[Message Deleted]
-
quote: Now you are basing that on the false premise that you are right No... I am pointing out your fallacy. You said I was full of shit because I kept making the same points. The point I made above is that the frequency of which I make a point has no bearing on the validity of that point. quote: he is a little better at arguing That certainly may be true, but I don't think I'll worry too much about how well you think I argue when you can't seem to understand a very simple fallacy.
Ian
Quote: No... I am pointing out your fallacy. You said I was full of sh*t because I kept making the same points. The point I made above is that the frequency of which I make a point has no bearing on the validity of that point. You are useless to argue with. I said you were full of shit because all of your posts sound identical. It is like you copy and paste your replies. Making the same point over and over again is one thing, but using the exact same wording gets boring.
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
-
Quote: No... I am pointing out your fallacy. You said I was full of sh*t because I kept making the same points. The point I made above is that the frequency of which I make a point has no bearing on the validity of that point. You are useless to argue with. I said you were full of shit because all of your posts sound identical. It is like you copy and paste your replies. Making the same point over and over again is one thing, but using the exact same wording gets boring.
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
quote: I said you were full of sh*t because all of your posts sound identical I assumed you meant full of shit in the common sense, i.e. you're wrong. If that's the case, you made a logical blunder. If it's not the case, how exactly am I supposed to know you meant something other than the common meaning? quote: You are useless to argue with Sorry, you're the one breaking the rules. Not me.
Ian
-
quote: I said you were full of sh*t because all of your posts sound identical I assumed you meant full of shit in the common sense, i.e. you're wrong. If that's the case, you made a logical blunder. If it's not the case, how exactly am I supposed to know you meant something other than the common meaning? quote: You are useless to argue with Sorry, you're the one breaking the rules. Not me.
Ian
How is that a logical blunder? Continually saying the same exact thing in the same exact wording, and simply repeating it when someone disagrees with you is being full of shit. Also, you love finding one little aspect of what someone says, and hammering away on that so you can make it look like you win, don't you? Is that how they teach you to argue with heretics in sunday school?
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
I did address why I found his arguments to be poor in a post further down the page, if you're interested.
I'll go look for it.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I suggested but did not outright say that the mathematical concepts we accept may not actually be true
Not for something as simple as 2+2=4. If you combine two quantities, you end up with the union of those quantities. Here I'm assuming that our existence in the empirical world is as it appears (we're not hooked up to a matrix or being tormented by demons). You may be getting too philisophycal for me (You're a philosophy major, aren't you? :)).
Patrick Sears wrote:
In some sense that is 'belief' but it has a practical purpose
Earlier you suggested that a sense of commonality is the purpose for a belief in God. In that sense, the word purpose denotes motive. In the above sense, I agree that a belief in basic mathematics serves a purpose, but that does not speak to the motive of a child who believes 2+2=4 when they're in kindergarten. They know how many 2 is, and how many 4 is, and they can see that taking 2 blocks, and adding 2 more blocks gives them 4 blocks. I guess my point is that we're both saying "purpose" but we aren't quite speaking the same language (correct me if I'm wrong :)).
Ian
ibowler wrote:
You may be getting too philisophycal for me (You're a philosophy major, aren't you? :)).
Hehe actually my degree is in Engineering but I've always been concerned with philosophy. Action without purpose seems meaningless to me. I like engineering because I like to solve problems; so I tend to approach philosophy the same way :)
ibowler wrote:
They know how many 2 is, and how many 4 is, and they can see that taking 2 blocks, and adding 2 more blocks gives them 4 blocks.
I guess my basic point was that we understand 2 and 2 and 4 as the *union* of 2 and 2 as a consequence of how our brains conceptualize the world. If I were to hold up a glass in front of you, half full of water, you'd probably understand I was trying to express either "a glass" or "liquid." In some other worldview, I might be expressing "sharing" or "round." That sort of idea never occurred to me until I saw an episode of Star Trek: TNG about a culture that expressed every single concept through a story about some historical figure. Their basic method of conceptualizing the universe was completely alien. Trite it may seem that I got that idea from Star Trek, but I'm like that.. I like to get good ideas from wherever they come from.
ibowler wrote:
I guess my point is that we're both saying "purpose" but we aren't quite speaking the same language (correct me if I'm wrong :) ).
That is possible :) Motive seems like a good way to describe it actually. How do you apply that to your religious belief?
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-
ibowler wrote:
C.S. Lewis was a logician. He was also an athiest. His reasoning eventually led him to believe in God.
Here's the basic reason I wasn't impressed by his reasoning: He bases most of his argument on similarities in morality between very very disparate human cultures, including ones never exposed to Christianity. He then concludes in some "mother" morality, that had to come from SOMEWHERE, and that God is an easy way to explain it. Unfortunately, there is a wide gaping hole in that argument: pre-conventional morality leads you to the same set of moral beliefs that we find so common between cultures. For people very close to one another as people are in tribes, you're very aware of the consequences of your actions. You're not likely to engage in killing, theft, dishonesty, or sleeping with another man's wife lightly, because you're likely to suffer very real, very painful consequences for doing so. Over time, such a point of view is very easily enshrined in basic "rules" or unwritten "laws" that the elders enforce, through the need to maintain order and cohesion in the tribe. Imagine 200,000 years of that sort of morality existing in every culture that sprouts off from early man, and then it's easy to explain how in the world every culture we find seems to have the same basic rules. There is a very small set of common beliefs and common physical and emotional needs that every human has, as part of the very nature of being part of the human species. Of course we're going to see those things in common. Interestingly, there are a few abberations in human cultures that do not have that sort of value system, and those are the really interesting ones, because we simply don't understand how they could reasonably choose something like cannibalism as a way of life.
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Unfortunately, there is a wide gaping hole in that argument: pre-conventional morality leads you to the same set of moral beliefs that we find so common between cultures. For people very close to one another as people are in tribes, you're very aware of the consequences of your actions. You're not likely to engage in killing, theft, dishonesty, or sleeping with another man's wife lightly, because you're likely to suffer very real, very painful consequences for doing so. Over time, such a point of view is very easily enshrined in basic "rules" or unwritten "laws" that the elders enforce, through the need to maintain order and cohesion in the tribe.
I think you are oversimplifying Lewis's argument (though I'm sure it's unintentional). Again, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it justice, but he responds to the "herd instinct" objection - he doesn't avoid it.
Ian
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Unfortunately, there is a wide gaping hole in that argument: pre-conventional morality leads you to the same set of moral beliefs that we find so common between cultures. For people very close to one another as people are in tribes, you're very aware of the consequences of your actions. You're not likely to engage in killing, theft, dishonesty, or sleeping with another man's wife lightly, because you're likely to suffer very real, very painful consequences for doing so. Over time, such a point of view is very easily enshrined in basic "rules" or unwritten "laws" that the elders enforce, through the need to maintain order and cohesion in the tribe.
I think you are oversimplifying Lewis's argument (though I'm sure it's unintentional). Again, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it justice, but he responds to the "herd instinct" objection - he doesn't avoid it.
Ian
ibowler wrote:
I think you are oversimplifying Lewis's argument (though I'm sure it's unintentional). Again, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it justice, but he responds to the "herd instinct" objection - he doesn't avoid it.
It has been awhile since I read it, and yes I'm oversimplifying. This is an online forum after all :) I have a copy of the book here; maybe I'll read it again to refresh my memory..
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-
How is that a logical blunder? Continually saying the same exact thing in the same exact wording, and simply repeating it when someone disagrees with you is being full of shit. Also, you love finding one little aspect of what someone says, and hammering away on that so you can make it look like you win, don't you? Is that how they teach you to argue with heretics in sunday school?
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
What if I change the wording slightly, like this: quote: Continually saying the same exact thing in the same exact wording, and simply repeating it when someone disagrees with you is being full of sh*t. quote: I said you were full of sh*t because all of your posts sound identical. It is like you copy and paste your replies. quote: All your comments sound the same :rolleyes: As far as your logical blunder, again, it depends on what you mean when you say I am full of shit. The common meaning is basically, you are wrong. So, if you're using the common meaning, and saying that I am wrong, then this is your logical blunder: you are wrong because you keep saying the same thing If this were not a fallacy, then the truth of 2+2=4 would depend on how many times it was repeated. I'm certain now that you understand what I'm refering to when I say you've made a logical blunder - the frequency at which a statement is made has no bearing on the validity of the statement. Now, if you meant something other than you are wrong when you said I was full of shit, then that changes everything doesn't it? You have not yet informed me that you weren't using the standard meaning of full of shit so at this point I can only assume that you were. -- modified at 17:55 Saturday 19th May, 2007
Ian
-
What if I change the wording slightly, like this: quote: Continually saying the same exact thing in the same exact wording, and simply repeating it when someone disagrees with you is being full of sh*t. quote: I said you were full of sh*t because all of your posts sound identical. It is like you copy and paste your replies. quote: All your comments sound the same :rolleyes: As far as your logical blunder, again, it depends on what you mean when you say I am full of shit. The common meaning is basically, you are wrong. So, if you're using the common meaning, and saying that I am wrong, then this is your logical blunder: you are wrong because you keep saying the same thing If this were not a fallacy, then the truth of 2+2=4 would depend on how many times it was repeated. I'm certain now that you understand what I'm refering to when I say you've made a logical blunder - the frequency at which a statement is made has no bearing on the validity of the statement. Now, if you meant something other than you are wrong when you said I was full of shit, then that changes everything doesn't it? You have not yet informed me that you weren't using the standard meaning of full of shit so at this point I can only assume that you were. -- modified at 17:55 Saturday 19th May, 2007
Ian
Ok, maybe next time I should pick my swear word a little more carefully. Maybe I should said a piece of shit, or a fucking idiot. :rolleyes: You still didnt answer my other question though...
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
-
ibowler wrote:
You may be getting too philisophycal for me (You're a philosophy major, aren't you? :)).
Hehe actually my degree is in Engineering but I've always been concerned with philosophy. Action without purpose seems meaningless to me. I like engineering because I like to solve problems; so I tend to approach philosophy the same way :)
ibowler wrote:
They know how many 2 is, and how many 4 is, and they can see that taking 2 blocks, and adding 2 more blocks gives them 4 blocks.
I guess my basic point was that we understand 2 and 2 and 4 as the *union* of 2 and 2 as a consequence of how our brains conceptualize the world. If I were to hold up a glass in front of you, half full of water, you'd probably understand I was trying to express either "a glass" or "liquid." In some other worldview, I might be expressing "sharing" or "round." That sort of idea never occurred to me until I saw an episode of Star Trek: TNG about a culture that expressed every single concept through a story about some historical figure. Their basic method of conceptualizing the universe was completely alien. Trite it may seem that I got that idea from Star Trek, but I'm like that.. I like to get good ideas from wherever they come from.
ibowler wrote:
I guess my point is that we're both saying "purpose" but we aren't quite speaking the same language (correct me if I'm wrong :) ).
That is possible :) Motive seems like a good way to describe it actually. How do you apply that to your religious belief?
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Motive seems like a good way to describe it actually. How do you apply that to your religious belief?
My motive is the same as yours. I'm interested in truth. Once I latch onto something that I think is true, it begins to affect me. But the original motive is discerning truth.
Ian
-
Ok, maybe next time I should pick my swear word a little more carefully. Maybe I should said a piece of shit, or a fucking idiot. :rolleyes: You still didnt answer my other question though...
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
quote: OK, maybe next time I should pick my swear word a little more carefully. Actually, I think your problem is not your choice of swear word, but in putting it into a phrase that accurately conveys your intended meaning. quote: Maybe I should said a piece of sh*t, or a f****ing idiot. I'm not sure that would be better. That would be the famous ad hominem fallacy. quote: You didnt answer my other question though... What, you mean this one: Is that how they teach you to argue with heretics in sunday school? That would be yet another fallacy. It's usually referred to as "poisoning the well" but it's really just another ad hominem attack. Keep at it though! Don't give up just because it's hard at first. You'll get it eventually.
Ian
-
quote: OK, maybe next time I should pick my swear word a little more carefully. Actually, I think your problem is not your choice of swear word, but in putting it into a phrase that accurately conveys your intended meaning. quote: Maybe I should said a piece of sh*t, or a f****ing idiot. I'm not sure that would be better. That would be the famous ad hominem fallacy. quote: You didnt answer my other question though... What, you mean this one: Is that how they teach you to argue with heretics in sunday school? That would be yet another fallacy. It's usually referred to as "poisoning the well" but it's really just another ad hominem attack. Keep at it though! Don't give up just because it's hard at first. You'll get it eventually.
Ian
You sure love findning little inconstincies in what someone writes, but just because i made a small mistake in wording something 10 posts ago does not make you say right.
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
-
You sure love findning little inconstincies in what someone writes, but just because i made a small mistake in wording something 10 posts ago does not make you say right.
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
quote: You sure love findning little inconstincies in what someone writes, but just because i made a small mistake in wording something 10 posts ago does not make you say right. It was clear what I assumed you meant by full of shit. If I was wrong, you could have pointed that out 10 posts ago and saved us all the trouble. Your problem is not inconsistency, it's reason.
Ian
-
quote: You sure love findning little inconstincies in what someone writes, but just because i made a small mistake in wording something 10 posts ago does not make you say right. It was clear what I assumed you meant by full of shit. If I was wrong, you could have pointed that out 10 posts ago and saved us all the trouble. Your problem is not inconsistency, it's reason.
Ian
-
You got me now. :rolleyes:
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
Actually, I had you about 20 posts ago. ;P
Ian
-
You got me now. :rolleyes:
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
-
You got me now. :rolleyes:
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
Pride I guess... :-O
Ian
-
You got me now. :rolleyes:
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
-
David Wulff wrote:
but if someone stands in the same street and tells people not to believe in a god then it is religious supression.
Do you actually believe this? Give me a break.
Ian
I don't need faith to believe it, I have seen it. Every week here in the Soapbox, and in countless tabloids. If you say anything construed to be negative about Christians you get accused of spreading hate and intolerance, yet if you say anything openly negative about athiests then all is fair game (liars, thieves, immoral, the cause of all evil, etc). No, there are no double standards here at all. Do you actually believe it isn't?
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
As he has said, Edmundisme is Ian. It has been common knowledge for a while because each account refers to the other poster as 'I'.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
I don't need faith to believe it, I have seen it. Every week here in the Soapbox, and in countless tabloids. If you say anything construed to be negative about Christians you get accused of spreading hate and intolerance, yet if you say anything openly negative about athiests then all is fair game (liars, thieves, immoral, the cause of all evil, etc). No, there are no double standards here at all. Do you actually believe it isn't?
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
If you say anything construed to be negative about Christians you get accused of spreading hate and intolerance
Actually, you said:
David Wulff wrote:
if someone stands in the same street and tells people not to believe in a god then it is religious supression
Intolerance and supression aren't the same thing.
Ian