Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 16, 2018 12:11:36 GMT
No, if you look back you will see that I said that pointing out widely accepted logical flaws in your arguments, especially when repeated, over and over, are not reasonably construed 'personal insults' - especially since I address the argument, not the person. But it is certainly right that the Naturalistic, and the other fallacies I regularly confront you with, are widely understood with long, explicable pedigrees. I hope that helps.
Suppose I am right. Could I then justifiably insult you? Would it even be considered insulting? Remember what I said about you failing to see in yourself the flaws you see in others? Well, there it is again.
Usually speaking, an 'insult' has to be untrue to actually be one. But once again, we have been here before; I remember how then you contested this rule of thumb. So you will have to answer yourself if you are really uncertain - especially as, without 'mutually agreed and arbitrary' understanding of what it constitutes, presumably you don't think an insult can be defined in any case LOL. But I am fully aware that no one is perfect. However I, at least, don't have the flaw of condescension, calling others "idiots" or "retards" on this board, whilst hiding some of my own awkward beliefs from public scrutiny.
You leave the impression that you're certain "belief" is a disease others have but you don't. It has become obvious that yours are just as much beliefs as anyone else's.
If you refer to my belief in the deliberate supernatural then you ought to remember that I don't take a firm view. I merely lack one. I hope that helps. But this, and what follows, is just another diversion, is it not?
I don't think it matters how much you believe you're right, you're still insulting to others. I suppose it might become necessary to be insulting, but pretending to be special when you're not is the problem. Furthermore you are not right, so it's much worse the offense.
As already mentioned, unless you can quote back to me a direct, personal insult such as "retard" etc, used by me lately, then all you are referring to is the understandable annoyance caused by being constantly reminded of logical fallacies in your arguments. For which I make no apologies. Well?
Belief is not a disease, by the way. I have explained that belief can be very efficient.
Not so efficient as justified certainty, though. In the same way as faith is not so effective as the evidence which might allow that certainty. But I think you really know that.
If people just do what they are told, things can work out wonderfully. It can save the time, expense and heartache of testing bad ideas over and over.
It certainly has worked out well for the church down the years - assisted by such helpful, instructional institutions as the Inquisition, of course.
Grunts who haven't the skill to form their own opinions and just believe in authority can be the most marvelous citizens with very rich and productive lives. I suppose for example that you are a decent enough person. The fact that you are a grunt would not be a problem except for one tiny detail. You have allied yourselves with the wrong authorities.
This further ad hominem aside (and one now inevitably wonders how you can define 'grunt' at all, with no "mutually agreed and arbitrary" distinction of what one is!) the question of the 'wrong authorities' is a subjective one - and you are welcome, as always to your unsubstantiated opinions.
You have convinced yourselves that you are "logical" and that you arrive at your decisions through well honed science.
In the case of identifying fallacies, Arlon, it is a matter of rhetoric rather than science. If instead now you refer to a decision over whether a deliberate supernatural exists then, as said above, I have not made that decision.
You are not logical or scientific yourselves and you just copy what you believe is science. In fact it is a pack of lies aimed at convincing yourselves and others that you do not "believe" anything.
Which part of science is a 'pack of lies', Arlon? Is it perhaps the quantum physics which you have no truck with as when we discussed the science behind satellites, or the idea that the cosmos can be dated (when you are constantly unable to offer an alternative)? Or is the idea of knowing that nature works in mysterious ways?
FF: Remember what I had said about the ad hominem fallacy?
Arlon: Yes, I remember that everything you said about it is irrelevant because you're trying to follow "rules" you do not understand and force others to follow you, and do not realize that you are not the police.
Arlon: Yes, I remember that everything you said about it is irrelevant because you're trying to follow "rules" you do not understand and force others to follow you, and do not realize that you are not the police.
It is not a matter of the police, Arlon. It is understanding when a statement contains faulty logic. Such as the idea that everything necessarily must have been created deliberately by the supernatural - when there is no logical argument for the notion that there was must have been a time when there was absolutely nothing making up a natural reality. But thank you for this distraction.
FF: dictionaries are full of definitions
Dictionaries are compiled by people in my profession and I have a clue or two about how they work. The entries that appear in dictionaries do so according to their usage. That means the definition you see in the dictionary is used by many people or some significant group of people in that way. It does not mean that definition is "right." It only means people choose that meaning and are understood. My problem with you here is that you still fail to see that utility is all that matters. There is no "truth" in a label except as it is properly attached to something. You keep trying to prevent more useful definitions by claiming they violate some rule. You are operating in elementary school mode where you blindly accept whatever your teachers tell you without question.
Dictionaries are compiled by people in my profession and I have a clue or two about how they work. The entries that appear in dictionaries do so according to their usage. That means the definition you see in the dictionary is used by many people or some significant group of people in that way. It does not mean that definition is "right." It only means people choose that meaning and are understood. My problem with you here is that you still fail to see that utility is all that matters. There is no "truth" in a label except as it is properly attached to something. You keep trying to prevent more useful definitions by claiming they violate some rule. You are operating in elementary school mode where you blindly accept whatever your teachers tell you without question.
But here we are, essentially, back to you arguing with dictionaries and winning again are we not? (You also seem to be conflating definitions with labels, odd, especially since you have been keen on such a distinction in the past) lol. I always enjoy this moment.
Trying to say that nature cannot define what is good is not useful, and therefore not logical. I suppose it is also not useful expecting nature to define all good automatically either, thus the Britannica article. I'm not proposing either. We do however need to address nature and society in developing a system of ethics.
I see here you at least make some accommodation after the fact, which is belated and welcome. Never the less, to say how something ought to be by being reductive from nature, or how the world is ("Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable") is logically fallacious - and no amount of special pleading will do away with this inconvenient fact. Sorry about that.