This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

DarwinsChihuahua's Profile

DarwinsChihuahua's Avatar Joined over 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by DarwinsChihuahua

More Discussions by DarwinsChihuahua

Latest Comments by DarwinsChihuahua

Go to: Prayers on a Plane

DarwinsChihuahua's Avatar Jump to comment 32 by DarwinsChihuahua

I remember this story from last year when the exact same thing happened.

Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:11:54 UTC | #604274

Go to: "God is so good!!!" - GOD IS SO GOOD THE VIDEO TAMTAMPAMELA TRIED TO REMOVE!

DarwinsChihuahua's Avatar Jump to comment 142 by DarwinsChihuahua

tamtampamela was the ultimate example of Poe's Law. No matter how insane her videos were, people still took them seriously. I've known she was a Poe for a long time. I used to think it was amusing that so many people took her seriously. That is, until people found out her real identity and posted it online. Now her channel is gone and she is probably getting death threats (and pizzas) from people who took her seriously.

I would agree that this latest video was probably in the category of "too soon". However, let's not forget about all the real religious people who come out of the woodwork in times of tragedy to blame natural disasters on secularism and/or homosexuality. We shouldn't be outraged at a Poe but the fact that she was so plausible as to be taken seriously.

Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:57:54 UTC | #602944

Go to: Sam Harris' latest book, neuroscience and free will.

DarwinsChihuahua's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by DarwinsChihuahua

I think the real question is; if you choose not to decide, have you still made a choice?

Mon, 01 Nov 2010 01:51:10 UTC | #540728

Go to: Debunking Atheism as a Religion

DarwinsChihuahua's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by DarwinsChihuahua

Could God microwave a burrito so hot that not even He could eat it?

Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:06:53 UTC | #497898

Go to: Philosophy is junk

DarwinsChihuahua's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by DarwinsChihuahua

I disagree. Austere realism is a philosophical position comprising both ontological and semantical theses. Metaphysically, it claims that the right ontology—whatever exactly it might be—is austere in the sense that it excludes numerous putative objects, properties, and relations that are posited in ordinary belief and discourse, and it also excludes many that are posited in scientific theorizing. Semantically, it claims that numerous statements that are normally considered true, and that initially appear to have ontological commitments incompatible with an austere ontology, are indeed true but do not really incur such ontological commitments. Blobjectivism is a specific version of austere realism. Ontologically, it claims that the world contains no real parts, but that this world is nevertheless structurally rich and dynamical. There are old movies featuring a kind of object coming from space, the Blob, with the distinguishing property of engulfing each particular entity and incorporating it into its allencompassing mass.1 This is not how we conceive the cosmos, because it presupposes the previous independent existence of the many. The Blob is supposed to be a kind of amorphous mass. We prefer to call our world the blobject. This implies that we are speaking of an object, and that this object has a relevant structure, namely the highly articulated structure of our world, to which it is identical. The name blobjectivism, as a position in metaphysics that takes the blobjective object as its starting point, captures well our preoccupation and intentions in using the term blobject. The term ‘blobjectivism’ is useful in yet another manner: it indicates a metaphysical position that is both a form of metaphysical realism—the blobject is objectively real—and is strongly monistic. The blobject is objectively real, but lacks any objectively real parts. We maintain that austere realism and blobjectivism, despite their initial air of implausibility, are not contrary to common sense, but actually are in deep agreement with it. The aim of this book is to argue for austere realism, and for the blobjectivist version of it, in a way that shows the compatibility between these positions and reflective common sense. Austere realism consists of several ontological theses and several semantic theses; blobjectivism embraces all of these and adds more specific ontological claims of its own. This combination of ontological and semantic dimensions is where their strength comes from, as we intend to demonstrate. In order to aid in articulating the theses of austere realism and blobjectivism, and for other purposes as well, let us first introduce some useful terminology. Thought and language employ features that can usefully be called positing apparatus—features like names, quantifiers, and predicates in natural language, and thought-constituents that are the analogues in thought of such natural-language constituents. What we will call positings are affirmations in thought or language that employ positing apparatus in the manner that conforms with a nonnominalistic variant of Quine’s wellknown criteria of ontological commitment (Quine 1960)—a variant of the Quinean criteria that not only construes a statement’s constituent names and existential quantification as incurring ontological commitment to individuals answering to those names and quantifiers, but also takes the statement’s constituent predicates as incurring ontological commitment to properties answering to these predicates.

So there.

Updated: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 03:01:29 UTC | #479504

More Comments by DarwinsChihuahua