[Message Deleted]
-
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
-
David 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
ibowler wrote:
Intolerance and supression aren't the same thing.
Tell that to Stan.
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 -
Fred_Smith wrote:
Come on now, you have to accept that the whole basis of religion is faith, not reason
First I respect your thoughts even though I don't agree with them. Why do you consider faith to be antonym to reason? I believe in God, I know God exists. Proof? A Bible, witnesses of miracles, historical events. Can you prove that God does not exist?
Fred_Smith wrote:
Don’t you think it strange that the vast majority of Muslims live in Islamic countries, and vast majority of Christians live in Christian ones? And Polynesian head-hunters live in Polynesia… gosh, I wonder…
Christianity originated from the Middle East yet today Christians are minority in the region. Christianity is so diverse that it expands to all cultures, colors and regions. Do you need proof of that?
Bassam Saoud wrote:
I believe in God, I know God exists. Proof? A Bible, witnesses of miracles, historical events. Can you prove that God does not exist?
We have a few billion examples showing that people who die stay dead. We have scientific understanding of living organisms and the way they decay after death, so that the organism cannot be revived. The proposition that a being cannot be resurrected after death is about as well established as any scientific proposition could be. The Bible's claims of resurrection are thus plainly contradicted by science. That doesn't mean resurrection is an absolute impossibility, since nothing in science is 100% certain. But it does mean that anyone who respects science will require extremely solid evidence before believing in resurrection. As Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence of the Bible doesn't come anywhere near meeting the standard. People invent lots of myths and that is a far more likely explanation for the claims of the Bible than that the miraculous events actually happened.
John Carson