and of course if your second suggestion that he doesn't entirely know is correct, then he can't be all powerful either.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tao
Printable View
and of course if your second suggestion that he doesn't entirely know is correct, then he can't be all powerful either.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tao
Which is the argument that we always say every 10 minutes, but it never seems to hold any ground with anybody except for us. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Carôusoul
Damn Christians. ;)
Thats ok, if we reiterate it enough, it'll get the point across. I just happened across a hilarious picture too.
Spoiler for Funny Picture:
:rolllaugh:! Thats hilarious!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tao
negative proof fallacyQuote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
argumentum ad verecundiamQuote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
false analogyQuote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
appeal to ridiculeQuote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
argumentum ad hominemQuote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
argumentum ad antiquitatemQuote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
argumentum ad populumQuote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
Cherry PickingQuote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
appeal to motiveQuote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
argumentum ad ignorantiamQuote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
just a sampling...
Haha that's quite a list, nice job.:lol:
.......i am ashamed.:(
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...singyoubro.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by wasup
Who says you need to be part of a religion to believe in a "God"?
Nobody said that, but the extreme majority of people are religious, and being Deist or believing in your own God is a half step away from Agnosticism, which is a quarter step away from Atheism.
So it's mainly talking about religious people.
Hmm, to me thats an odd question, I don't know how to show what I think of the question, nothing really to compare it too. Basicly I would never want to believe something inless it was the sure truth, if I had some kind of ability that every beleif that popped into my head was the right one and I learned of this, thats really the only beleif i would wish for, you don't wish for beleifs though, beleifs arn't based on wishful thinking, there based on the analysing in your mind.
Now if the question was, would I profer a world with god, then the answer is yes, if he/she/it where a good god, who helped people. Didn't send people to hell just for not believing.
http://img352.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ingwoodkc9.jpg
The img tags dont work for this picture for some reason....
Actually, I wouldn't call that an ad hominem. It was a personal insult, yes, but it was not an insult presented as a valid rebuttal to a point. By the way, you're also dick.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
(see what I did there? :lol:)
No really, other than that small problem, great job with your list. I'm glad someone who knows their stuff took the time to point out exactly how flawed his reasoning is.
As for the original question, I don't know why anyone would prefer ignorance to knowledge, no matter how unpleasant the knowledge may seem. Only weak minds would prefer not to know.
Thanks for the correction gnome :P, I listed that one as I figured it more as a way he was trying to discredit stephen so as to discredit his argument. So it was more "indirectly" in response to his arguments. Though your point is still valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
Very good.
Stand down Rosseau, back off Montesquieu, get lost Voltaire, go back to hell Blake: a terminological, philosophical genius is in our midst. :bowdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
When he doth speak, the earth doth shake, the sea surgeth, the mountains doth bow down and the wide-winged eagles sweep low. To ear a whisper, a fleeting glimpse of his silver tongue. Hark, I doth hear him speak and am aghast at the beguiling cogitation that doth preceed...........
..........his whole counter-argument is
Vacuus explicatus, ita, defus testimonium.
I'm no good with latin, or your legal-esqe terminology. But the whole thing is just attacking my credibility and offers no contradiction with significant contributions to the actual subject at hand. And even while attempting to destroy my credibility, you fail to back up your points, nor explain why my argument is flawed, but, what you succesfully do is to raise unfounded criticisms.
Notwithstanding, the fact that you used latin statements (your so cool) and because you were arguing against a religious person, you aroused the support of 5 other simpletons in this thread.
But thanks for paying such attention to my posts, remember next time to provide examples and to explain your arguments. :bravo:
For me it would completely depend on the god. To be certain of a positive afterlife and to believe that there was someone out there who would always love you know matter what would be emotionally appealing. It's almost too bad that my view of the world has to be constrained by fact and reason, almost.
The significant contribution which you have overlooked is that he has pointed out that your arguments were invalid. Somehow you seem to have gotten the idea that this is off point.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
Try reading the whole post. He says my arguments are invalid, but doesn't elaborate or explain how. He doesn't prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
Anyway, I've looked at the allegations, gone through them and there all crap, it is clear he didn't read carefully, or understand much. But I don't need to prove anything because the burden of proof is on him.
The definitions of those terms explain how they're invalid.
Ignore these shameful insults Psychology Student! I still love you!:):)
:hug::hug:( yeah ok your not a hugger but you don;t have a choice).
What insults are you talking about?
Thanks for the backup mark. As he said, psychology student, the very definitions of each of your logical fallacies will "backup" my claims. Or do you really want me to do all the work for you and post the definition of each fallacy, and exactly how each of your statements is an example of each definition? Well if that's what you want, I am sorry I am just not willing to spoon-feed you. It is, as a matter of fact, the responsibility of each side of a debate to understand the opposing position, and fundamentally understand the concepts of logic (and the notions and definitions of logical fallacies). If you cannot grasp the very basic, fundamental elements of debate -- logic and logical fallacies -- than you don't deserve to be arguing for any point, let alone a topic as sensitive as religion. Misology is simply not an apt debate philosophy.
But I must say I admire your ability to continue such debate methods in response to my critique on them. For your benefit, I will respond to your last couple of posts.
Well, for starters, your glaring ad hominem (*ahem* - ad nauseam at that), again, does not help your argument. And I must apologize for using such confounding terms, I agree that it was rather rude of me to use words that you do not understand. I suppose I should have began my post with the notion already instilled that my religious opponent would probably not hold a very developed vocabulary (oh man, I think that was an ad hominem from myself).Quote:
I'm no good with latin, or your legal-esqe terminology. But the whole thing is just attacking my credibility and offers no contradiction with significant contributions to the actual subject at hand. And even while attempting to destroy my credibility, you fail to back up your points, nor explain why my argument is flawed, but, what you succesfully do is to raise unfounded criticisms.
Notwithstanding, the fact that you used latin statements (your so cool) and because you were arguing against a religious person, you aroused the support of 5 other simpletons in this thread.
But thanks for paying such attention to my posts, remember next time to provide examples and to explain your arguments.
As said before, the "contribution" here is that all of your arguments are invalid, because at their very fundamentals they are flawed. If you look up the terms, you will find that each of the things I quoted (and throughout your posts you have repeated the same fallacies) are proverbial examples of such fallacies. The "examples" were the many quotes that I posted. Do you not understand that? The explanation is the definition of the terms. I am not going to do all the work for you. I mean not to be insulting here, but it is simply a matter of intelligence if you cannot understand the notion of a "logical fallacy" and cannot connect the definition of the ones I listed to your quotes.
Really? Do you honestly not see how your quotes are examples of the logical fallacies (did you realize that what I posted were logical fallacies)?Quote:
Anyway, I've looked at the allegations, gone through them and there all crap, it is clear he didn't read carefully, or understand much. But I don't need to prove anything because the burden of proof is on him.
Your mention of "burden of proof..." Funny you mention, especially considering your constant use of the negative proof fallacy (see above post). The burden of proof indeed lies on the one who makes the accusations. But there wasn't anything to really "prove," now was there? When making an argument, I generally assume a basic level of knowledge of the opposer, and more importantly a basic level of ability to access resources of my opposer (namely the internet). Again, the "proof" lies in the objective definitions of my terms. There is nothing abstract here... what do you want me to prove? I repeat, as an example, if you say "Can you disprove his existence?" as an argument for the existence of god, and I say that is a negative proof fallacy, and you ask me to prove that it is a negative proof fallacy, well, I must say that there is nothing to prove. Again, it is simply a matter of your intelligence to connect the two concepts. I cannot help you with that.
Good Day.
Amen. I would hug you back but my arms never grew because of errors in experimentation by geneticists.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuddleyperson
I understood all of your crap, but it wasn't reasonably forseeable that one would understand, without checking, thats your mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
And burden of proof; to your points that I should make an effort to understand. No, your arguments should be lucid and simple, so they can be understood. Not coined in another language. I'm sure you have the English Vocabulary to say them.
Again you accuse me with a term you fail to understand. Let me define it for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
Argumentum: Argument
Ad: Against
Hominem: Man
Argument against the man.
Now in your last rant, you accused me of having made an "argumentum ad hominem". No, I didn't mention the man at all, or imply any arguments against the man. The whole post was actually about how bare and shallow your previous argument was (with is exemplified by the stick man in your avatar), be it with irony; nonetheless, not against the man, against the argument. So I don't think you understand these terms, maybe when you use them you get some sort of arousal, a positive experience that makes you feel like a man, sitting in front of that computer in your bedroom. Unfortunately this attitude will not suffice in a debate, as the terms you use need to have some validity in relation to the opposer's argument. (That is argumentum ad hominem, just to illustrate the difference).
Normally I never argue against the man when debating. It only occured in one other instance in this thread, when Stephent91 called me an idiot or something on those lines, and so I replied with an "ad hominem" remark, humourously, to deflate the situation.
[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
Your terms were logical ideals, therefore the burden of proof is on the accuser, like normal in logical arguments. You then try to make me look like I contradicted myself, when I haven't, because I abstained from using the burden of proof for my religious claims:
Since when has religion ever had to prove itself to exist, more or less never, it doesn't need to be proved, thus there is not burden of proof with regard to religion. Religion is here, I don't need to prove anything. Religion is not logical, hence it is not confined by logical ideals, like burden of proof. In a 100% logical society religion could not exist. I hope you understand the difference, and thus why I did not contradict myself.