Right, because they don’t have any actual facts, but they still want to ‘win’. The language-based arguments you have a problem with follow simplistic patterns that, once memorized, can be applied to any subject the arguer wants to feel superior in.
Well, there’s a difference between manipulative word games and analytic philosophy. I think Mutcer does a little both, but it’s not entirely his fault, he’s following an atheistic tradition of it.
Maybe. But, if his so fond of analytical philosophy, or even philosophy, he should not have stopped answering me when I used his tactics against him. That tells his actual intention.
The problem is that he is not fond of any kind of philosophy. He has an ideology and using philosophy to demean his opposition.
To me, that is the misuse of philosophy. Ideally, one should settle for any ideology/conclusion using philosophy, not using philosophy to promote what is in his mind before philosophizing.
Though, Mucter is not the only culprit of that, a good majority of intellectuals follow that practice. Some do it unknowingly but some knowingly. Those who do this unknowingly, can be spared but not people like Mucter, who not only does this knowingly, but that is his one and only purpose of engaging with philosophy.
With love,
Sanjay
From Mutcer’s “magical” thread:
Many people overestimate him.
Is it not a little bit boring?
What Mutcer does in his threads has nothing to do with philosophy, nothing to do with logic, nothing to do with science, nothing to do with reality, nothing to do with … (put in whatever you want) … So it has not even anything to do with atheism, although he is always talking about it. If ILP had not merely “ad hominem” rules but also and beyond them logical rules, then it would not be possible for him to misuse ILP (remember that ILP means “I Love Philosophy”), and there are many ILP members who misuse ILP in a similar way.
Tweaking the definitions:
An example of a definition is the word “theism”. In order to be a theist one has to be capable of (A) believing, (Aa) believing in a god or more gods (this makes you a believer in god or gods), and (B) processing this in an intellectual / professional way (this makes you a theist). If you are a theist, then you can become an antitheist, and an atheist, if you fulfill some further preconditions. This was - b.t.w. - what I meant when I said Mutcer was “implicitly saying that the effect is before the cause”. The theological cause is always the belief, and the succession of this theological development is always: => (1) belief => (2) godbelief => (3) theological knowledge, for eaxmple as => (3a) theism => (3b) antitheism => (3c) syntheism (synthesis of theism and antitheism) or (3d) atheism.
So it is not possible for one to be a godbeleiver, if this one is not capable of believing. And it is also not possible for one to have theological knowledge, if this one is not capable of a god(s)belief. Furthermore it is not possible for one to be a theist, if this one is not capable of the required theological knowledge. In addition it is also not possible for one to be an anthitheist, if this one has not been a theist before. And it is also not possible for one to be an atheist, if this one has not been an antitheist and a theist before. If you want to deny “something”, you have to know this “something”. If you want to form a synthesis out of theism and antitheism, you have to know what “theism” and “antitheism” mean and be capable of forming a synthesis out of theism and antitheism. But if you want to be released from theism, antitheism, and syntheism, know what they mean, and are sure you can ignore them, then (and only then) you can honestly call yourself an “atheist”. So in reality there are merely few or even no atheists.
It is called “Trolling” … and even in the actual, real definition of trolling, not merely the online connotation (although that included).
Mutcer is proselytizing, having no interest at all in philosophy.
This is my strong conviction too, James.
He is putting his means to the best use ( of course, according to him).
Yes, it certainly st. But, that is where the actual challenge lies. Look at him. Does it not boring to him? Yet, he is doing it for years. That tells about his commitment and patience. and, if one wants to counter him, the same level of commitment and patience is required from the opposite end too.
Yes, that is true but no one goes to the extent of Mucter, except GIM. Both are perfect mach intent wise.
Besides that, Mucter has one more rare quality, which is his coolness or kind of artificially owned sophistication in his pseudo philosophy. That saves him from many harms. There are many others who share his intent and ideology but no one is able to hide their true intentions behind very carefully drafted posts, which give the false impression of intellectuality, at least at the prime facie. All others are not able to hold it for long and get exposed. But, in the case of Mucter, it needs extra effort of expose him, which is in the process now.
And, he also knows what is going on. That is only reason why he answers everyone but stopped replying me.
with love,
sanjay
Yes, he fulfills the both definition of trolling, old and new. He tries to tap innocents in his net by offering them some sort of pseudo philosophical bait, like fishermen use to do to catch fishes.
He certainly proselytizes too. But, i do not see it much wrong in it, if the intent of the doer is right and he is honest in presenting it. Everyone has right to make others to believe or even follow him. Every philosophical discussion, no matter how intellectually honest it may be, will always bear some hint of proselytizing. Convincing opponents or others through philosophical arguments is also a form of proselytizing, though a mild or indirect one.
With love,
sanjay
It is ban in India too. I cannot see it either.
with love,
sanjay
We typically use the term specifically for religious proselytizing, not philosophical nor even political debating. He is attempting to sell his religion (endlessly for years and years now) even when he knows that his arguments are not rational.
Yes. His “arguments” are very irrational, full of false definitions, false pemises, false conclusions, contradictions, fallacies, and other falsities.
You are right in that sense. He certainly promotes his religion of atheism.
With love,
Sanjay
According to my experience with so-called “atheists” there are merely a few or even no atheists, because this so-called “atheists” turn out to be antitheists: they are against theism, against god, against Christianity, against religion insofar as it is Christian, against …, against …, against … The Ancient Greek word for “against” is “anti”. So this so-called “atheists” are antitheists.
Another phenomenon is that this so-called “atheists” create their own god or gods, a false god or false gods. This so-called “atheists” are syntheists insofar as they have overcome their antitheism as the opponent of theism and come to a synthesis of theism and antitheism, namely syntheism (later: the new theism). But they have not come to atheism. I do not know any atheist.
God is perhaps an atheist. That would at least mean that the so-called “atheists” are merely godwannabes. 
But as long as they don’t call it “god”, it is okay with them.
It is all in the wording.