You mean any more that wasn’t covered in the first post?
I suppose that first post didn’t directly counter that information, but if not, it indicates pchaos is too incompetent (probably criminally so) to adequately serve his clients.
I don’t know if he’s a lawyer or not. As others have pointed out, there are some incredibly dense attorneys out there. I also don’t know what he could do to “prove it.” I don’t know what I could say if someone challenged my claim that I am a licensed attorney. I’m not going to post my bar card, and even if I did, it wouldn’t prove it’s me.
I will say I’m skeptical. He seems to be more of an idiot in his views on philosophy and religion, than his views on the law. (from what I’ve read, which is not all of his posts)
Read this thread here - and then his post here
and tell us if that is the ‘voice’ of a competent or practicing attorney.
Beyond his ability to post a coherent argument or follow basic logic - his willful ignorance - that post alone is enough to discredit him as a competent attorney.
(On review - I see you responded in kind to that thread already)
Nope, your definition does not match mine, and in fact you are just restating the popularity fallacy in different words with your “majority opinion” and “minority opinion”. That is not the definition of “Logical”. It has nothing* at all*** to do with logic. It is a logical fallacy when you say the majority opinion determines what is “logical”.
BTW, to hell with the lawyer bit, I’m wondering what Christian denomination you belong to. You keep jumping around between terms, using one that’s used in some denominations, and then other terms that are used in others, but the terms both used in the same denomination. Example from the previous page: Pastor and Mass. Not used together in any denomination I’m aware of, and that’s just one example. I’ve been getting more and more suspicious of your use of Christian terms, and I"m starting to doubt you’re even a Christian. I think you’re faking it for trolling purposes.
So, what denomination are you.
I’m not sure that is what pchaos was saying. I thought he was saying “God created atheists.” If he’s attempting your version, he’s still wrong. Atheists wouldn’t be defined as atheists if there were no concept of gods, but so what? We wouldn’t care. Nobody would.
Now you’re just lying, pchaos. You didn’t know that when you started posting here and I’m still not sure you get it.
Some theists have plenty of common sense. You’re not one of them.
No, it’s not.
You did, you fucking idiot.
Atheists are more publicly visible than any time in centuries, if not thousands of years.
You also don’t have the capability to create one.
… in favor of your opponent?
I wish you could tell that to my grandmother who recently passed away. She was, like C.S. Lewis, an adult convert to Christianity. She wasn’t baptized or confirmed in the faith that became hers until she was 24 years old.
[QUOTE=pchaos]
[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper]
And was an atheist. As was Marx, who reached opposite – but equally “coherent” – conclusions. You’ve got the aforementioned Jean-Paul Sartre and everyone from Bertrand Russell to Friedrich Nietzsche. Various atheists have produced competing systems that have appealed to different people. What’s your point?
[/QUOTE]
Without God there would be no atheists. Chesterton.
The atheists on this Board have painted themselves into a corner. All they have is their disbelief in God or gods. So if you got rid of God or gods there is just disbelief and thus atheists would be gone.
In order for atheism to maintain relevance they need to go beyond there’s no God.
I’m a Christian, I have no real interest in creating a coherent philosophy for you. All I can just quickly survey the literature and say I don’t consider any of the “atheist” systems I’ve looked at sufficiently coherent.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t follow you. My post was in reply to the following: “As much as people despise her, Ayn Rand has a coherent philosophy.”
And now you say – “I don’t consider any of the ‘atheist’ systems I’ve looked at sufficiently coherent.”
I don’t know whether you think Marx had a coherent system. I don’t know whether you think Sartre or Russell or Nietzsche had coherent systems. But didn’t you already claim Rand had a coherent philosophy, before now claiming the exact opposite?
Well that’s me, I’m the dumb one. Let me put it this way I was dumb enough to tell people I’m an attorney.
But actually, that’s one thing I really like about going to mass. It is very humbling. During the week I can act high-powered and competent and rake in some bucks.
But come Sunday, God puts me on my knees and I pray like when I was back in high school.
I assume you define “bucks” as “leaves.”
And to think I used to complain about getting paid in peanuts.
Especially if you aren’t a practicing one. It’s dangerous on this board to pretend to be anything. We have many professions represented on SDMB, including lawyers.
Ideas for a future thread. Hmmmm…
You mean a future thread where more of your inconsistent and contradictory thoughts are exposed?
No need. This one meanders a bit, but it’s done a pretty good job showing how vapid and stupid your posts have been.
Now you’re coming up with the ad hominem arguments, I expected better from you.
I’ll admit that I haven’t made my most scholarly efforts on this Board, but that’s why I asked Czarcasm early on whether this was a friendly debate or a cutthroat debate. As a practicing attorney for another two years or so, I have enough serious work to do. I would prefer not to have to think too much while posting on a message board.
He said your POSTS were stupid, not you. You’d think a lawyer would understand what an ad hominem argument is.
Why would you ask him? And why would you think that his opinion was binding on the rest of us?
And we would prefer not to have to wade through the mindless nonsensical ramblings of someone who can’t be assed to put any thought into what he spews.
and here you go again - claiming to be a practicing attorney…
How is that material for a future thread? You claimed, in this thread, that Rand has a coherent philosophy. You then claimed, in this thread, that you don’t consider any of the “atheist” systems you’ve looked at sufficiently coherent. Why save it for another thread when you’re already discussing it in this one?
It’s not as if you said “I’ve never seen an atheist with a coherent philosophy,” at which point someone asked “What about Rand?” You could shrug that off dismissively and derisively. But you trumpeted Rand as an example of the stuff before claiming you’ve not aware of any such examples, and, well, that’s just weird.
We are to blame to a large degree for indulging him in these inane conversations.
To be frank…actually my name is pchaos. I really don’t care what you think…if I did I would go back to work.
In the Pit? I should have tossed in some “fucks” and whatnot just to be in the spirit of things. The posts in this thread have been surprisingly civil, considering the venue.
As mentioned above, no ad hominem (in that post). I did say your posts were vapid and stupid, but that’s hardly an ad hominem attack.
If you’d like, I can start some ad hominem attacks. Those are easier. Unfortunately (for me) they’re less fun to make since your stupid, vapid posts are actually much more entertaining to thrash.