struck an atheist nerve

teabag is alarmed by my cogent understanding of atheism in relation to ideology


Originally Posted by Metacrock

Being a lack of belief doesn't mean that it doesn't have an ideology and that it's not a truth regime. the lack of belief functions as a positive element. But atheists fill that gap with positive assertions, especially scientism.

Atheism as an entity is not an ideology per se but the movement of new atheism is a different matter. that is an entity and it reaches into other movements to fill the gap.

 Teabag Salad:

Are you really so determined to hate atheists that you repeatedly attempt to use this strawman of what atheism actually is?

 What makes it a straw man? Just because it's my analysis of their deal? I was part of their deal. I know how they think and what they say. I use their own words to demonstrate. How is it a straw man?


In response to my assertion that I struck a nerve he says:

Teabag:

 Nope, you've not struck a nerve at all. If anything I find it funny that you spend all the time you do running a blog ranting against atheism. I, on the other hand, am quite happy to let Christians believe and do pretty much what they want.

How many hours have you wasted writing entries ranting about how bad and evil atheists are?

Funny you should bring that up. The original post on the thread was an assertion that atheist can't have an ideology becuase it's just a lack of belief, and my comments explains why that comment doesn't answer the issue about ideology. The real issue is that look at how many athiests come to carm just mock and ridiucle? almost every one they do it every day all day long on through the night and it's on site after site. There are almost no Christian sties dedicated to mocking atheism.I was the first one to seriously put up a site trying to analyze the nature of the hate segement of New atheism and I was the first one to say it was a hate group. I was the first one to start talking about atheist ideology. Look at what we are up against? A vast array of thousands of peolpe who morning noon and night never stop talking about how deeply they hate Christians.

Clear example of how atheists twist scripture

 


Atheists on carm really need Christians to believe that we are still under the OT because that's where most of their attack on the Bible is most successful. they know it and they fight tooth and nail to maintain the heretical view that the OT is still in vogue. One such atheist who relies on that strategy a lot is "Deist." Often featured here. Confronted with passages saying the Old Covenant is nailed to the cross and argument that God never told Israel to murder people who thought differently then them he argued that God does command this. Look how he twists the scripture.



Originally Posted by ignatius

Cite from the bible where it says Christians should stone non-believers. You obviously have no evidence for your other asinine comment maybe you'll have some for this one.

You know, I am surprised at the ignorance of the bible displayed by Christians here. It takes non believers to point you to the truth

Deist:

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exodus 22:18

 Meta:
That's excusable since a lot people don't know the real word in Hebrew means  "one who poisons."

But he goes on to twist scriptuer badly.



Deist:

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Meta:


that's not what it says.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

⁶ If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, ⁷ gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), ⁸ do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. ⁹ You must certainly put them to death.

 You might say that's still absurd. Yes it is by modern standards, in those days infants were sacrificed to pagan gods. this passage doesn't say just kill anyone who disagrees with you it doesn't say kill anyone who worships other gods. it's talking about actively leading the People of Israel away form the true God. The result of that will be infants will be killed.

Deist:

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Deist:

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Meta:




these are absolutely his paraphrases and they are not waht the Bible says. he's wildly twisting the meaning to support his view. The way Deist paraphrases it someone who is a devout Hebrew oculd be killed for a minor disagreemen that is within a framework of bleief. It doesnt' say anything like that. Here's what it says:

Deuteronomy 17:2-7

² If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, ³ and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, ⁴ and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel...,(then it's "coutins")

 It doesn't say anything like kill anyone who disagrees with you. Again it's speaking of actively working to subvert belief in God.  I can see why the CARM atheists wouldn't like that. I really can. Let's remember the ramifications are a lot more serous than just burning incenses and sleeping with a temple prostitute. You could wind up killing you kid as ritual sacrifice. The real issue is they are actively working to destroy Israel. The reason to Keep Israel intact is so the world can be saved through Jesus.


Deist:
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13


Meta:
Have we gotten the pattern down now? what do you think it really says? 


Deuteronomy 17:12-13

¹² Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your God is to be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel. ¹³ All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not be contemptuous again.

Pretty Draconian measure for contempt of court. A lot of lawyers wouldn't like that. It say so much more than just Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. for one thing we are talking about a judge in court not just a priest in chruch.









 Deist:

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

 Meta:

 Deuteronomy 18:20

 ²⁰ But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

 Now unreasonable is that really? It doesn't just kill false prophets it says if they lead people in the name of other gods or if they speak things no commanded. Considering that prophets were one of the biggest sources of power who held real sway over what the people did, that made their honesty and veracity pretty important. It's not just being mean or arbitrary, the life of the nation rested in their hands.

this nex one shows his total dishonesty

 Deist:

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Meta
 Mark 6:11

And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them."

 As you can see it says nothing of the kind. It doesn't' say anything bad will happen. It only says make a testimony against them. I says nothing about the consequences of it. He's asserted something with no proof. the King James has the bit about Somom and Gamorrah but its' not in the NIV because it's not in the MS used by Wescott and Hort. That's another point. The best pile of  MS the modern modern don't reflect that part of it.


Deist

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Meta
That is a reference to Exodus to the Egyptians who were pursuing the Israelite to take them back to slavery and perhaps kill many of them if not most. Obviously more justifiable than just saying "God's goign to do anyone anyone who disagrees with you." this is hows us how totally dishonest they aer and now they will twist the meaning of anything to defame the Bible and Christianity.





Then he tires to take on the idea of the new covenant repainting the oc. He has a motive to opposes it because if that's true he loses his major argument agaisnt Christianity. So of course he mocks and ridicules it. Calling it names proves it's no good.

 Deist

Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)

He uses the version that is without the phrase "until the fulfillment." So the fulfillment we all know was When Christ died on the cross. the passage does not say that the Old Convent Mosaic law will be in until heaven and earth pass away. It ways until it's fulfilled, which it was. The reference to heaven and earth means it is as enduring as heaven and earth but that doesnt' mean it's fulillment wont come soon.

here's NIV that does say it will be fufilled:

Matthew 5:17-18
¹⁷ “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

In every case he uses the JKV so it will more strict and wont include the breaks. That may not be his fault but it seems he didn't go to any trouble to learn how study.


 Here's a Passage where Paul says the old Covenant is done away.
 Colossians 2:13-14, in which Paul states,

"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross".

 Here's a pretty decent study that shows a great many passages saying its' done away and good explanation of how they prove it. This is by a Church of God pastor.

 http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?166459-Do-atheists-have-sincere-feelings&p=4914037#post4914037

More of what atheist do when It's obvious they can't beat a God argument

 Over the last month I've been putting up God arguemnts every day or so and arguing for them. I put up five. They were answered badly. As usual the atheist just let them drift off then pretend like they really kicked ass on them. This time I made a post looking back over them and arguing that they didn't answer them:


 This is the old routine. It's what atheist count on. the thread goes away and they pretend it never happened. I just got through discussing a bunch of arguemnts and none of them were disproved and they each one accomplished two things:

(1) demonstrated that there's valid rational reasons to believe

(2) they correlate with the atheist retrenchment into theory and hypothetical data rather than empirical data.

the atheist says "we may not have empirical data for multiverses but the mathematical theories make up for that." But we can match that with the logic of God arguments. Half my arguments are empirical.

here are the arguments the one pointed needed to beat each one.



(1) God is the basis of reality: the idealist argument (aka Berkeley arguemnt)



*To beat this argument one would have to be able to prove that:

(a) no mind behind universe--or that it's not needed

(b) that mental medium for reality is merely surface level

(c) show how time could emerge from non time without rules change.



(2) empirical miracles



*disprove Lourdes and Casdrough miracles


(3) epistemic judgement argument



*Disprove the criteria of epistemic judgement and no one came close


(4) God on the Brain



*have to prove that innate ideas are possible, nowhere near close


(5) primary Cosmological Status




*have to prove what caused BB expansion-- show that it's possible for naturalistic means to have infinite causal regression.


the upshot is we have a huge number of reason to believe in God and no logical basis for the claims that there are no reasons.

they went nuts on this. It's apparent that it does stick in their crows that they can't answer the arguments.


 America:

 Your manner (and not your arguments) causes your posts to be ignored, Metacrock.

 We had this really stupid exchange where they were saying my ideas are incomprehensible. No one can understand them. Then I said what are all those response about why do you try arguing with the arguemnts? HRG tried to argue I said "wow that's really amazing becuase it sounds just like you know what I'm saying." I made fun of America saying "what? I can't understand you. your words are incomprehensible." at one point he says "it's because you are so rude." I said how do you know that if what I say is incomprehensible? When he tried ot respond I said "what? is Timmy hurt? find Timmy, take us to Timmy."

We got other responses.

Originally Posted by Darth Pringle

 this is about the epistemic judgement argment

 

Meta, that is a personal attack on frikki (ad hominem) with this particular type being a motive fallacy.

Meta;

I don't think anyone who refuses to read the evidence can claim they care about truth. Every atheist here has refused to read the evince on several issues. With Tillich I put the paper I wrote on the board no one would read it. then 5 years no one has read a single study of the 200. So when you guys do that I'll admit you might care for truth.

Darth P.

Would they? So why is no-one holding a Nobel Prize for having proved God from these studies?

 

 

 Meta:

How many times have I answered that? about every single time you have intoned that mantra. yet I know you can't remember even a sentence of my answer.

The answer is that they studies don't claim to prove the existence of God, that's not what they are about. As Ralph Hood says he considers that to be beyond the domain of science. No reaosn why I can't extrapolate form what the studies show to the understanding of God's existence based upon what the data suggests. It's stupid to think they would give a Nobel prize for proving the existence of God.



Darth P

It is simply factually incorrect to say that anyone would find these compelling.

 Meta
He means the 200 studies.
that's absolute nonsense and you know it. 200 studies. come off it1 that's a huge body of work over 50 years! totally absurd. it only took 3 studies to get air bags approved.

Darth p

And that's an unsupported appeal to popularity (when did more people believing something mean that what they believe is more likely to be true?)

Meta

wrong-0 old sport! see you don't even understand the basic concept of the arrangement how can you claim you answered it. O yea you are so deeply concerned about truth you can't even follow what the argument says!

it doesn't say the criteria is what the majority think it' says this is THE WAY WE AS A SPECIES UNDERSTAND REALITY. It's universal.

no one thinks that "did you see that" is just an appeal to popularity.


Darth P

And we don't when some experiences that are known to be inaccurate fit the same criteria. 

 

 Meta

that's a meaningless statement. the whole concept is that we don't have the facts behind the appearance we have to make a judgement. We all use the same criteria to make the judgment. you can't prove we don't. I have proved we do.


 Originally Posted by Deist

These ALLEGED 200 were reviewed by someone a year or so back, and found to be severely lacking, and NOT saying that there was a god behind the self reported experiences of the humans.

Meta
none of them were ever reviewed by anyone. that girl claimed to have read one but when I forced her to give me the URL turns out it was the article by the auhro not the study I have pointed this out over and over again. it was the article not the study.she didn't read the study. I know form the URL. no methodology no abstract, no findings.

I know the URL she got it form me. Backup bought a study that examined a study that was on the 200 both of those supported the M scale. Royce read Spanos and Moreti but he didn't understand it because he trued to use it against Hood and it says point blank "we agree with Hood's findings."

you have demonstrated over again that you don't have the facts.

Deist

At best, they showed again what I've been saying all along, which is that these humans BELIEVED that "something" was behind their SELF REPORTED and ALLEGED experiences and they call that something "god" in the language of their country. It's almost like Meta thinks someone in Africa or Australia never heard of God and since these ANONYMOUS individuals (who can't be cross examined) all report similar experiences and they contend they came from"god" that God is universal, and they, therefore have to right. 

 

 Meta

since you have not read even one you don't know. that's not what they say. not one of them says that. they all say in the findings that RE is good> isn't not mental illness 'ts not stupid it is soemthing real. They show regular constant and shared just like my criteria and they show good effects, which fits my argument.

I'VE POINTED THIS OUT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. EVERY TIME YOU MAKE ONE OF THES LITTLE DIATRIBES i'VE POINTED THIS OUT, YOU NEVER ANSWER IT.


Diest

For all we know, the SELF REPORTED "god" could be a three headed Leprechaun for some but they contend their ALLEGED experience came from whatever concept they have of god. IOW, they had a BELIEF.

Meta
that's unimportant. if you want to think God a 3 headed leprechaun so what? how dose that free you from his judgment? you are speaking as though God is real not just an idea in the mind I assume you believe that he does exist you just hate him right?



Deist

Thus, these statements by unknown people who we cannot now question, are taken as gospel.

This is really crazy. he thinks at on all the corroborating validation studies where they did the study over again in another country, India, Japan, Iran, Sweden, USA, UK, that all these third world peasants who have never heard of W.T. Stace could lie their way to validating Stace's theory. Or that with 32 questions  in six different cultures and languages they would just accidentally all luck out and validate the theory by accident. That means people who knew nothing about Stace would have to lie about their experiences (for no reason) in just teh same way to produce the same results in six different countries. Think about Darth P above who said it's not impressive!


 Meta
what unknown people? this is make no sense at all. I've demonstrated statically now there no way they could lie their way to validating Stace. you remember? I did my own study and had you truly to lie your way to validating something and you couldn't. somehow you conveniently forgot that.

Do you mean the respondents are unknown why would you think that? why do we need to know them as long as the researchers know. You have no evidence that the researchers don't know them.





Deist

Even assuming they experienced "god", it was a generic feeling of wellness and nirvana and oneness. An airy fairy feeling that they BELIEVE cam from their particular god concept and in no way alludes to any ridiculous bible type god. 

 

Meta

no it was not wellness and nirvana even if it was that would still serve the argument.

 So pathetic. stupid as mud. he doesn't understand the most basic issues about belief in God. He's so intimated and in hate with the Bible that's all he can think about. Mystical experience is more than just loony tune niceness feelings. the results include getting offer heroin and alcohol and remission form cancer and getting your life on track, self actualization and they have to reduce it to "getting hjappy" so they can put it down. that's such a vast commitment to truth. they are so dedicated to finding that they have to lie and distort the data in order to cover up the fact that they lost.

Atheist Reading Comprehension The Fear/Resentment of Hell

Atheists can't understand what they read (as a general rule, of cousre there are exceptions) and they often dont' read the whole post. You might as well know if you argue with atheists they will not read most of what you say. If you skip over making good long posts and not explain thing that get's us into trouble latter. Debating atheists on message boards is really like keeping your fingers in the dyke. Maybe the only thing to do is head for the high ground. Two things I've learned, they don't understand what they read, and they don't read all the posts. Both of those must be expressions of contempt.

In arguing the other day with some atheists on CARM I realized that one of them was essentially making her own version of Pascal's wager. I pointed this out. that's all I said, "this is your own version of Pascals wager." About 10 atheists thought I said "gee I sure love Pascal's wager." They began bombarding me with arguments against it  and telling me what's wrong with it. Some of them had some intelligent things to say about it, if that had been the issue. Which it was not. But some of them got pretty surely. There are more than one thread on this. the Original atheist's wager was being carried off over two threads.

Fanghur

No god that isn't evil and morally bankrupt wold care whether we believe in it or not. It would consider only how good, loving and generous we were in our lives, not whether we were gullible or not.

 NotAnAtheist

You should cite "Professional Failure" on your resume

Nonprofit.

The wager is a childish false dichotomy assuing the only choices are bible god or no god.

Posit a third possibility, god despises faith. Faith is a test, and those who have it have failed. In this case Meta you have lost everything by believeing in god.

 Originally Posted by Nonprofit

 Or angered god by worshiping the wrong one or the right one in the wrong way, or for worshipping him at all... infinite possibilities and why the Wager is childish.

 Meta you are the one who is ludicrously silly. There is zero reason the third posit is impossible. That you would even take Pascal's wager seriously is just.... well just a pure facepalm.

Won't you be suprised if lose your "wager" and god condemns you for having faith and failing his test.

 after my smart come backs nonprofit uses this:

Originally Posted by Nonprofit

Why do you hate god so much meta? Why do you seek to lead people astray?

Harry C.

Then again you might have a God who went to a tremendous amount of trouble to make the universe appear to have no gods in it. He would be POed to have his handiwork undone.

what this has to do with anything I'm not sure but part of their visceral reaction to the mention of the wager was an attempt to make me feel afraid like I'm to hell for belief in Jesus. I think they are trying to say "this is how you made me feel"

skylurker

 In fact it has disvalue! The person welding it has already admitted defeat! That is why he ignores the actual problems with it and just attempts to snicker like he can read minds.

The "wager" is the last refuge of a failed theology.

what sense does any of this make? Not much but it gave me an idea for another thread. I thought maybe this the outcome of bitterness and anger having been mad to feel fear of hell as kids. I did a thread asking about that.

Metacrock:
Fear is not love. Love casts out fear the bible says, so if you are seeking god because you fear hell then you are not seeking God for the right reason. I think think fear of hell is keeping many atheists from seeking God. I came to this conclusion see how deathly afraid of Pascal's wager they are.

I didn't argue for Pascal's wager I just observed that one of the atheists was making her own kid of wager. They just all jumped all over me because they thought I was arguing for the wage. I don't think the wager is an argument. I think it was meant to be a tie breaking mechanism. It was based upon Pascal's discovery of mathematical probability. Be that as it may I don' think it's a good apologetic device and it only really appeals to fundies and people who are already believers.

How does fear of hell keep atheists from seeking god? I think they know instinctively that fear is the wrong reason to seek, especially to seek the source of love. So they resent it. to make matters worse fear of hell is a good control mechanism and people do get manipulated by it. This is one of the reasons I don't believe in hell. It just seems a childish idea that the true God not use, since God is love and prefect love casts out fear it doesn't' thrive on it. Perfect love doesn't manipulate people with fear, or anything else.

Now atheists will say "I don't fear hell." You may not at this point. AT tome time you did and it's the remembering of it that creates even a stronger sense of resentment. Knowing that it's something you can outgrow just bakes belief seem all the more pathetic; but that only applies to belief based upon a fear of hell. True belief in God is not based upon a fear of hell.

 The standard response on this one was "I am not afraid of hell.

 Not an Atheist:

There's no one who fears Hell while simultaneously claiming Hell doesn't exist.

 Deist:

 This is an extremely dumb OP. Atheists don't fear something they don't believe in. They play the adult game of Lets Pretend and discuss hell AS IF it existed, only to show how ludicrous the notion is. There's no shortage of thread ideas, Meta. this one stinks more than burning flesh.

 Already this tells us that they didn't read the whole op. They totally missed the paragraph:

Meta:

 Now atheists will say "I don't fear hell." You may not at this point. AT tome time you did and it's the remembering of it that creates even a stronger sense of resentment. Knowing that it's something you can outgrow just bakes belief seem all the more pathetic; but that only applies to belief based upon a fear of hell. True belief in God is not based upon a fear of hell.

 Even when I explained this


 Originally Posted by RunnerFive

Saying "you are wrong" in bold doesn't make it so.

Are we to just take your word on how we think and feel?

I have been an atheist my entire life. I've never feared hell, because I never believed in it.

 he's refering to my post showing them the paragraph they missed:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

what did I say? you didn't read it either.

Now atheists will say "I don't fear hell." You may not at this point. AT tome time you did and it's the remembering of it that creates even a stronger sense of resentment. Knowing that it's something you can outgrow just bakes belief seem all the more pathetic; but that only applies to belief based upon a fear of hell. True belief in God is not based upon a fear of hell.

 I'm not saying they are wrong I'm showign them what I siad rules out the accusation that they fear hell now.

see they can't understand what one is saying. Gee I really want to join a movement where no one understands and they don't read the whole communication.

Christain defender Occam pionts out this link about reading comprehension.

To the Editor:

For 30 years as a reading specialist, I have worked exclusively with students who score well on standardized math tests but get lower scores in reading comprehension. Usually, this disparity does not occur until around fourth grade.

I consistently see one or both of the following problems. These students have not learned to decode words of over three syllables. They are bright and math-minded, but they do not know how to identify clues that support inferences.

After learning advanced decoding skills and realizing that making an inference is not simply a wild guess, most students find that their reading scores improve dramatically.

TERRY THOMAS
Houston, May 30, 2013

Atheists tend to be Mathematical type thinkers, so they clearly dont' undersatnd words very well.
Apparently none of them fear hell, no one does. Funny how they also think it's a control thing since no one is controlled by it. For people who don't resent an attempt to control them very interested in making Christians fear hell too.

Atheists whine if they don't get the advantage

Atheists whine about not getting the advantages. I've notice this before that they seem to consider logic an unfair trick. They resent God arguments because they think they are being somehow hatted by apologists saying "this is not logical" then think we manipulate lgoic to support our views. The actually like real argumentation is a trick.

Backup:

Is Christianity incapable of defending itself on a level playing field?

I used to think that there was some sort of equality about debating Christians on their on turf. But now I realize it is not particularly challenging to fight in the minor leagues even if you have a handicap. What is the point? There is nothing to learn. Almost all Christian forums, blogs, and YouTube channels are rigged so that any challenge to there position is ignored or deleted. Christian talk radio is designed to stifle or misrepresent counter arguments.

The simple fact is, Christianity cannot survive open debate. The vast majority of open forums are dominated by atheists because it it so easy to fact-check anything these days.

Question: Is anyone aware of a Christian apologist who can handle his or her own without the handicap of a stacked deck? The closest I am aware of is William Lane Craig in the formal debate arena. And that is an embarrassment to atheists everywhere who continually fail to prepare for his handful of tricks (namedropping, claiming scientists don't understand philosophy, etc.)

 Quite Ironic because when I debated this guy: he went by the name "Blondie." he whined until I brought in an atheist to judge, givin myself a huge disadvantage because he said any Christan board would be unfair (he reufsed to go on carm so we went on my boards on the proviso that I had an atheist judge--in effect that I let him win). He whined his way into getting every advantage. He had to go negative and debate his thesis so that meant we would be using his martial that's he's talked about a million times, and his arguments, so I'm clearly at an even greater disadvantage. The topic had to be worded in such a way that he couldn't lose (something about some aspect of religion is irrational--like you can't find that somewhere if you look hard enough). Then he still argued in very stupid ways using a 100 year old article and trying ti disprove Lourdes miracles that had not yet hapepned by that article.





 Maybrick

 In a word, no.

All the apologist has are rhetorical tricks and the near certain knowledge that most of his/her audience are to lazy to check the facts.

They also have an advantage in that they can hide in the maze of philosophy and sound very clever, while actually saying nothing of worth.

 he really does seem to be saying that we are cheating by being intellectual. t's unfair of us to your better educations and be logical in our arguments. Hide in the maze of philosophy is just a frank admission that it's over his head.