OK, Scott. Poof. I’m gone for good. Good bye.

Time to step away from the keyboard.

If you believe Einstein’s theory of relativity and its implication that time is a continuum, then it is not true that you ever cease to exist even if you’re an atheist and don’t believe in an afterlife. Your birth and death are simply the endpoints of a life all the moments of which exist “simultaneously”, so to speak.

-Chris

Good night.

of course, Chris H, I can see that you are a physically different poster than BHodges.

But I simply announce that you have no basis to attack my argument as anti-intellectual unless you take a series of assumptions that are either 1) not founded or 2) are directly related to BHodges comment 108.

For example, I can bring up a systematic argument. BHodges wants names of others who bring up systematic arguments, instead of just asking for the systematic argument. He asks for theorists, rather than theories.

So, to continue on (without qualification) with BHodges argument, you reject my potential nature as someone who can systematically argue. But you do this already, because you claim I’m anti-intellectual. You ask what fun is that.

You have no grounding to claim either my argument or I are anti-intellectual unless you take a series of dangerous assumptions, when really, all you SHOULD have said was as you said in your latest post: “Apparently you do not need to draw from the work of others, because you have it all figured out on your own,” which takes a slew less assumptions, but which, judging by your tone, you don’t understand the significance.

My argument is that the nature of this issue doesn’t *require* the work of others. This isn’t anti-intellectual, even if you equate that.

Theory is not just about names, it is about systematic argument. To say that theory brings depth, was not a way saying that are not “deep enough.” You are putting words in my mouth. Apparently you do not need to draw from the work of others, because you have it all figured out on your own. Good for you. I am not sure if you should be so confident in your argument.

Thanks for clarifying my motives.

at least for you, Chris, you don’t want to actually address what I’m actually saying in my comments. You don’t want to address me. So, you don’t. You insist that I’m not “deep enough” or that I’m “anti-intellectual” (which are ludicrous assertions, but whatever floats your boat) and instead cry for authority figures instead of looking at the ideas as they are and as they are explained simply. You expose your bias as you say “your best response is about.com and a wiki” — which highlights that you’re really not looking for ideas…you are looking for names to latch on to.

And I’ve already anticipated this. The names are not important. The ideas should stand for themselves or fall by themselves, regardless of the prestige of the advocates

What would those be?