when they are obviously well thought out, does not strike confidence that your arguments would be any good. I would wager that most people calling arguments "Piss poor" are not very bright individuals and consequently are not worth taking seriously.

Joe Hinman said...

Ryan M said...
Joe you miss a lot of obvious problems with your responses. For example, you like to say something to the effect that "Lowder needs to show God would not be likely to use evolution rather than some other means to create a variety of life". But he doesn't. The naturalistic means of creating variety among life is a proper subset of the theistic means,

No it's not. He Nixed that himself when he said they are contradiction, if naturalistic means no god then obvious no God can't be a subset of God induced creation..you cold go with a naturalistic God concept like prepossess theology but then you have an argument at all.




and since evolution is in that intersection it must be the case that evolution is more probable given naturalism than theism.


but evolution cannot be defined as no God., That would beg the question, So evolutio is more likely but not w/o God.


But even if we wanted to go your route, we could easily see reason to dislike evolution on theism. Evolution is an inefficient means of creating variety, it causes pain, creates untimely deaths, and overall seems prima facie immoral for any being to use as a method of creating variety when alternatives exist.

seems [retty clear god is not opposed to doing things the hard way. You need to read my links on soteriological drama. They explain why God needs the world to look neutral. So that random nature has to be there


I know you claim to be well versed in inductive/probabilistic arguments, but you make so many mistakes that that seems near impossible. Considering your frequent interpretation of non deductive arguments as being deductive, I have a hard time believing you actually understand what a non deductive argument is.


first of all i don;t claim to be well versed in much outside of DC comics, Herbert Marcuse, and mystical experience. Secondly one of the few things I do know is the difference inductive and deductive I have not said anything that would lead one to believe otherwise. so I think you are making that assumption before hand. show me an example and i will explain how you have it wrong


I've read a bit of your soteriological argument, and it definitely is not new. It is essentially a free will defense with the addition of providing an explanation for why God would not make its existence obvious.

yes it is a free will defense that is nit new I don't know of anyone who resolves the issues by asserting that God wants us to search for truth and thus wants the universe to look neutral with respect to his existence


Joe Hinman said...

Nothing new there. I don't see how any of it helps though.

you still have no answered the arguments new or otherwise So how can you claim h1 is favored over h2 if h2 is purposely set up t look no better than h1? from where do you start a comparison when the the thing you are looking for favors the other hypothesis?


Your intention is to make a universe like ours probable given theism, but nothing in your argument seems to achieve that.

Yes i just told you how it does. because God wants the place to look uncreated.



You seem to want to provide an explanation for why God would not heal amputees, but that doesn't explain why God would allow amputees at all.

same reason. if no one ever suffered if limb-severing accidents never resulted in limbs being severed we would know without doubt something is afoot no need to search for whist you already have (get the pun? severed limbs, something afoot? I still havei t).



The set of possible worlds God could create that would satisfy your assertions on free choice is infinite. God could create a world where our lives are finite (Because we can die), we can learn moral lessons, we need to work hard to survive, and we can perform charity to others all while incurable diseases do not exist, chronic pain leading to suicide/euthanasia does not exist, and so on. A successful argument showing our world is probable given theism would need to show that among the worlds God would create, a world where babies can be born with their brains outside their skull, and a world where children can constantly have their skin fall off is a world God would probably create. As it stands, things such as epidermis bullosa make more sense given naturalism than theism.

this is the world God created. Possible worlds is way over used. that has no bearing on anything,.It is in this world that we must seek truty not some other,



It seems to me that the best a theist can do is say a world like ours is logically compatible with theism. I think your theodicy, like others from Christians, fails to actually understand how brutal this world is.
12:44 PM

You go be a Central America activist a few years see what you think of brutal? you have not answered the point. Because God wants a search in the heart not a university lecture room, the world is made to look such that we can't tell if God is real or not just by the way the world works. So that has to mean all the things Jeff considers are irrelevant because they are not indicative of God.

Ryan M said...
I know you want others to read your arguments, but your claim that Lowder's arguments are "Piss poor" doesn't give us very good reason to take you seriously.

first of call I said that about one line in 25...i think that's a remarkable average. Eight out of 9 things I say are stupid. He's doing great Secondly I dom't care if he;s Hawking if he makes a bad argument Im calling him on it.I believe imn thye didalectovccal process.


Rudeness aside, calling someone's arguments "Piss poor", especially when they are obviously well thought out, does not strike confidence that your arguments would be any good. I would wager that most people calling arguments "Piss poor" are not very bright individuals and consequently are not worth taking seriously.
12:48 PM

Joe Hinman said...

Rudeness aside, calling someone's arguments "Piss poor", especially when they are obviously well thought out, does not strike confidence that your arguments would be any good. I would wager that most people calling arguments "Piss poor" are not very bright individuals and consequently are not worth taking seriously.
12:48 PM


you were never in college debate were you? when you live by arguing it becomes commonplace to be frank about each argument and to accept when My own arguments suck.Yes I know sometimes they do at times.